The swearing in of

Dr Rajendra Prasad

The first President of the Indian Republic

[ The 1952 General Elections had created a Sovereign Democratic Republic of India, and Dr Rajendra Prasad, already functioning as Interim President, had been elected by a popular mandate, the first full-term (1952-’57) President of the Republic. Here is a brief extract from my forthcoming biography of Dr Prasad ‘THE HOUSE OF TRUTH’ recounting that historic moment of the swearing in of our first President. A look-back into history on the occasion of the swearing in of our 14^th President Shri Ramnath Kovind would be of some interest even as the event unfolds today in our Parliament. – Dr BSM Murty.]

  

Prasad had been elected, in accordance with the provisions in the new Constitution, as the first full-term President with an overwhelming majority of votes.  The total votes polled were nearly 6.45 lakhs of which approximately 84 per cent had gone in favour of Dr Prasad. ‘Today at 11 a.m. in the Parliament house’, he notes in his diary on 6 May, ‘Shri M.N. Kaul started the counting of votes in the Presidential election. At 3 p.m. the counting was over and I was declared duly elected President.’ The swearing in ceremony was slated to take place a week later and the venue this time once again was to be in the Central Hall of the erstwhile Legislative Assembly, where the new Parliament was to have its inaugural three days later. The event would be reminiscent of the ceremonial transfer of power on 15 August, 1947 which had taken place in that same Hall. The interim presidency was thus a halfway house arrangement between the outgoing dominion status and a new emergent full sovereign position. Fittingly, therefore, unlike the interim presidency, the full-term president was to be sworn in in the proper people’s forum, the Parliament’s Central Hall. From the dawn of independence to the proclamation of full sovereignty, things seemed to have come full circle by this rotation of the venue.

Prasad, however, with quite a few others, wanted the oath ceremony to have a more democratic, more indigenous format; preferably ‘held in the open’ with ‘the common people… allowed to have a sense of participation in it’. He further  expatiates in that diary entry upon the idea in some minute detail with the swearing in preceded by a mass prayer, planting of a sapling, spinning for a few minutes, and so forth.  Prasad discussed these ideas with some friends, including Nehru, but the existing colonial conventions proved too strong to be overridden. The entire show had to conform to the pre-existing protocol.

Dr Prasad gives a detailed account of the event as it unfolded on the day. He first went to Rajghat for a prayer where extracts from Ishopanishad were recited, along with some bhajans. Next, he went to the Lakshmi Narayan temple for a darshan and returned to the Rashtrapati Bhawan from where he had to proceed in a ceremonial procession to the Parliament House for the swearing in.

Started at 8.15 [he writes] on the horse-drawn carriage with mounted guards in procession for the parliament house where the presidential swearing in was to take place in the same Hall of the erstwhile Constituent Assembly where, on 15 August, 1947, Lord Mountbatten, on behalf of the British government, had formally effected the transfer of power to me as the President of the Constituent Assembly. The seating capacity there being limited to about 950, only members of both houses of parliament, foreign ambassadors, selected government officials, and some few non-government personnel were present.

After the swearing in it took me about 10 minutes in making a brief speech, first in Hindi and then in English. Dr Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan was then sworn in by me as the Vice President. I myself had been sworn in by the Chief Justic of the Supremr Court. This was followed by a 31-gun salute. And finally the procession returned to the Rashtrapati Bhawan by the same route. En route near the main crossing, all three wings of the Armed Forcs presented a guard of honour to me. There were large crowds lining both sides of the route of procession.

Subsequently, after a while, the Prime Minister came to tender the resignations of his outgoing Cabinet. He then sat near me to discuss names for his new Cabinet…Around 1.30 p.m. he came again with the list of names in his new Cabinet who were to be sworn in formally at 6 p.m…A large party followed at 7 p.m. in the Mughal Gardens in which around 3,000 persons were invited. Then I met the foreign Ambassadors in the Yellow Room, where people also came to felicitate me formally….

It must have been a busy, hectic day for him but he was one who firmly believed that ‘his exalted office is an opportunity and an occasion for service’, and ‘that only service to the nation entitles one to be President’. For him work alone was real worship, and the motherland was supreme over one’s self. These ideals formed the core of his personal faith, innate to his nature, and had only been augmented and nurtured over the past decades of the freedom movement by his mentor, Gandhi. Prasad was a deeply religious man, but his religion was that of a ‘karmayogi’. All virtue in all his actions lay in the action (means) itself, without any attachment to their fruits (end). Both Bhagwad Geeta and Ramcharit Manas were parts of his daily reading. And true to their message, in whichever capacity he was asked to serve, service to humanity and to the nation were central to his fundamental faith. Unlike Nehru’s, his was not an agnostic secularism, but a kind of secularism that cohered with the universality of all religions.

Three days later, the inaugural of the newly elected Parliament took place, in the same Central Hall. Addressing a joint session of the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha members, President Prasad delivered a formal speech emphasizing the great responsibility shared by the members to work hard ‘for the rapid economic advancement’ of a resurgent nation and a realization of ‘the noble ideals of equality and social and economic justice’. He touched upon the various issues and challenges facing the new republic in its ‘onward march’ to progress, including the grave food crisis that still remained unresolved, and a host of new legislation that had urgently to be debated and passed. Of these the most important was the pending Hindu Code Bill ‘which could not be passed…and [had] lapsed’ in the provisional Parliment. ‘It is proposed’, he said, ‘to divide up the Bill into certain parts and to place each part separately before Parliament, so as to facilitate its discussion and passage’. He also devoted a substantial part of his speech to the international political scene, to the ongoing crises in Korea, Tunisia and other African and Asian countries. He expressed his disappointment over the regrettable ineffectuality of the UNO. ‘[It] came into existence [he said] to fulfil a deeply felt want of humanity. If it fails to fulfil that want and becomes an ineffective organ for the maintenance of peace and the advancement of freedom, that, indeed, will be a tragedy.’

At one point in his speech President Prasad also referred to Mahatma Gandhi’s core principle of ‘right ends…perceived and achieved only through right methods’. Emphasizing the importance of the Gandhian way, he said: ‘To [Gandhiji] political freedom was a vital step, but only a step to the larger freedom of the human spirit. He taught us the way of peace and non-violence, but not the peace of the grave or the non-violence of the timid.’

As Prasad saw it, Gandhi’s non-violent struggle for political freedom was only the right means to the ultimate right goal of ‘the larger freedom of the human spirit’. For him freedom for the masses of India lay not in the ‘transfer of power’ or change of government: true freedom for him lay in the freedom from poverty, hunger, exploitation, oppression and denial of social justice. With the coming of independence only half the battle had been won. A far toilsome and arduous battle lay ahead in an endeavour to rebuild a ravaged nation. Gandhi’s message of Truth and Non-violence, nurtured by his life-long practice of the teachings of the Geeta, was meant to be a call not only for freedom for India from an imperial yoke, but freedom for humanity as a whole from all oppressive subjugation and the horrific devastations of war across nations. In accordance with the moral teachings of the Geeta, Prasad, too, believed in and rigorously practised virtuous action as the right means to achieve the right goals without attachment to the fruits of the action. Exemplifying the words from the Geeta, Prasad always lived like one who ‘remained unmoved by good or evil fortune’. Like the sthitpragya purush in Bhagwad Geeta, he always lived in a state of equanimity, whether in adversity or in prosperity.....

[This extract is a slightly edited version. Reference Notes are given in the original book ‘THE HOUSE OF TRUTH : A Biography of Dr Rajendra Prasad’ by Dr BSM Murty, which is now under publication.]

© Dr BSM Murty

All photos: courtesy Google & Rashtrapati Bhawan Photo Archives

 No part of this extract can be used in any way so as to infringe pre-publication rights.

PLEASE NOTE CHANGE IN MY ADDRESS :

Dr BSM Murty, 302, Block-H, Celebrity Gardens, Sushant Golf City, Ansal API,     LUCKNOW : 226030  // Mob. 7752922938 / 7985017549 /  9451890020 
.

Other extracts from the book which are available on this Blog (Scroll by year and date)

2011: May 28 : The Indigo Story; July 8: The Butcher of Amritsar; July 17: A Planter’s Murder

2014: Sep 14 : The Seven Martyrs; Dec 3 : Early childhood in Jeeradei

2015: Jun 30: Congress in disarray; Aug 27: Clash of Convictions; Oct 8: Presidential Itineraries;             

             Dec 20: Congress at crossroads

2016:  Mar 15: Election for Second Term; May 13: Visit to Soviet Union; Aug 25: Limits of Presidency
             Aug  28 : The Last Phase
2017:  Apr 15: Champaran Saga (The Indigo Story: Repeat of 28 May 2011); 13 July: Dr Rajendra Prasad: On Kashmir Problem; 25 July: The Swearing in of Dr Rajendra Prasad

Other Important blogs

Sahitya Samagra : 5 Oct 2010 / On Premchand: 26 May 2011 / Has Hindi been defeated by Shivpujan Sahay : 7 Dec 2011 / Memoirs on Prasad and Nirala : 25-26 Oct 2012 / Shivpujan Sahay Smriti Samaroh: 27 Jan 2014 / On Amrit Lal Nagar: 18 Aug 2014 / On Bachchan : 27 Nov 2014 / On Renu: 3 Mar 2015 / On Trilochan: 1 Apr 2015 /Odes of Keats + Shantiniketan: 25 May 2015 / Premchand Patron Men: 3 Aug 2015/  Suhagraat: Dwivediji's poem: 13 Nov 2015/ Dehati Duniya: 8 Aug 2016/ Three stories of JP: 6 Jul 2016/ On Neelabh Ashk: 24 Jul 2016/ Dec 25 2016: Anupam Mishra: Paani ki Kahaani : 2017:  July 10: Doctornama: memoirs of Shivpujan Sahay
Sep 2 : Has Hindi been Defeated by English
ALL MATTER AND PHOTOS PUBLISHED ON THE BLOG ARE (c) Dr BSM Murty

‘THE HOUSE OF TRUTH’

Extract from a forthcoming book by Dr BSM Murty

Dr Rajendra Prasad

On the Kashmir Problem

Two years of Dr Prasad’s interim presidency had already gone by. Dr Rajendra Prasad, as the first popularly elected President, was now firmly in saddle with new governments at the centre and in the provinces committed to a coordinated re-building of the nation, with a Prime Minister dedicated to secular, democratic principles and a vision of India’s dignified participation in international affairs

Nehru’s fortnightly missives to the CMs in the states give a fairly comprehensive idea of the problems the government was facing and trying to solve and the policy lines it was following, particularly since the inaugural of the Republic. The President also was getting fortnightly reports from the governors in the states. There were two major vexatious issues of Kashmir and the rapidly worsening scenario of the reorganization of states on a linguistic basis.

Of particular gravity and concern was the continuing Kashmir tangle with its international ramifications. The recent assembly elections in Kashmir had redefined and aggravated the issue. The political situation in Kashmir was rapidly escalating into a mess by the turns and twists developing due to the communal factor and the international vested interest in the region that was of great strategic importance. Also, the Sheikh seemed to be drifting away from a firm and consistent position on the accession issue, leaning perceptibly towards autonomy verging on virtual independence. Both in the letters and the 1952 diary entries of Dr Prasad there are continual references to discussions on the Kashmir issue between the President, the Vice President and the Prime Minister.

Meanwhile, Karan Singh and Sheikh Abdullah had each met the President separately on the various issues involved in the inter-relationship between the Union and the problem-ridden state. On 6 June, Karan Singh had met Dr Prasad and discussed with him the decision of the Kashmir Constituent Assembly to have him as the elected constitutional head of state only for five years. But the important question, as Dr Prasad, averred, was that such autonomous election of the head of the state by the Kashmir Assembly would run counter to the constitutional provision of such appointment being made by the President of India for the states of the Union. ‘Because for any state under the Union”, Dr Prasad wrote in his diary, “ the Governor or Raj Pramukh was to be appointed by the President of India rather than be elected; and the latter method would create an anomalous situation which the Indian government would have to ponder over afresh.’

The Sheikh also had met the President, a little later, on 16 July, 1952, and spoken of  ‘working in Kashmir amidst various problems’ and reiterated that the Kashmiris ‘thought that it would be better for them and for India if they remained with India’. He also said that ‘it was a conscious decision on their part…[because] they were much influenced by the ideals of Mahatma Gandhi’. But Dr Prasad told him that considering the disturbed situation in Kashmir, it would have been better if ‘matters could have been discussed and settled’ when ‘conditions there became normal and bitterness was removed’ and that ‘the Constitution of Kashmir could [better] have been framed’ only then. To this Abdullah gave a rather specious reply. Admitting to the convening of the Kashmir Constituent Assembly as an error of judgement, he said:

I did not raise the question of framing the Constitution but we received a note from here to convene the Constituent Assembly – not on our own but on orders from here [Delhi]. I convened the Constituent Assembly and now when the Constituent Assembly is there, it has to frame the Constitution because we cannot avoid it by putting forth excuses like Pakistan. I did err in conveneing the Constituent Assembly.

Dr Prasad, however, ‘expressed [his] ignorance about the [Kashmir] Constituent Assembly having been convened under pressure from Delhi’. There was some obvious hiatus in the Sheikh’s statement that could not have escaped Dr Prasad’s notice because he had always been kept informed of the developments by Nehru and the Vice President Radhakrishnan; the latter having returned recently from Kashmir after a 10-day tour in which he had had meetings with Abdullah and the other leaders there.

As the political narrative in Kashmir rapidly unfolded, in spite of all the bon homie with Nehru, the Sheikh had ultimately to be dismissed from his premiership and put in jail on 9 August, 1953, due to his persistent demands for independence. Escalating from a firm pro-Indian position of restricted federal autonomy under article 370 of the Indian constitution in 1950, the Sheikh had slowly raised his demand several notches higher for full independence from the Indian union ostensibly on enticements from the US. As reported in an Indian journal, Adlai Stevenson, the American diplomat, had met the Sheikh twice in summer,1953.

Stevenson had assured Abdullah of much more than moral support [for independence]. A loan of $ 15 million would be on hand once Kashmir became independent; besides the US would ensure that ‘the Valley would have a permanent population of at least 5,000 American families, that every houseboat and hotel would be filled to capacity, that Americans would buy up all the art and craft output of the dextrous Kashmiri artisans, that within three years every village in Kashmir would be electrified…’

The pressure from the Hindu lobby, however, had also been increasing on Nehru for the Sheikh’s dismissal for his constantly shifting and recalcitrant postures. Though only three weeks before the dismissal and imprisonment of the Sheikh, Prasad had sent a note in a long letter to Prime Minister Nehru on 14 July, 1953, expressing his deep concern over the worsening Kashmir issue, analyzing all aspects of the complex problem, and giving his sagacious views in ample detail. The note had been prepared by him even as the crisis had gone on deepening, and he had even discussed it with Dr Radhakrishnan who had expressed his agreement with his views. All this while, Dr Prasad, in his wisdom, had also been in constant touch with the government’s developing policy perspectives as also the views of all the stake-holders on the issue.

The long note began with the words: ‘I thought after the conversation with you yesterday, I might let you have my views about things so that they might be available to you whenever you consider it necessary to know what I feel.’ It contained his frank and sincere opinion given to the Prime Minister as wise counsel and pragmatic guidance. He considered both the internal and the external implications of the problem – inasmuch as it pertained to the relationship between Kashmir and the Union on the one hand, and the India-Pakistan relationship vis-à-vis Kashmir on the other.

The first aspect of the problem squarely depended on the question of a plebiscite in Kashmir as already agreed between India and Pakistan on the mediation of the UNO. As Dr Prasad maintained, this could be either (a) ‘an overall plebiscite over the whole state of J. & K.’ or (b) ‘zonal or regional plebiscites’ which could again either be only on selective basis or ‘in all the zones’ held separately. As for option (a), Dr Prasad observed, the chances were ‘we would lose an overall plebiscite’ on strictly communal and religious grounds. The Vice President Radhakrishnan, after his recent return from Kashmir, had himself ‘told [Dr Prasad] that even Sheikh Abdullah thought that we would lose in a plebiscite’. The greater problem, however, was that whichever way the plebiscite went ‘a substantial minority’ - ‘sooner or later [to] be squeezed out’- would be left entrapped with the majority with the resultant insurmountable ‘problem of exodus and rehabilitation’. Hence, this hazardous solution of Kashmir as a whole going either way ‘whether as the result of plebiscite or otherwise’ was to be avoided by all means.

The second option (b) of ‘regional plebiscites’ also could either be of a strictly specific character ‘confined [only] to doubtful areas’ in Kashmir, or of a general character of ‘separate plebiscites in the four zones’, [namely] Jammu, Ladakh, Kashmir Valley and Azad Kashmir [or Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, POK]’.Clarifying both these methods in the second option, he observed:

The first method would be to follow the suggestion of Sir Own Dixon [the eminent Australian Jurist and UN representative for mediation] and have plebiscite only in an area about which there is any doubt as to which way it would vote. It proceeds upon the assumption that the result of plebiscite in the areas which are left out of plebiscite is a foregone conclusion, and therefore both as a matter of expediency and convenience, the plebiscite should be confined to doubtful areas. This may be a solution which, if it is offered, we should accept and at any rate not reject offhand but consider all its implications before giving our reply to it. One of the implications of this may be that we may lose the Kashmir Valley, but we shall be assured from the very beginning about getting Jammu and Ladakh, and Pakistan similarly about the Azad area.

The results of the second all-four-zone plebiscite method, too, were unlikely to be different except for the cost and the scale and were also not to be rejected offhand. In the event, however, of a tentative possibility of a settlement ‘without plebiscite’, according to Dr Prasad, there could be two likely scenarios. The first would be:

An Agreement without plebiscite between India and Pakistan whereby the Cease Fire Line with such modifications as may be agreed to, should form the boundary line between India and Pakistan. From our point of view, this will of course be the best solution, better even than getting the whole of the state of J.&K…. But it is very doubtful that Pakistan will agree to it.

The skepticism about ‘an agreement without plebiscite’ in view of Pakistan’s belligerent stance was quite pragmatic. Even Pakistan’s conditional acquiescence in a general plebiscite was rather dubious. The ‘second solution’ of making the Kashmir Valley ‘an independent unit’ with consent of both India and Pakistan, ‘and perhaps also UNO’, was patently hazardous in view of India’s stated foreign policy of ‘non-involvement’, though it was more likely to be ‘acceptable to Pakistan’. This dicey solution also appeared to be favourable to American and British interests. But in that situation there was a clear possibility of ‘a conflagration in Kashmir’ in the event of ‘any clash between the two power Blocks’ which would willy-nilly involve India. Therefore, said Dr Prasad, “I would rather have the Valley as a part of Pakistan than as an independent State. If it becomes a part of Pakistan, it will not be free to have its own commitments with foreign countries, and if we settle with Pakistan our dufferences, there will be less danger of our getting involved.” Based on these assumptions, Dr Prasad, suggested three possibilities stated in order of diminishing preference: (a) settlement without plebiscite with a mutually modified Cease Fire Line as permanent boundary; (b) zonal plebiscite restricted only to the Kashmir Valley; and (c) the four-zone plebiscites held separately for Jammu, Ladakh, Kashmir Valley and POK. But in any case, he wrote: “We should not accept an overall plebiscite or a proposition requiring us to make the Valley an independent State and give our gurantee for that independence.” The reason behind the rejection of an ‘overall plebiscite’ being the humongous problems of exodus and rehabilitaion for either country.

Finally, towards the end of the letter, Dr Prasad takes up the second aspect of the problem, namely, the India-Pakistan relationship vis-à-vis Kashmir. In that, he firmly asserts, once the plebiscite concedes the whole or even some parts of the State to India, its relationship with those parts of Kashmir acceded by plebiscite to it becomes its internal matter and cannot, in any way, ‘be used or made an occasion for reopening and resettling relationship between India and Kashmir’. In other words, the results of the plebiscite agreed to between India and Pakistan would settle once for all the division of the State – in case such division happens - between the two countries, and the respective parts finally merging with either country will become their inseparable parts. And after the plebiscite the relationship between the respective part or parts of Kashmir and the country they choose to merge with will be an internal matter for that country, and will also consequently remain beyond the pale of any Indo-Pak negotiations. It would also clearly imply that ‘a demand therefore cannot be made by or on behalf of the State of J.&K, or any part of it for putting as one of the alternatives before the voters at the time of plebiscite the idea of independence either for the State of J.&K. as a whole or for any part of it’. Dr Prasad, in conclusion of his letter, states his opinion in unambiguous terms.

I am afraid I am not free from pessimism or even misgivings about the results of these negotiations….My misgivings are that if there is an overall plebiscite, we may lose the whole of the State of J.&K., and have to face the problem of the exodus and rehabilitation of practically the whole of the Hindu population. Our effort therefore must be to have a regional or zonal plebiscite if insistence is made by Pakistan on plebiscite. But it would be best to have a settlement without a plebiscite on the basis of India and Pakistan retaining the portions in their possession at present as defined by the Cease Fire Line. Sheikh Abdullah has talked about independence off and on, and there can be no doubt that he will try to take full advantage of the situation created by American intervention in the matter. Personally I would prefer non-involvement which can only be secured if we do not accept or guarantee the independence of J.&K. or any part of it.

The policy outlines stated in Dr Prasad’s detailed Note delineated with striking clarity the catch-22 situation in Kashmir. As expected, Abdullah’s recalcitrance had soon landed him in jail where he was to remain for the next five years and the stalemate in Kashmir continued. Perhaps, more because of the internationalization of the issue that pertained basically to the domain of the inter-relationhip between India and Pakistan. According to Dr Prasad, both the promise of a plebiscite in the Instrument of Accession and the reference to the Security Council of the military situation resulting from Pakistan’s camouflaged aggression in Kashmir were precipitate acts of ‘generosity’ done by Nehru on the clear promptings of Mounbatten, the then Governor General. As Prasad writes in a diary entry on 13 July, 1956:

India accepted the accession but in a fit of generosity also said that when the raiders had withdrawn and peace re-established, a plebiscite might be taken and accession finalized as a result thereof…It was at this stage [when Indian forces were about to recapture the invaded territoty] that in another fit of generosity India referred the matter to the United Nations where it has been pending since 1947.

Obviously, both these vital decisions with far-reaching future implications, were taken by Nehru on Mountbatten’s advice when Prasad only remained a silent colleague in the Cabinet. In January, 1958, after the Opposition’s sustained campaign, when Abdullah was released, writes M J Akbar:

Much had changed by then. The Kashmir Constituent Assembly had confirmed the accession to India and agreed on a Constitution which had come into effect on 26 January, 1957. Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad, who had taken over the National Conference and the government, was still the Chief Minister, but some of his allies had fallen out by now, accusing him of being both inefficient and corrupt…The Sheikh’s supporters had collected under the banner of  the newly formed Plebiscite Front. It was a one point party…[maintaining that] the Constituent Assembly was no longer representative of the people’s will and therefore all its decisions were null and void…[and] that a fresh plebiscite [must] be held to determine the people’s will even in relation to accession.

With such a turn-around in the situation, Abdullah was rearrested on 30 April, 1958, and remained in jail till well after Prasad’s retirement from presidency and death. He was only released on Nehru’s direct intervention, merely a few weeks before the latter’s death in May, 1964. Abdullah’s hobnobbing with Pakistan and China on the Kashmir issue again led to his arrest a year later and a fresh stint in jail for the next three years. This see-saw game of Abdullah’s arrest and release tied more knots in the story of Kashmir which, since Nehru’s death, became more and more entangled and problematic. Indeed, the prognosis of the problem made in Prasad’s political advisory thus remained fully valid and vindicated even in the years to come.

[This extract is a slightly edited version. Reference Notes are given in the original book ‘THE HOUSE OF TRUTH : A Biography of Dr Rajendra Prasad’ by Dr BSM Murty, which is now under publication.]

© Dr BSM Murty

All photos: courtesy Google & Rashtrapati Bhawan Photo Archives

 No part of this extract can be used in any way so as to infringe pre-publication rights
.

Other extracts from the book which are available on this Blog (Scroll by year and date)

2011: May 28 : The Indigo Story; July 8: The Butcher of Amritsar; July 17: A Planter’s Murder

2014: Sep 14 : The Seven Martyrs; Dec 3 : Early childhood in Jeeradei

2015: Jun 30: Congress in disarray; Aug 27: Clash of Convictions; Oct 8: Presidential Itineraries;             

             Dec 20: Congress at crossroads

2016:  Mar 15: Election for Second Term; May 13: Visit to Soviet Union; Aug 25: Limits of Presidency
             Aug  28 : The Last Phase
2017:  Apr 15: Champaran Saga (The Indigo Story: Repeat of 28 May 2011); 13 July: Dr Rajendra Prasad: On Kashmir Problem

Other Important blogs

Sahitya Samagra : 5 Oct 2010 / On Premchand: 26 May 2011 / Has Hindi been defeated by Shivpujan Sahay : 7 Dec 2011 / Memoirs on Prasad and Nirala : 25-26 Oct 2012 / Shivpujan Sahay Smriti Samaroh: 27 Jan 2014 / On Amrit Lal Nagar: 18 Aug 2014 / On Bachchan : 27 Nov 2014 / On Renu: 3 Mar 2015 / On Trilochan: 1 Apr 2015 /Odes of Keats + Shantiniketan: 25 May 2015 / Premchand Patron Men: 3 Aug 2015/  Suhagraat: Dwivediji's poem: 13 Nov 2015/ Dehati Duniya: 8 Aug 2016/ Three stories of JP: 6 Jul 2016/ On Neelabh Ashk: 24 Jul 2016/ Dec 25 2016: Anupam Mishra: Paani ki Kahaani : 2017:  July 10: Doctornama: memoirs of Shivpujan Sahay

ALL MATTER AND PHOTOS PUBLISHED ON THE BLOG ARE (c) Dr BSM Murty

डाक्टरनामा 

स्मरण-प्रसंग : १ 

९ जुलाई, २०१७ : आज डा. सेन की जन्मशती (१९१६-१९८७) पटना में मनाई गई| उनकी याद आज मुझे भी आई क्योंकि उन्होंने मेरे पिता आ. शिवपूजन सहाय का - १९५२ से मृत्यु-पर्यंत इलाज किया था| वे हमलोगों के पारिवारिक डॉक्टर थे| मेरा उनसे लम्बा व्यक्तिगत परिचय रहा क्योंकि उस पूरी अवधि में अपने पिता का मैं ही परिचारक रहा - रोज़ उनके पेशाब की जाँच करना और दोनों शाम इन्सुलिन की सुई लगाना मेरा ही काम था| और इलाज बराबर डा. सेन का ही रहा| मेरे पिता की जन्मशती के अवसर पर प्रकाशित स्मारिका 'वागीश्वरी' में डा. सेन ने अपनी श्रद्धांजलि में लिखा था -

"विक्टर ह्यूगो ने एक महान व्यक्ति के जीवन की तुलना सागर की उत्ताल तरंगों से की है| जब मैं आ. शिवपूजन सहाय का इलाज कर रहा था, तो मुझे ह्यूगो की यह उक्ति बराबर याद आती रही| वे जब पहली बार एक मरीज की हैसियत से मुझसे मिले तो वे बिलकुल सहज थे; केवल कुछ थके ज़रूर लगे| बाद के महीनों में मुझे भारत के इस महान साहित्यकार को कुछ ज्यादा निकट से देखने का अवसर मिला| बीच-बीच में जब रोग ने गंभीर मोड़ लिए, तब उस झंझावात में भी आचार्य जी में थोडा भी विचलन नहीं दिखाई पड़ा, और जब वे उससे उबर गए उस समय भी उनमें कोई उल्लास का भाव नहीं दिखाई पड़ा| वे तब भी सागर की भाँति गंभीर बने रहे| एक बार जब मृत्यु उनके अत्यंत निकट आई थी, वे तब भी उसी तरह अविचलित लगे, जाने को बिलकुल तैयार - बिलकुल निस्पृह और निर्द्वन्द्व| पर वे मृत्यु के मुख से लौट आये और अपने कार्य में उसी तरह शांत एवं दत्तचित्त होकर लग गए|

वे न केवल एक महान साहित्य-मनीषी थे, वरन वे एक अप्रतिम महामानव थे|"

डा. सेन एक अत्यंत संवेदनशील, मार्क्सवादी चिन्तक, गरीबों के मसीहा और छोटी के चिकित्सक थे | पचास के दशक में उनका क्लिनिक पटना कॉलेज के ठीक सामने वाली गली में अवस्थित था| पिता की मृत्यु के बाद भी वे हमारे पारिवारिक डाक्टर बने रहे, और हमारे प्रति विशेष स्नेहवान रहे| मेरे पिता जब अपनी अंतिम बीमारी में पटना मेडिकल कॉलेज हॉस्पिटल में हथुआ वार्ड में भर्ती थे - जहाँ २१, जनवरी १९६३ के ब्रह्म मुहूर्त्त  में उनका निधन हुआ - तब भी अस्पताल के नियमों के विरुद्ध डा. सेन ( मेरे पिता के स्थायी चिकित्सक की हैसियत से) वहां ५ दिन तक रोज़ सरकार द्वारा गठित विशेष चिकित्सा समिति की बैठक में नियमित आते रहे जिसमें डा. लाला सूरज नंदन और डा. मधुसुदन दास भी उपस्थित रहते थे.| उस समय का एक अंग्रेजी में लिखा संस्मरण भी  मैं यहाँ समयानुसार प्रकाशित करूंगा|

यहाँ जो चित्र हैं उनमें  मेरे पिता का एक वो चित्र भी  है जो मैंने तब खींचा था  जब वे पटना पीरबहोर पोस्ट ऑफिस की बगल के टी.बी. अस्पताल में १० महीने तक भरती रहे थे, और उन्हीं दिनों १९५३-५४  में बेनीपुरीजी ने अपनी ग्रंथावली का पहला खंड स्वयं प्रकाशित किया था और उसकी पहली प्रति 'अपने प्यारे भैया' को भेंट करने वहां अस्पताल में पहुंचे थे|

स्मरण-प्रसंग : २

मेरे पिता पटना में शुरू से अंत तक डा. सेन के इलाज़ में रहे| १९५२ से ही मधुमेह के साथ  वे तपेदिक की चपेट में भी आ गए थे| १९ जुलाई को पहली बार उनके मुहं से खून आया था| डा. सेन ने अपने संस्मरण में उनके मृत्यु के मुख से लौटने के जिस प्रसंग का ज़िक्र किया है उस समय हमलोग हिंदी साहित्य सम्मलेन भवन में ही रहते थे| सम्मलेन के ही पिछवाड़े एक कमरे में मेरे पिता गंभीर रूप से बीमार थे| डा. सेन की दवाएं चल रही थीं पर मुहं से खून आना रुक नहीं रहा था| शाम होने वाली थी और उस दिन स्थिति बहुत बिगड़ती जा रही थी| खून रोकने की सुई का भी कोई असर नहीं हो रहा था| डा. सेन वहीं  बिस्तर के बगल में चिंतित बैठे थे| कमरे में और केवल मैं ही था| किसी तरह के शोरगुल की डॉक्टर की सख्त मनाही थी|

बाहर सम्मलेन के कार्यालय में बेनीपुरीजी, नलिनजी, दीक्षितजी, डा.विश्वनाथ प्रसाद (अध्यक्ष, हिंदी विभाग, पटना वि.वि) आदि कई साहित्यकार चिंता-मग्न बैठे थे| सम्मलेन में जैसे एक तनावपूर्ण सियापा छा गया था| मुझे याद है – उसी समय विश्वनाथ बाबू ने अपने भाई डा. रघुनाथ शरण (राष्ट्रपति डा. राजेन्द्र प्रसाद के निजी चिकित्सक) को फोन करके बुलाया था| मेरे पिता पहले से उनके इलाज में नहीं थे| लेकिन उन्होंने पहले पिता को जाकर देखा और डा. सेन से उनकी बीमारी का सारा हाल सुना| फिर एक पुर्जे पर किसी गोली का नाम लिख कर मुझको दिया| मैं भाग कर बगल की समाद्दार फार्मेसी गया और दवा की दो गोलियां चार आने में लेकर तुरत आया| डा. शरण ने मुझसे कहा कि दोनों गोलियों को पीस कर मधु में मिला कर जाकर धीरे-धीरे जीभ पर चटा दो| मैंने तुरत वही किया| और तभी मैंने वो जादू देखा| उसके बाद जो खून की उलटी रुकी तो फिर रुक ही गयी| घंटे भर तक दोनों डा. वहीं बैठे रहे, और फिर इस हिदायत के साथ गए कि फोन से हाल बताते रहना|

यह मेरे जीवन का सबसे रोमांचकारी और विस्मयकारी अनुभव था जो मेरी याददाश्त में एक पत्थर की लकीर की तरह खुद गया है| उसके बाद जैसे ही मेरे पिता के स्वास्थ्य की स्थिति में कुछ सुधार आया डा. सेन  की अनुशंसा पर उनको १६ अप्रैल,’५३ को पटना, पीरबहोर पोस्ट-ऑफिस की बगल में टी.बी. अस्पताल में भर्ती कराया गया जहां से १० महीने बाद स्वस्थ होकर वे १६ फ़रवरी, ’५४ को फिर सम्मलेन भवन लौटे| मेरे पिता का सम्मलेन-अवस्थित बि.रा.भा. परिषद् की लगभग पूरी सेवा-अवधि उनकी बीमारी की एक लम्बी कहानी है जो उनकी डायरियों में दर्ज है|

लेकिन डा. रघुनाथ शरण को आज लोग पूरी तरह भूल चुके हैं| मुझे याद है, उनका एक छोटा-सा क्लिनिक उन दिनों जमाल रोड में था| पिता के देहांत के बाद भी मैंने कई बार उनकी चिकित्सा का चमत्कार देखा था| मेरे पिता की तरह ही, राजेन्द्र बाबू जब १९६१ में सांघातिक रूप से मौत से रू-ब-रू हुए थे तो पटने के डा. रघुनाथ शरण और डा. टी.एन.बनर्जी की चिकित्सा से ही उनके प्राण बच सके थे| राजेंद्र बाबू की मेरी लिखी (शीघ्र प्रकाश्य) अंग्रेजी जीवनी में उस प्रसंग की विस्तार से चर्चा है| मेरी स्मृति में और ऐसे कुछ यशस्वी डॉक्टरों की स्मृतियाँ हैं जो अविस्मरणीय हैं| उस ज़माने के ये महामानव डॉक्टर सचमुच धनवंतरि के अवतार ही थे!

मुझे खेद है मेरे पास डा. रघुनाथशरण की कोई तस्वीर नहीं है| (अगर किसी के पास हो तो वह ज़रूर पोस्ट करे|) राजेन्द्र बाबू  की जीवनी लिखने के क्रम में मुझे राष्ट्रपति भवन में ढूंढते हुए एक यही तस्वीर मिली जिसमें राजेन्द्र बाबू के साथ डा. टी.एन. बनर्जी बैठे हैं| डा. बनर्जी का मकान पटना के एस.पी. वर्मा रोड में था, और वे भी धनवंतरि के ही एक अवतार थे| पटने में ऐसे कई डॉक्टर थे जिन पर शायद एक मुकम्मल किताब ही लिखी जानी चाहिए|

लेकिन पुराने समय को और पुराने महापुरुषों को याद करने का तो शायद ज़माना ही चला गया!

 आलेख और मेरा खींचा अस्पताल का चित्र : कॉपीराइट : डा. मंगलमूर्ति