Sardar Patel: The real statesman and unifier of India

With the advent of Narendra Modi in the national politics, the corpus of writing on Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel seems to have increased. This year alone, we have seen at least three well-known authors coming out with monographs on Patel. What explains this rejuvenated interest and engagement with Patel’s legacy in contemporary India?

The answer, perhaps, lies in the fact that the seven decades of independent India have been overly focussed on the achievements, ideas and misadventures of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty. Since Narendra Modi, in the interest of nationalist history and the nation itself, commenced exploration of other icons, the literature has to come up as well!

Sardar Patel Unifier of Modern India (2018) is a sincere attempt in the direction of producing well-researched monographs on the other nationalist icons. Significantly, RNP Singh, the author, frees himself from the ‘Great Men Theory; in the preface itself. He observes that Patel has been perceived as a “Superman, and a leader with ‘superlative brains’. He was none of that. What he was, was a statesman gifted with the rare quality of astuteness and pertinacity in his approach to problems.”

This particular insight doesn’t come in retrospect. It has been derived, validated and provided with a keen sense of veracity in the author’s work. Depending on a not so large bibliography of secondary sources, the author has delved and depended primarily on the primary sources to build up his factual narrative account.

The temporal frame of the book shapes up since 1947 and extends till 1950 when Patel died. The narrative account in the duration of these three years then becomes a saga of diplomatic and realpolitik craft which Patel displayed in great details. The history of the integration of the Indian States in the book takes a linear chronological line. After having introduced the context in the first chapter, the book goes on to examine the respective cases of the Eastern States, Greater Rajasthan, Travancore, Jodhpur, Kathiawar, Bhopal, Junagadh, Hyderabad and finally Jammu & Kashmir.

The front flap of the book quotes the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev said, “You Indians are amazing people. How on earth did you manage to liquidate the Princely rile without liquidating the Princess?” And that what the book sets out to show. The brilliance of Patel was not merely in the fact that he made some 584 princely states to accede to India. His deliberation style and pragmatic approach which facilitated a majorly peaceful accession is something which was brilliant.

By far the popular readers of Modern Indian history used to know the dealings of Patel majorly to tough nuts like Junagadh, Hyderabad and J&K. The latter two cases also saw an active involvement of armed forces and instruments of violence. However, the more remarkable story lies in the cases of those princely states which acceded peacefully!

One princely State after the other, the deal was done one after another. Unification of over 560 princely States took around 18 months. It moved fast, with the speed of a soft whirlwind, gently drawing the Princes into its warm embracing, hurting none. Patel was watching with wonder and admiration for redrawing the map of India: first with Accession, followed by the merger of neighbouring States, and finally, with the formation of large, viable Unions at par with the provinces.

While the main text in the book runs around 240 pages, the other advantages to the reader are manifold. There is a detailed listing of many important correspondences in appendices. The book is filled with rich illustrations and cartographic content. The chronological unfolding of the narrative along with the maps of the respective princely States provides the reader with the opportunity to witness the making of the Indian political map.

The index is fairly elaborate and comes out in three different classifications of the subject, names of the individuals and names of the place. This makes the book fairly accessible, and for any book which contains a huge number of individuals and places should’ve done it.

What the book lacks in is a serious methodological issue of history writing. Patel’s legacy as the unifier of modern India serves as its primary subject, protagonist, but also its context. Certainly, the context is not enough! Supposedly a reader who may be getting introduced to Patel for the first time is going to ask that how he became ‘Greater than Bismark’. What went in the making of the ‘Sardar’; the ‘Lauh Purush’ (Iron Man)? Why was he respected so much and how could he achieve achieve that vantage point from where he could bargain, deliberate and if needed, twist the arms of the princely? The context in which we should’ve met Sardar Patel of 1947 is completely missing in the book! For a narrative which complains that we didn’t allow our young generation to know leaders beyond Nehru-Gandhi dynasty, a finer biographical approach is required along with a theme exploration exercise.