The nation will remain grateful to him for its peaceful transition from feudalism to democracy.

In view of the recent burst of interest in the media, I would like to recall the association that I was privileged to have, over six decades ago, with the great Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. In fact, had it not been for the Sardar, I would have spent the rest of my life in a wheelchair. In my youth I had developed a problem in my hip and had been confined to a wheelchair for many months. When Gandhiji visited my father in August 1947, I insisted on sitting in at the meeting and my chair was wheeled in under the chinar tree at Gulab Bhavan Palace with its magnificent view of the Dal Lake.

When towards the end of October, after the Pakistani tribal invasion, we moved to Jammu on the advice of V.P. Menon, my chair was brought down in a station wagon. In November 1947, Sardar Patel visited Jammu and came to see us. When he learnt that I had been confined to a wheelchair for six months, he told my father that I should immediately be sent to America for treatment. Since I was an only child, my mother, of course, was very reluctant for me to go abroad. But my father realised that Sardar's wise advice needed to be followed. As a result, arrangements were made to send me to New York for medical treatment, and it was due to surgery and prolonged treatment in the United States that I was able to walk again and finally resume a normal life, including playing tennis (doubles), badminton and golf. I, therefore, owe an undying debt of gratitude to Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, without whose intervention I would certainly have spent my whole life under a severe handicap.

In 1949, relations between Sheikh Abdullah and my father, Maharaja Hari Singh, had become so estranged that it was no longer possible for both of them to continue to function in the state. Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Patel finally took the decision to ask my father to leave the state "for a while" and appoint me as his regent, although in fact he never returned to the state. In this context, the Sardar invited us to come to Delhi, and at a meeting with my parents, broke the news to them. Sheikh Abdullah had insisted that my mother should also leave the state because she was active in helping the tens of thousand of refugees who were streaming into Jammu from the areas occupied by the Pakistani incursion, including Mirpur and almost all of the erstwhile Poonch Jagir, except the town.

This came as a severe blow to my parents, who were shocked that after acceding to India they were now being virtually exiled from the state. However, they had no option but to accept, and it was decided that my father would issue a proclamation appointing me as regent on June 20, 1949, soon after I had turned 18. Before then, while we were still in Delhi, Sardar Patel graciously invited me to spend a fortnight with him in May at the Dehra Dun circuit house. He was keeping poor health and was nursed with great affection by his daughter Maniben Patel. He would call for me from time to time, and I had the privilege of hearing his views on various matters, including, of course, Jammu and Kashmir, where he did not share Nehru's very close and trusting relationship with Sheikh Abdullah.

Of late, Sardar Patel has come back into the political discourse. There is no question that among the amazing galaxy of leaders in his team, the Sardar and Nehru were the two closest political associates of Mahatma Gandhi. However, it is also clear that the decision to choose Nehru as the first prime minister was taken by Mahatma Gandhi himself. It was not as if it was a party decision; it was Gandhiji who, as the unquestioned leader of the freedom movement, took all the major decisions. He rightly realised that although the Sardar was senior in age and experience, he was much older and did not have the vitality, charisma and international prestige that the younger man enjoyed. Prescient as he was, he had decided well before Independence that Nehru was the one who would take over as prime minister when the British left, which was why Nehru became the head of the first interim government in coalition with the Muslim League in 1946, and remained prime minister from 1947 for 17 years until 1964, while the Sardar passed away in 1950.

The fact that Gandhiji chose Jawaharlal Nehru, first over Subhas Chandra Bose and later over Sardar Patel, in no way detracts from the stature of those two great leaders. Netaji's heroic role in raising the Indian National Army and infusing a new revolutionary spirit into the freedom movement will always be remembered with pride. As far as the Sardar is concerned, he achieved a task the like of which had never before been attempted in world history. He succeeded in integrating over 500 Indian states and principalities into a united India with the consent and cooperation of the princes themselves, except in the cases of Hyderabad and Junagarh. The peaceful transition from feudalism to democracy laid the solid foundation of Indian unity, and this is an achievement for which the entire nation, regardless of party affiliation, will remain eternally indebted to Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, rightly called the Iron Man of India.

The writer is a Rajya Sabha MP

Mon Nov 11 2013 : http://www.indianexpress.com/news/had-it-not-been-for-sardar-patel/1193644/0

In the last week of October-first week of November, we saw two contradictory processes. On one side the foundation stone was laid for the statue of first Deputy Prime Minister of India, Saradar Vallabhbhai Patel, being called as Statue of Unity. On the other side the BJP in Bihar was taking out ‘Asthi Kalash’ (Pitcher of Ashes), of the blast victims in Patna. These victims died while the blasts took place in Modi’s Hunkar rally. While Patel completed the last lag of India’s unity as a nation, BJP combine’s Asthi Yatra Kalsh Yatra has meanwhile taken further the techniques which are divisive, and are an attack on the values of Fraternity ingrained in Indian Constitution. How do we understand the unity of India to begin with?

India’s unity begins with the coming of British. Pre British sub-continent made a journey from the tribal society, to pastoral society to kingdoms of different hues. Unfortunately there is a lot of confusion between kingdoms and the modern nation state. Pastoral society had different logic, while kings were sitting on the top of the structure in which the poor peasant was producing and large part of his produce was going to the king, through the landlord. The poor peasants were semi-slaves mostly at the mercy of the whims of the landlords. For the younger generation, the life in this period can be gleaned partly from the classics of the literary stalwarts like Munshi Premchand in particular. The British in their project to plunder this country introduced the policy of ‘divide and rule’ and so introduced Communal Historiography. This pattern of looking at kings, through the prism of the religion, made the matters worse for us as the kings now are looked at as Hindus or Muslims. And the period when some of the kings were ruling part of the area is called as Muslim period. The Muslim kings, ruled here, lived here and became the part of this soil. While British ruled from their head office in London and plundered the country. There was no concept of Nation-State at that time. Different kingdoms, warring with each other, trying to expand their boundaries on the strength of the sword

With British, their plunder project led to the introduction of railways, communications and modern education. Whatever be the motives of British, this laid the foundation of geographical unity of India. The India we call today starts taking shape with that. But there is much else which transformed the ‘warring kingdoms’ to Indian state. The British policies led to discontent and the British system also opened some window of articulating the discontent. Unlike the period of Kingdoms, in the Colonial period itself many an associations of the rising classes, Industrialists, Workers and others started coming up. They formed organizations for the first time. And amongst the number of organizations Madras Mahajan Sabha, Pune Sarvajanik Sabha and Bombay Associations are some noteworthy. At the same time Narayan Meghaji Lokhande and Singarvelu started organizing the workers. All these organizations were veering around trade, occupation, work: not religion. These were having people from all regions, all religions. On the material foundations laid by British, these efforts added flesh and blood and ‘Indian identity’ starts taking shape. This is the foundation of the emotional and civilian unity of India, building on the geographical unification.

This foundation of India gets the walls of unity from the anti-colonial, ‘anti-British national movement’. It was the national movement with participation of people of all religion, all regions, all castes, all linguistic groups, women and men both that real Indian identity comes to be rooted in our psyche and in our civilian life. This movement ‘India as a nation in the making’ has been the biggest ever mass movement in the world. This movement was based on the values of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, the principles which became the base of Indian Constitution. This was the Indian unity emerging from opposition to British rule; this was the unity for aspiration of building secular democratic India with composite culture. This led to our freedom with the partition tragedy accompanying it. This was the main structure of Indian unity. Some jobs were still remaining.

With freedom nearly 650 princely states, who were associated with British rule had to make their decision, to merge with India or Pakistan or to remain free. It is here that Sardar Patels’ final contribution of uniting India, as it is today, came as the icing in the cake, the plaster on the walls of National unity. This unity was emotional, civic and national. It included people of all religions that’s’ how Gandhi, Nehru, Patel and Maulana Azad, stick together despite their diverse background and different expression of the value and create the Indian nation state. Contrary to the hints dropped by Modi that Patel would have dealt with Muslims better, the approach of the great leaders of Indian freedom movement was overlapping. Patel was the one to give the provisions for minority institutions. Gandhi said about Patel, “I know the Sardar…His method and manner of approach to Hindu-Muslim question, as also several other questions, is different from mine and Pundit Nehru’s. But it is travesty of truth to describe him as anti Muslim.”

This process of emotional, civic unification which began with the formation of various associations went through the freedom movement and found its culmination in the integration of princely states, into the Union of India. The process of unification also began and saw a miniscule process of divisiveness even at that time. This divisiveness began with the religious nationalism of Muslim League and Hindu Mahasabha-RSS. This group came from the landlords and nawabs (Led by Nawab of Dhaka and Raja of Kashi) and was later joined in by the section of elite educated middle classes in the form of Jinnah, Savarkar and the founders of RSS. While Gandhi and National movement united all, the communal groups spread hatred against each other. This hatred against each other led to communal violence, the worst of which were to be seen in the Calcutta killings, Noakhali amongst others. It was Gandhi, who left the statecraft to Nehru and Patel and went to douse the communal fire.

After some gap, the process of violence began again with Jabalpur violence of 1961. At the root of violence is the hatred of ‘other’, propagated through word of mouth, through shakhas, through school books amongst others. This creates a ‘social common sense’. This ‘social common sense’ is totally negative against religious minorities and acts as the fertile ground on which the communal violence takes place. Various techniques were devised to orchestrate communal violence, pig in a mosque, beef pieces in mandir (temple), killing of cow, music in front of mosque, ‘molestation of ‘our’ women had been the major ones amongst them.

A new pattern has been added to this. After the siege of Babri in October 1990, the tragedy led to death of the kar sevaks. VHP took out the asthi kalash yatra and the yatra left the trail of blood. After the Godhra train burning (who did it is another matter, many theories abound, this article is not going in to that) let’s see how this tragedy was used to divide the community. The dead bodies were handed over to VHP to take out a procession. The mass hysteria was created during the procession. Rest is too well known. Society divided along religious lines. Despite diverse claims ‘division amongst Hindus-Muslim’, is a matter of concern in the country in general and places like Gujarat in particular.

Let’s now come to Kandhmal. Swami Laxmanand is killed. No debate about who did it. The VHP takes out a procession of Swamiji’s body through a long route. Violence against Christians follows. Further perfecting the technique, now after the Patna blasts, whoso ever did it, the dead bodies are being taken out in procession through various routes. Is it to pay homage to the poor victims despite whose death the rally continued, or the goals are to divide the society along communal lines? This is social disunity. Sardar Patel’s statue and life was for social unity, this and other acts of BJP combine are just for the opposite goals. Hypocrisy at its best or worst is at display here. Commemorate the Sardar who united India, not just by merging the princely states, but being the part of freedom movement which was the uniting movement. And also remember unity of India just does not mean the merger of princely states; that was the last phase of unity process. At the same time take out Asthi Kalash, which is aimed to divide the community? Political ambitions have strange ways.  

1

Patel would not have recognized Modi as ideological heir

• Rajmohan Gandhi •

NEW DELHI : Amid a slugfest between BJP's Narendra Modi and Congress over Sardar Patel, a noted biographer of Patel has said the country's first home minister would not have recognized Modi as his ideological heir and been very "pained" with his behaviour towards Muslims.

Rajmohan Gandhi, the grandson of Mahatma Gandhi who has written a biography of the country's first home minister, said Patel certainly would not have felt at the time of 2002 riots in Gujarat that Modi fulfilled his 'rajdharma', a phrase used by the then Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee to chide Modi.

"I think it is quite obvious that he (Patel) would have been very disappointed, very pained and saddened not only as an Indian statesman but also as coming from Gujarat, that this should not have happened in Gujarat and the government of the time was not able to prevent it," he said.

Talking to Karan Thapar in CNN-IBN's Devil's Advocate, Gandhi said that claims by BJP supporters or Modi himself to project him as Patel's heir misunderstands and misrepresents Patel.

"If Modi can grow into that kind of image that would be wonderful, but by two reasons he has fallen short. After all Patel grew as a disciple under the umbrella of Gandhi and the Indian National Congress. Modi had his career under the umbrella of RSS and that makes a difference.

"Also Patel as an individual was always a team builder, other people were prominent in his daily life. Whether Modi is like that… I would like him to be like that," he said.

Gandhi, however, accepted the criticism that Congress has forgotten Patel or relegated him to the background in the 63 years since his death.

He noted that Nehru was succeeded by Indira Gandhi, Sanjay Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi, Sonia Gandhi and now Rahul Gandhi while none of Patel's children inherited or benefited from his power.

Patel was proud to be a Congressman and accepted that Mahatma Gandhi's decision to make Nehru Prime Minister was correct, Gandhi said, adding the Mahatma chose Nehru over Patel because he was older by 14 years and in poor health.

Nehru was also better known internationally, he said.

The 'Iron man', a popular term used for Patel, had appreciated the work of RSS during riots in 1947 but after Gandhi's assassination, his attitude changed and he was thereafter an implacable opponent if not an enemy of the Hindutva organisation, he said.

Modi and Congress leaders have engaged in a war of words over Patel with the BJP's PM candidate claiming that the country's destiny would have been different had he been the first PM instead of Nehru.

Congress has hit back at him, saying he was trying to hijack Patel's legacy as BJP lacked any icon.

(courtesy : PTI | Nov 4, 2013, 12.34 PM IST, “Times of India”)

******

2

I feel your absence greatly: Nehru to Sardar Patel

• Akshaya Mukul • 

History, as French historian and codirector of legendary journal Annales Marc Ferro says, exercises a double function both therapeutic and militant. BJP's prime ministerial candidate Narendra Modi, in keeping with his branding as a strong Hindutva icon, seems to prefer the latter. The distortion he is capable of was evident in Patna; mixing the Mauryan and Gupta dynasties and bringing Alexander to Bihar.

For the past few days Modi — who is even called Chhota Sardar by some party members — has been harping on Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, independent India's first home minister. As is Modi's wont he has appropriated Patel without much homework. With its colossal ignorance about Patel, Congress is not helping the debate either. But it would do both Modi and Congress good to go through 10-volumes of Sardar Patel's correspondence of five years — 1945-50 — the tumultuous period in Indian history when the Patel-Jawaharlal Nehru rift was at its peak.

It is a fact that Patel and Nehru were cut from different cloth and they had huge differences. The two were slated to meet Gandhi to sort things out but then Nathuram Godse did not let that happen. After Gandhi's killing, not only did the two resolve their differences to a large extent but spoke in unison on many issues. The mammoth collection of Patel's letters of five years would be a huge disappointment to Modi when he reads what the first home minister had to say about Hindu Mahasabha, RSS and Shyama Prasad Mookerjee, a BJP icon. Patel's views on socialist Jayaprakash Narayan whom Modi talked of so fondly the other day in Patna would definitely not please Modi. And if key NDA ally Akali Dal gets to know that Patel called Master Tara Singh, the tallest Sikh leader, "not normal" there could be problems. It would also help Modi to dust off Hindu Mahasabha history and read what its ex-president NB Khare, once a leading light of the Congress in the Central Province, whose ouster was blamed on Patel, had to say about the iron man.

The flashpoint

But first let's talk about the Patel-Nehru rift that reached a flashpoint in December 1947, when Nehru sent his principal private secretary HVR Iyengar to give a report on communal riots in Ajmer-Merwara region of what is now Rajasthan without keeping Patel, the home minister, informed. A 'shocked' Patel wrote to Nehru and protested. On his part, Nehru (December 23 1947) explained to Patel that the idea was not to undercut him but to get a first-hand report since he could not make it to the area. Nehru wrote, "It seems our approaches are different, however much we may respect each other…If I am to continue as PM I cannot have my freedom restricted and I must have a certain liberty of direction. Otherwise, it is better for me to retire." Sardar wrote back, "I have no desire to restrain your liberty of direction in any manner…but when it is clear to us that on the fundamental question of our respective spheres of responsibility, authority and action, there is such a vital difference of opinions between us, it would not be in the interest of the cause which we both wish to serve to continue to pull on longer."

After Gandhi's assassination

Before the matter could be resolved Godse killed Gandhi. Patel, hurt by allegations that he could not protect the Mahatma, offered to resign only to have Nehru reject it. "… In my last letter I had expressed the hope that, in spite of certain differences of opinion and temperament, we should continue to pull together as we had done for so long. This was, I am glad to find, Bapu's final opinion also…Anyway, in the crisis that we have to face now after Bapu's death, I think it is my duty and, if I may venture to say, yours also, for us to face it together as friends and colleagues." Nehru also told Patel that the talk of a rift between the two had become 'whispers and rumours' and even reached foreign ambassadors and correspondents. 'Mischief-makers take advantage of this," Nehru wrote.

And when Shyama Prasad Mookerjee pleaded for the Hindu Mahasabha leaders Asutosh Lahiri and Mahant Digvijay Nath, arrested for their alleged role in Gandhi's murder, Patel shot back that what was being considered was if both should be prosecuted or not and refused to set them free. Patel was also angry with the Hindu Mahasabha for collecting funds for the defence of Godse. When Mookerjee gave a circuitous reply, Patel told him, "If the official organization of the Hindu Mahasabha is being utilized for this purpose there can be only one inference, namely that the HM is in it."

In May 1948, when Nehru told Patel that the RSS cadre was back in action despite the ban, Patel told him he had banned 'drill of military or semi-military type, in addition to the ban on the organization which already exists'. Patel pointed out that courts in UP and Bombay were releasing RSS cadre and any attempt to exercise more power was seen as acting against civil liberty. When Mookerjee suggested a meeting of Hindu organizations, Patel told him how he believed the 'extreme section of HM' was behind Gandhi's murder. He accused the RSS of posing a threat to the government and indulging in 'subversive activities'. In 1945 during the Central Legislative Assembly election it was Patel who told Nehru that "the Congress cannot think of any settlement with the HM."

Friends again

By April 1948, the differences between the two had resolved to the extent that a tired Nehru wrote to out-of-town Patel: "I feel your absence greatly. There are so many serious problems cropping up continually about which I would like to consult you." In September 1948, when intense lobbying began for Congress presidentship, both Nehru and Patel decided not to give any public or private support to any of the candidates. At the height of Patel's effort to integrate Hyderabad state to India, what irked him was Jayaprakash Narayan's speech in Hyderabad blaming the government. The fact that Nehru was praising JP those days was not helping matters either. He told Nehru, "I feel that such irresponsible utterances and embarrassing attitude on his part hardly justify any faith in him. I have all along been of the view that if the future of India is in the hands of men like JP it would probably be the most unfortunate circumstance." In fact, Patel saw it as a socialist conspiracy to drive a wedge between him and Nehru.

As for Master Tara Singh, who was arrested after demanding that Punjabi language and Gurumukhi script be made compulsory, Patel suggested to Nehru that he should not be released until, like MS Golwalkar, he gave a written undertaking.

In another letter Patel sent Nehru, he included a copy of Tara Singh's interview with his son in jail and told the PM that it (interview) showed "he is not normal". On December 1950, when an ailing Patel headed for Mumbai for treatment, one of the persons to see him off at the airport was PM Nehru. He died three days later.

TNN | Nov 3, 2013, 07.18 AM IST

******

3

Truth vs Hype: Sardar Patel – A contested legacy

Written by Sreenivasan Jain (with inputs from Niha Masih)

The legacy of Sardar Patel being contested by the BJP and the Congress is far more complex than either would like to believe.

If Patel owes his political baptism to anyone, it is to Gandhi.

Their paths crossed shortly after Patel – who broke away from his family's rustic roots in Central Gujarat to study law in England – eventually returning to a thriving practice in Ahmedabad.

Patel would spend less time in his practice, and more at the Sabarmati Ashram, from where under Gandhi's guidance he would organise a series of Satyagraha's against the prohibitive taxation of farmers.

The director of the Ashram, Tridip Suhrud says Sardar came into his own mobilising satyagrahas in Kheda, in Central Gujarat and Bardoli, near Surat.

Three years after the Bardoli satygarha, he became one of the Congress party's key organisers.

So how could someone steeped in Gandhian thought, and a Congress organisation man, come to be claimed by the Hindu?

That narrative is posited on the idea that Patel was not as squeamish about his Hindu identity, than say, Nehru. 

This, say his admirers in the BJP, is borne out by his plain speaking to Muslims who stayed back in India. 

In January 1948, he remonstrates a group of Muslims in Calcutta, saying, "The Muslims who are still in India, many of them helped in the creation of Pakistan. Fine, if they did but then how come in one night, their hearts changed? I do not understand that. They say why their loyalty is being questioned. That is not something for us to answer. We just say that alright you created Pakistan, good for you, we will not interfere. If things go bad then do not call us. Then they say Pakistan and India should become one, I plead them to not say that. That will be a loss for us, let them stay there. Let them create Pakistan."

In the same month, in the aftermath of Pakistan's invasion of Kashmir using Afghan tribesmen, he remonstrated a gathering of Muslims in Lucknow, saying, "I want to tell you frankly that mere declarations of loyalty to the Indian Union will not help you in this critical juncture. I ask you why you do not unequivocally denounce Pak for attacking Indian territory with the connivance of Frontier tribesmen. Those who want to go to Pak can go there and live in peace." 

But his mentor appeared to have an insight into where these words were coming from. In a January 1948 letter, Gandhi wrote to Patel saying, "Many Muslim friends had complained to me of the Sardar's so-called anti-Muslim attitude. I was able to assure the critics that they were wrong in isolating him from Nehru and me, whom they gratuitously raise to the sky. The Sardar had a bluntness of speech which sometimes unintentionally hurt, though his heart was expansive enough to accommodate all."

Patel's biographer Rajmohan Gandhi says that Patel should be judged by his actions, not words. In his actions, there was little to fault Patel, who as Home Minister would often personally travel to communal flashpoints to ensure Muslims are not attacked.

Like in September 1947, as reports emerged of threats to those taking shelter in the Dargah of Nizamuddin Auliya in south Delhi, Patel's private secretary Shankar records Patel's response. "The Sardar wrapped his shawl round his neck and said 'Let us go to the saint before we incur his displeasure'. We arrived there unobtrusively. Sardar spent a good 45 minutes in the precincts, went round the holy shrine in an attitude of veneration, made enquiries here and there of the inmates, and told the police officer of the area, on pain of dismissal that he would hold him responsible if anything untoward happened."

Later in the same month as reports came that Sikhs in Amritsar intended to attack Muslim convoys on their way to Pakistan.

He travelled to Amritsar and famously made this appeal: "Here in this very same city, the blood of Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims mingled in the bloodbath of Jallianwalla Bagh. I am grieved to think that things have come to such a pass that no Muslim can go about in Amritsar and no Hindu or Sikh can even think about living in Lahore."

Perhaps the greatest awkwardness for the attempts by the Hindu right to champion the Sardar is his active role as Home Minister in the banning of the RSS in the aftermath of Gandhi's assassination.  The February 4, 1948 communique issued by the Home Ministry said, "Undesirable and even dangerous activities have been carried on by members of the Sangh.  In pursuance of this policy the Government of India have decided to declare unlawful the RSS." 

The RSS had attempted to suggest that Patel admired the RSS, and was bulldozed into the ban by Nehru. The facts as always are more nuanced.

Patel disagreed with Nehru about the RSS's role in Gandhi's assassination, writing in February 1948, "It was a fanatical wing of the Hindu Mahasabha directly under Savarkar that hatched the conspiracy and saw it through."

But the Sardar made it clear in a letter to RSS chief Guru Golwalkar, dated 11 September 1948, that the Sangh created the climate that led to Gandhi's killing. He said "organizing the Hindus and helping them is one thing but going in for revenge for its sufferings on innocent and helpless men, women and children is quite another thing. All their speeches were full of communal poison. As a final result of the poison, the country had to suffer the sacrifice of the invaluable life of Gandhiji. Opposition turned more severe, when the RSS men expressed joy and distributed sweets after Gandhiji's death."

There is little to suggest then, that Patel was some sort of closet Hindutvavaadi. But equally, if the Hindu right does have a greater claim on him, it's entirely because of the gradual abandoning of the Sardar by his parent party.  The BJP points out that it took the Congress 40 years to bestow a Bharat Ratna on Patel, and he has been neglected in the politics of memorialisation.

It is hard to imagine what the Sardar would make of these political skirmishes over his legacy, which do little justice to his complexity and his stature

(courtesy : NDTV : Updated: November 03, 2013 00:40

http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/truth-vs-hype/truth-vs-hype-sardar-patel-a-contested-legacy/296595?pfrom=home-lateststories