By N. SRINIVASAN, M. A.
(Reader in Politics, The Andhra University, Guntur)
By the close of the 19th century Russia had built
up a vast empire comprising nearly one-seventh of the globe (8,500,000 sq.
miles), extending from the Baltic and Black seas in the West to the Pacific in
the East, from the Arctic in the North to the borders of China, India, Persia,
Iran and Turkey in the South and South-East. Her empire-building had brought
under her rule peoples as different as the Poles, Letts, Finns, Germans,
Ukrainians, Georgians and Armenians at one end, and the nomadic and pastoral
peoples of Mongolia and Siberia and of the Central Asian highlands at the
other. On the eve of the Great War of 1914-18 the population of the empire was
estimated at 181 millions. There were counted among them more than a hundred
nationalities or as many as 577 tribes. They fell into at least a dozen ethnic
groups. They professed several creeds, Christianity, Orthodox as well as other
Confessions, Islam, Judaism and several primitive cults. The spoken languages
numbered more than a hundred and fifty, many of them without a script and most
of them without a literature and quite unsuited to modern scientific use. In
national consciousness too they differed widely. The peoples of the West, such
as the Poles, Finns, Ukrainians, Georgians and Armenians, had developed
powerful national movements, while those of the East were hardly touched by the
spirit of Nationalism.1
Tsarist policy towards the subject peoples is
summed up in the word, russification, Alexander III (1881-94) initiated the
policy, but it assumed the widest proportions after the failure of The
Revolution of 1905. The Tsars followed the policy of ‘divide and rule’ in the
West and kept the peoples of the East in ignorance. There was a persecution of
non-orthodox creeds and a suppression of vernacular languages. The language of
the courts was Russian and local languages were not permitted even for the
education of children. There was no autonomy for the subject nationalities;
they were excluded from the army and government, and the Great Russian held a
privileged position throughout the empire.
In this context it is not surprising that a
national consciousness soon developed among the subject peoples, especially in
the European part of Russia, which frequently issued in revolts. Revolts were
brutally suppressed, and in the case of Finland led to the withdrawal of her
autonomy. The Jews were treated periodically to pogroms. In the task of overthrowing
Tsarism, the Bolsheviks found in the oppressed nationalities a powerful any
National resentments played a decisive part in the Revolution, after which the
Soviets were left with a legacy of unfulfilled national aspirations and
memories of Great Russian dominance and oppression. Even the comradeship in the
struggle for emancipation could not quite overcome this, and the nationalities
constituted a serious problem. The Soviets, in the three decades of their
power, have squarely faced the problem and built up a unified Russia, a Russia
that is more strongly unified than even a homogeneous. Nation-State, like
France.2 The achievement of the Soviet Union is, on all accounts, a
brilliant one.
What is it that has enabled the Soviets to solve
this problem and to create the united front and the unconquerable will that is
evident in the struggle against Hitler? The answer to this question lies in the
colonial policy of the Soviets since their accession to power.
The policy of the Soviets was evolved in the period
from 1896, and Lenin and Stalin were its makers.3 Its essence is the
recognition of the right to self-determination and secession of every
nationality in the Empire. The Russian Social Democratic Party at its
conference in London in 1896 resolved:
“The Congress declares that it upholds the full
right of self-determination of all nations and expresses its sympathy for the
workers of every country now suffering under the yoke of military, national or
other despotism; the Congress calls on the workers of all these countries to
join the ranks of the class-conscious workers of the whole world, in order to
fight together with them for the defeat of international capitalism and for the
achievement of international social democracy.”4
As Lenin who inspired the resolution explained
later, the resolution was preceded by a debate of possible alternatives. It was
Lenin’s view that Self-determination was perfectly compatible with socialist
internationalism and that “it, was absolutely a mistake to ignore the tasks of
national liberation in a situation of national oppression.” He wrote: “The
resolution of the International reproduces the most essential, fundamental
propositions of this point of view: on the one hand the absolutely direct,
unambiguous recognition of the full right of nations to self determination; on
the other hand, the equally unambiguous appeal to the workers for international
unity in the class-struggle.”5
The right of self-determination has always been
understood to mean the right of secession, and independent State existence and
not mere cultural autonomy. “The right of secession presupposes the settlement
of the question by the Parliament, (Diet, or Referendum) of the seceding
region.”6
The Communist party has held to this principle
consistently ever since. Self-determination and secession have been hailed as
the key to be the solution of the difficulties that arise from the co-existence
of several nationalities in a single political system.
The reasons for the adoption of self-determination
were two. Socialism in its fight against Capitalism must use all available
resources, must use all revolutionary forces, and fight of all fronts. The
fight of backward peoples against imperialism was a revolutionary fight for
freedom inasmuch as it also involved the freedom of the working class in the
oppressed country. It was a fight against the same enemy, Capitalism.
But nationalism is not, to Lenin and Stalin, an end
in itself. The ultimate aim of socialism is a world community based on the
perfect equality of all nationalities. As Lenin states it:
“The aim of Socialism is not only to abolish the
present division of mankind into small States and all national isolation, not
merely to bring the nations closer to each other, but also to merge them…Just
as mankind can achieve the abolition of classes only by passing through the
transition period of the dictatorship of the oppressed class, so mankind can
achieve the inevitable merging of the nations only by passing through the
transition period of complete liberation of all oppressed nations, i.e., their
freedom to secede.”7
The socialists look forward to “the collaboration of nations within a
single world economic system.” The world is already such a system. Capitalism
and the advancement of science have built up a world market and a world
economic system. This needs a rapprochement among nations. A world economy is
the material basis for the victory of socialism. Capitalism effects the
rapprochement by force and exploitation, by annexations and the colonial
system. Socialism would base the rapprochement on the free and voluntary
co-operation of free nations.
These facts made the national and proletarian
freedom struggle essentially one. The desire of oppressed nationalities for
freedom and secession is not opposed in fact to the needs of working class
solidarity against the capitalist order and the building up of a socialist
world order. Nor is the separatism of nationalities opposed to the tendency
towards the economic integration of the world. Stalin observes:
“For communism these two tendencies, the tendency
towards emancipation from the shackles of imperialism and the tendency towards
an economic rapprochement among the nations (which arose as a result of the
formation of a world market and a world economic system), are but two sides of
a single cause–the cause of the emancipation of the oppressed peoples from the
yoke of imperialism; because Communism knows that the union of nations in a
single word economic system is possible only on the basis of mutual confidence
and voluntary agreement, and that the road to the formation of a voluntary
union of nations lies through the separation of colonies from the integral
imperialist whole through the transformation of the colonies into independent
States.” 8
Consequently, the duty of the Communists became a
two-fold one. They were to urge the right of secession of the oppressed
nationalities among the proletariat of the oppressing nations. It was needed
more in their own interests than in the interests of the oppressed
nationalities.9 Among the proletariat of the oppressed nations
voluntary union was to be emphasized. “The socialist in the latter must fight
against small nation narrow-minded fullness, must emphasize in his agitation
the second word in our formula: voluntary union of nations.”10
The right of self-determination must be
distinguished from the claim to its exercise in concrete cases. What was
recognised by Lenin and Stalin was nearly the right of self-determination. The
exercise of the demand and the actual separation of any nationality are subject
to a number of limiting conditions. The nationality seeking to exercise the
right must satisfy a number of tests. Is the separation in the interests of the
working class and the proletarian revolution and international class
solidarity? Is the people seeking to exercise this right so situated
geographically that it can exercise this right without prejudice to the parent
State? Is the demand merely the attempt of the bourgeoisie of the subject
nationality to substitute its rule for the rule of a foreign capitalism? The
Socialist’s ideal is not, to repeat, the splitting of the larger political
entities in the world into their constituent units, but a world community of
free and equal nations where the working classes of all nations are equal,
where no nation as such has any privileges, and rights are identical. Lenin
writes:
“The right of nations to self-determination means
only the right to independence in a political sense, the right to free
political secession from the oppressing nation. Concretely, this political,
democratic demand implies complete freedom to carry on agitation in favour of
secession, and freedom to settle the question of secession by means of a
referendum of the nation that desires to secede. Consequently, the demand is
by no means identical with the demand for the partition and for the formation
of small States. It is merely the logical expression of the struggle against
national oppression in art form. The more closely the democratic form of
State approximates to complete freedom of secession, the rarer and weaker will
the striving for secession be in practice; for the advantages of large States,
both from the point of view of economic progress and from the point of view of
the interests of the masses, are beyond doubt, and these advantages increase
with the growth of capitalism.”11
Or, again, as Lenin observes at another place:
“We cannot advance to that goal (the goal of
socialist revolution) without fighting all nationalism, without maintaining the
equality of the workers of all nations. A thousand factors which cannot be
foreseen will determine whether the Ukraine, for example, is destined to form
an independent State. And without attempting idle ‘guesses’, we firmly
uphold what is beyond doubt: the right of the Ukraine to form such a State. We
respect this right, we do not uphold the privileges of the Great Russians over
the Ukrainians, we educate the masses in the spirit of the recognition
of this right, in the spirit of rejecting the State privilege of any
nation.”12
Stalin, who has been the expert of the Communist
party on the national question, has clearly set forth the distinction we have
been trying to explain in his report to the All-Russian Party Congress: (April,
1917)
“The question of the right of nations freely to
secede must not be confused with the obligation of a nation to secede at any
given moment. This latter question must be settled by the party of the
proletariat in each particular case independently, according to circumstances.
When we recognise the oppressed nation’s right to secede, the right to
determine their political destiny, we do not to thereby settle the question of
whether particular nations should secede from the Russian State at any
given moment. I may recognise the right of a nation to secede, “but that does
not mean that I compel it to be secede. A people has a right to secede, but it
may or may not exercise that right according to the circumstances. Thus we are
at liberty to agitate for or against secession according to the interests of
the proletariat, of the proletarian revolution.”
The Communist policy, as it crystallised in the
period before the Revolution, may be stated in the words of Stalin in this
report:
“Our point of view can be summed up in the
following propositions:
(a)
The recognition of
the right of nations to secede;
(b)
For the nations
remaining within the limits of a given State–regional or autonomy;
(c)
For national
minorities–special laws guaranteeing their free development;
(d)
For the proletarians
of all nationalities of the given State–a single, indivisible, proletarian
collective, a single party.”
The opportunity for the practical application of
the policy came with the October Revolution of 1917. From the days of the
February Revolution demands for autonomy had been put forward by the border
provinces in the west and South and South-east. A number of States arose in the
Western provinces which proclaimed their independence outright, e.g., Finland,
Latvia, Esthonia, and Poland. In the Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, and the
Mohamedan provinces, demands for autonomy were voiced. The demands could not be
considered genuinely popular, as the masses were inert and the active
socialists were against separation from Russia. In the South and South-east
claims for independence were mixed up with anti-revolutionary movements and
foreign intervention. This complicated the issue and made straight-forward
admission of the right to self-determination impossible for the revolutionary
Government.
The Bolsheviks, however, proceeded to affirm the
right of nations to self-determination. One of the very first things that Lenin
did was to publish the Secret Treaties for the partition of the colonies of
Germany and Turkey among the Allies in the Great War of 1914-18. Soviet Russia
denounced these treaties and dissociated itself completely from the imperialist
and annexationist aims of the Allies. Lenin made his famous appeal to the
Mohammedan of the East for their support to the Revolution, proclaiming that the
Revolution was the friend of their national and religious freedom. The
independence of Finland, Esthonia, Poland and other countries was formally
recognised. To crown it all, a declaration of the rights of nationalities was
made in December 1917, in the following terms:
1.
The equality and
sovereignty of the peoples of Russia;
2.
The right of the
peoples of Russia to free self-determination, including separation and the
organisation of an independent State;
3.
The abolition of all
national and national-religious privileges and limitations; and
4.
The free development
of national minorities and ethnographic groups inhabiting the territory of
Russia.
To translate these principles into fact, the
Commissariat for Mohamedan Affairs was set up in January 1918 with Mohamedans
as its chiefs. Later, in 1920, these duties devoted upon the Commissariat of
Nationalities. The decree constituting it prescribed for it the following
functions:
“(a) The Study and execution of all measures
guaranteeing the fraternal collaboration of the nationalities and tribes of the
Russian Soviet Republic; (b) The study and execution of all measures necessary
to guarantee the interests of national minorities on the territory of other
Nationalities of the Soviet Federation; and (c) The settlement of all litigous
questions arising from the mixture of Nationalities.”
Stalin became People’s Commissar for Nationalities.
He was associated in his work by a Soviet of Nationalities, of representatives
from the autonomous republics and regions, in an advisory capacity.
The work of the Commissariat of Nationalities was,
in the main, then granting of cultural autonomy to the Nationalities within
Russia, and “actual encouragement” of the admission of members of the national
minorities to the work of local administration.”13 The constitution
of the RSFSR had made provision for the union of Soviets which are
distinguished by a particular national and territorial character and even for
the entry of autonomous republics into the Russian State on a federal basis. Between
1918 and 1922 most of the distinct ethnic groups in the European part of Russia
were organised in Autonomous Republics and Autonomous Regions. These
authorities did not have the powers of federal units. They were, in law, not
different from provinces of a unified State. The constitutions adopted were
similar to that of other parts of the country. But they enjoyed “a practical
autonomy in purely cultural matters of local concern.”14 In fact,
the Commissariat served to strengthen the unity of Russia rather than to split
it, to achieve working class solidarity rather than to effect political
separation of the minorities.
The organisation of autonomous regions and
republics had this good result. They satisfied the craving for self-government
where it was particularly appreciated. They served to pave the way for
Federation in 1924. From autonomous regions the national minorities have been
able in many cases to rise to the status of union or constituent republics in
the two decades from 1918.
We must answer the question why the States that
were set up on the fall of the Tsarist Government in the border provinces were
not able, with a few exceptions, to continue in their independence, but were
brought into the Soviet Union by 1924. Were these States brought in by force?
Did they, in practice, enjoy the self-determination that was promised to all
Nationalities by Soviet declarations? Do they now enjoy that right as
constituent republics of the Union?
The States, which sprang up on the fall of the
Tsars had come to fell a void. They had been made by the upper classes. None of
them, however, possessed the means of real independence. During the period of
the Civil War and intervention, they were dominated by the forces of
interventionists or of counter-revolutionaries such as Denikin, Kolchak and
Wrangel. The Soviet State had to fight these States to preserve itself. In the
fight they fell. The association with the counter-revolution and foreign
intervention was fatal to the exercise of self-determination by these States.
Within their own borders there was no working class support for these States,
and the Communists limited the exercise of the right to these classes. Perhaps
more important than these was the reason that the establishment of socialism
imperatively demanded the union of all Russia. There could not be any
plebiscite for or against separation in the circumstances.
We have seen that the exercise of
self-determination and of the right to secession was not the means to the
solution of the pr9blem of nationalities in the Soviet Union. By what other
means has the problem been solved cultural autonomy, equality, democracy,
federalism, and, above all, a full sharing in the tasks of construction and
amelioration,–these have been the methods by which the marvelous unity of the
Soviet Union has been created.
The October revolution has been a genuine act of
emancipation for the subject nationalities. It has proclaimed and in large
measure achieved a real equality of opportunity in education and employment,
pay and living conditions, irrespective of colour and creed. The standards of
life have progressively improved. Every nationality has had the freedom to
develop its cultural life. Privilege of every kind has been ended. The State
has been de-nationalised; it is, as the Webs have pointed out, dissociated from
both nationality and race:
“In spite of the dominance of the Russian race in
the USSR, and its undoubted cultural pre-eminence, the idea of there being a
Russian State has been definitely abandoned. ‘Russia’ was, in 1923 deliberately
removed from the title of the Soviet Union. All sections of the
community….enjoy throughout the USSR, according to law, equal rights and
duties, equal privileges and equal opportunities. Nor is this a formal equality
under the law and the Constitution. Nowhere in the world do habit and custom
and public opinion approach nearer to a like equality in fact.” 15
The nationalities in Russia have shared, in the
three decades of Soviet power, the creed of socialism and participated in a
number of ways in the task of building it. As citizens, as members of Trade
Unions, in producers’ organisations, and as members of Consumers’
Co-operatives, of Collective Farms, the Red Army and the Communist Party,
minority nationalities have effectively participated in the development of the
Soviet Union. The political structure of Russia favours the self-expression of
nationalities and cultural development. The hierarchy of Union Republic,
Autonomous Republic, Autonomous Region or District provides the institutional
means for political self-expression. Every group, small or large, can be fitted
into the State structure with powers appropriate to its need. The group gains a
freedom in matters which are prized by it, and becomes a willing partner of bigger
whole for larger purposes.
We may know the meaning of this equality from a
study of the rights and duties of the citizen in the Soviet Union under the
Constitution. Legal equality of the citizens was first proclaimed by the
Declaration of the Rights of the Toiling Masses in 1917. Chapter X of the new
Constitution states the basic rights and duties of the citizen. Articles 122
and 123 assert the principle of equality of rights for women and nationalities
respectively. The latter reads:
“Equal rights for the citizens of the U.S.S.R,
irrespective of their nationality or race, in all spheres of economic, state,
cultural, social and political life, shall be an irrevocable law.
“Any direct limitation of the rights, or, conversely, any establishment
of direct or indirect privileges for citizens on account of their race or
nationality, as well as any propagation of racial or national exclusiveness or
hatred and contempt, shall be punished by the law.”
The rights guaranteed to the citizen include:
“the right to work, that is, the right to
guaranteed employment and payment for work in accordance with their quantity
and quality”;
“the right to rest” which means a seven-hour
working day and holidays with pay and the means of usefully and pleasurably
enjoying them;
“the right to material security at old age, and
also in the case of sickness or loss of capacity to work”;
“the right to education” secured by the provision
of universal, free and compulsory education and post-primary, technical, and
University education for the more apt pupils at State expense, and education in
the native languages for all;
“the right to freedom of speech, freedom of the
press, of assembly and meetings, and of organisation and association for the
purpose of strengthening the Socialist system;
and “the right to inviolability of person, home and
correspondence.”
The obligations of the citizens are also equal.
These include obedience to the Constitution and laws of the State, discipline
and loyalty to the Socialist order, the safeguarding of public property, and
universal military service for the defence of the Fatherland and socialism.
To exclude religious privilege, Article 124 lays
down:
“In order to ensure citizens freedom of conscience,
the Church in the USSR shall be separated from the State, and the School from
the Church. Freedom of religious worship and freedom of anti-religious
propaganda shall be recognised for all citizens.”16
These are, of course, merely constitutional
provisions. What is important is the progress made to realise them. The
Communist Party has carried out a vigorous campaign for what Sir John Maynard
has aptly termed the “leveling up” of the condition of the backward
nationalities.17 The material conditions in the East have been
changed by a proportionately greater investment of capital; pastoral and
agricultural areas have been turned into industrial regions: the methods of
agriculture have been revolutionised.18 Similarly, educational
facilities have been made available to the backward peoples to raise their
cultural level to that of the advanced Western people of the Union. A constant
fight has been waged against disease by the provision of hospitals, sanatoria,
etc. And, lastly, a fight has been carried on against Great Russian chauvinism
and small nation narrow-mindedness, against subtle forms of the colour bar and
insularity. In the tasks of construction, of social amelioration and
Government, the ‘native’ has everywhere been utilized, from the highest to the
lowest places.
Now we may turn to .the constitutional structure.
The Constitution is federal in form. It provides for the exercise of autonomy
by even the smallest national minority in national, Village Soviet, District,
or Region, and also the opportunity to advance to the status of a constituent or
Union Republic of the Federation. This elasticity in constitutional
arrangements is a unique feature.
The common device of Western democracies for the
safeguarding of the rights of minorities–a second chamber–also finds a place in
the Constitution. A Soviet of Nationalities, in which the constituent units of
the Federation are given an equality of representation and equal power with the
first chamber, assures the smaller Nationalities a sense of real power as
compared with the Great Russians.19
Much, however, should not be made of the federal
form of the Constitution. A State of Russia’s size must inevitably be federally
organised. The Federal list of powers is vastly more than that in a normal
federal constitution and includes, besides the usual powers of a centre,
“foreign trade on the basis of State monopoly,
establishment of national economic plans of the USSR, confirmation of the
unified State budget of the USSR as well as of the taxes and revenues which go
to form the All-Union, the Republic and local Budgets; and the administration
of banks, industrial and agricultural establishments and also of trading
enterprises of All-Union importance.”
The residuary powers are with the Union Republics
and the powers of the Federation are enumerated. But there is no provision for
judicial review.
The Molotov amendment to the Constitution, of
February, 1944, permit the Union Republics to have their own military
formations and representation in foreign States, and the power to conclude
agreements with foreign States directly and to exchange diplomatic and consular
agents. In both cases the Union Republics have to follow the guiding principles
laid down by the USSR and follow the procedure which the latter has the
authority to prescribe. However limited these powers of the Union Republics are
unique and add considerably to their status.
What the Soviet policy towards colonies has meant
to the latter can be seen in the Central Asian Republics. These are now five in
number: the Uzbek, Kazakh, Turkmen, Tadjik and Kirghiz Soviet Socialist
Republics. The inhabitants are Moslem in religion and numbered 13 millions in
1939. They are of different racial stocks and include the Turks, Persians,
Chinese and Jews. The condition of these peoples before the Revolution was like
that of Britain’s African colonies or mandates. There was little literacy; the
people were excluded from the Government and the army. They were under the
domination of Mullahs and land owners and money-lenders, under conditions which
could not be distinguished from serfdom. The Government provided no public
health services, or modern means of communication or irrigation, or electricity
facilities. Since 1926 these areas have become modern States and compare in
their industry and amenities with many other part of the Soviet Union including
European Russia.
The revolution in Tadjik, for instance meant the
over throw of the Emir who was the native ruler under the suzerainty of the
Tsars, the establishment of public ownership of land and other productive agencies,
and fighting the counter-revolutionary forces of religion, feudalism and the
Emir who is said to have been assisted by the British Government. By 1926 those
objects had been won largely by the natives of the country with the help of the
Red Army. By that time the Soviet system had also firmly been firmly
established. A period of rapid industrial and agricultural development has
followed. The Republic has become the most important source for the supply of
Egyptian cotton for the whole of Russia and the supply of electrical energy for
all the five Central Asian Republics.
This is typical of Soviet work elsewhere in Russia.
The development is largely undertaken by the ‘natives’. It has been a settled
policy of the Soviet Union that at least fifty per cent of the employees in all
industry from the highest executive posts to the lowest should be the natives.
Since the war began and the occupation of European
Russia by Germany, the development of Soviet Asia has gone much further.
Commenting on this the London Economist wrote in its issue of 5th Dec.
1942:
“In the course of 1942 the centre of gravity in the
USSR’s economic life has shifted to Asia; and 1942 may rank in the USSR’s
history as the year of the ascendancy of its Asiatic republics. Asia is putting
a new impress upon all sectors of Soviet life. In the Army soldiers of the West
Siberian and South Asiatic nationality have been most prominent. Tadjik and
Uzbek detachments have been fighting in Stalingrad under the Siberial general,
Rodimstsev.
The article concluded:
“Asia is rescuing Europe; and the influx of fresh
blood has added a new strength to the country in its struggle and suffering.”
The Soviet Union has become, in spite of its
diversities of race, religion and language, a strong unified State with a
single will and purpose. The subject nationalities of the Tsarist empire have
found in the Soviet regime and its economic system the fullest freedom and
achieved a real progress. The backward peoples have been able to exchange
poverty and oppression a servile status ignorance and superstition for a status
of equality with the most advanced of the peoples of Russia, a higher standard
of life, and a new cultural experience. It should, therefore, cause little
surprise that the many peoples of Russia, who once would have preferred
independence are now contented partners in the new State. It is a fallacy to
regard self-determination as real only when it is exercised to separate from a
parent State; it is just as real when neighbouring nationalities recognize
their inter-dependence and choose to coalesce with their neighbours in the
pursuit of a common ideal.20
1 Batsell: Soviet
Rule in Russia
2 A. D. Lindsay, The
Modern State, Vol. I P. 142.
“The many national cultures
have shown all the unity of a Nation-state.” P. 142.
3 Lenin: Selected
Works, Vol. IV.
Stalin: Marxism and the
National Colonial Question.
4 Lenin: Selected
Works, Vol. IV, P. 269.
5 Lenin: Selected
Works, Vol. IV. 271.
6 Ibid p. 271
7 Ibid p. 271
8 Stalin: Foundation
of Leninism, p. 75
9 Lenin: Selected
Works, vol. IV.
10 Stalin: Foundation
of Leninism.
11 Lenin: The
Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination, p.
270.
12 Lenin: On the
Right of Nations to Self-Determination, p. 268-9.
13 The Webbs: Soviet
Communism, Vol. I, p. 143.
14 What the concession
of cultural autonomy amounted between 1918 and 1922 was merely that the central
authorities of the RSFSR did not, in practice, prevent those of each autonomous
republic and autonomous area from adopting its own vernaculaer as the official
language; or from using it in councils and court of justice, in schools and
colleges, and in the intercourse between Government departments and public. The
local authorities could give preference to their own nationals, and were even
encouraged to do so. Their religious services were not interfered with by the
Central Government. They could establish theatres, and publish books and
newspapers in their own tongue.” Ibid, pp. 144-145.
15 The Webbs Soviet
Communism, Vol. I, p. 153-4. See the classic account of the Webbs of
Russia’s muti-form democracy and democratic centralism in this book.
16 A. L. Strong: The
New Constitution of Soviet Russia.
Sidney and Beatrice Webb: The
Truth about Soviet Russia.
17 Sir John Maynard: The
Russian Peasant and other Studies, P. 400.
18 Grimkov: The
Second Five Year Plan: (A Political Interpretation.)
19 The representation is
as follows: Union Republic, 25 each. Autonomous Province, 5 each.
Autonomous Republic, 11 each. National Region, I each.
W. K. Hancock: Argument for Empire (Penguin Special, 1943) P. 15.