Bharat’s post-Independence history commenced with disagreements between two towering political figures at the forefront: Jawaharlal Nehru, the then Prime Minister, and Sardar Patel, who served as the Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister. Their political and ideological rivalries are well-documented. Nehru often found himself clashing with other significant leaders such as Subhash Chandra Bose, Dr Ambedkar, Gandhiji, Syama Prasad Mookerjee and many more in his quest to establish dominance. By the early 1950s, the Congress Party had been stripped of these influential figures, leaving Nehru to steer the party down an anti-Hindu trajectory. In 1951, Ambedkar also resigned from Nehru’s Ministry.
Architect of Bharat’s Integration
With his inimitable organisational skills, Patel successfully integrated 562 Princely States into Bharat. Without Patel’s decisive actions, which often defied Nehru’s weaker stand, Bharat might not be what it is today. Nehru was displeased when Patel did not consult him during the integration of the Princely States. Patel’s actions were crucial; otherwise, the nation would have to pay for it. In the annals of history, Sardar Patel earned the title of the “Iron Man of India” for dismantling the divisive strategies pursued by Nehru. Patel was the mastermind behind Bharat’s political unification, the architect of integration. John Zubrzycki’s recent book, Dethroned critically examines how the Princely States narrowly avoided being “Balkanised” if opted for Independence or joined Pakistan, had Nehru directly managed the situation. Patel made history by integrating them into a single nation, a fact that fills us with pride, as Bharat is what it is today because of his efforts. But for Patel, Nehru might have left future generations with a fragmented Bharat.
Mishandling Kashmir
The Kashmir issue remained a political headache since Independence till recently, largely due to Nehru’s lack of foresight. Article 370 was a blunder by Nehru. Patel objected to Nehru’s direct handling of the Kashmir issue, sidelining his Home Ministry. Patel opposed Bharat’s decision to approach the UN on the Kashmir issue.
When Pakistan invaded Kashmir in September 1947, Patel wanted to send troops, but Nehru and Mountbatten blocked this move. Patel also wanted to send forces when China invaded Tibet in 1950, but Nehru objected again.
The Congress resolution titled “Flag Bearer of the Freedom Movement – Our ‘Sardar’ – Sh. Vallabhbhai Patel” passed during a two-day convention in Ahmedabad, Gujarat, appears to be an attempt to whitewash the historical narrative surrounding Sardar Patel. It makes an unsuccessful attempt to downplay Patel’s disagreements with Nehru, dismissing them as “a deliberate web of lies of conflict between Sardar Patel & Pandit.” This denial contradicts what was well-known in the power corridors during the nascent days of Independent Bharat. The clash between the two leaders was evident even during the 1936 Congress session. Patel firmly stood with Gandhiji’s proposal for a comprehensive civil disobedience campaign against British rule to hasten Bharat’s Independence, while Nehru, aligning with Maulana Azad, opposed it. Nehru is also accused of manoeuvring the Prime Minister position from Patel by persuading him to withdraw his candidacy. Nehru, eager for power, is accused of swiftly agreeing to the Partition of Bharat and seemed content with a fractured nation having many of its parts separated. Shortly before his demise, Gandhiji reportedly convinced Patel not to leave Nehru’s Ministry out of dissatisfaction. Nehru, with his Westernised mindset, imported foreign ideas and experts for Bharat’s development, whereas Patel remained a true Gandhian and a fervent nationalist. Nehru did not want Rajendra Prasad to become Bharat’s first President, but Patel disagreed and secured Congress’s endorsement for Prasad’s election. Similarly, Patel’s candidate, Purushottam Das Tandon, was elected as Congress President in 1950, defeating Nehru’s choice, J.B. Kripalani. Despite this, Patel prevented Nehru from resigning over the matter.
While discussing the differences between Patel and Nehru in the Nehru Cabinet, CD Deshmukh, the then Finance Minister, concludes: “The Nehru-Patel balance in the Cabinet was, therefore, a case of unstable equilibrium, maintained only by a common effort on either side not to encroach on each other’s assigned territory.” Even Viceroy Mountbatten remarked, “Sardar has his feet on the ground, while Nehru has his in the clouds!”
Creating False Narrative
The instances of differences are numerous, yet the Congress resolution claims there is a “spreading of a deliberate web of lies of conflict between Sardar Patel & Pandit Nehru.” While the Patel-Nehru rivalry is a well-documented aspect of Bharatiya politics, many in the anti-Sangh-BJP brigade are currently busy attempting, albeit unsuccessfully, to establish a “close relationship” between the two. This effort seems aimed at countering the building up of a pro-Sangh narrative, culminating in the resolution passed by the Congress Party. Congress finds itself with no choice but to praise Sardar Patel when holding their session in Gujarat.
Inspiration from Patel’s Ideology
The resolution states that Congress, in its quest to regain power, is drawing inspiration from Patel’s ideology, of course desperately. What Congress now discusses is not its own ideology, but rather Patel’s ideology, which is Hindutva.
VP Menon, Secretary in the Ministry, reports Patel’s reaction upon seeing the dilapidated state of the Somnath Temple, demolished by Muslim invaders: “He was visibly moved to find the temple which had once been the glory of India looking so dilapidated.” Patel proposed restoring the temple with the support of other leaders, but Nehru opposed it, citing secular credentials. Patel had the backing of leaders like Rajendra Prasad, KM Munshi, NV Gadgil, and others. The same Nehruvian legacy persists in today’s Congress, as evidenced by their decision to decline the invitation to attend the consecration ceremony of the Ram Mandir at Ayodhya in 2024.
When Jinnah demanded that Hindu-majority provinces like Punjab and Bengal join Pakistan, Patel opposed it, drawing criticism from Nehru. Patel allowed Muslims in various parts of Bharat desirous to go to Pakistan to do so, which Nehru criticised. Patel allocated houses in Delhi vacated by Muslims who left Bharat to non-Muslims as well, but Nehru insisted they should be given only to other Muslims. Patel’s bold pro-Hindu views on communal issues received widespread appreciation. He urged Muslims who remained in Bharat to be loyal to the nation and not demand special minority status, a stance Nehru often disagreed with.
Equation with RSS
Today’s Congress either refuses to learn from history or hides history, as the resolution states, “It was Sardar Patel, who banned the RSS on February 4, 1948.” Many suggest that Patel was initially influenced by reports of the police which was a continuation of British rule, and misunderstood the RSS while reluctantly endorsing Nehru’s plan to ban it. However, he always harboured inside his heart a belief that the RSS is a great organisation. During a Congress rally in Jaipur on January 6, 1948, just a month before the ban, Patel publicly praised the RSS as a patriotic organisation and criticised some in the ruling Government who said that the RSS should be “strangled to death.” A few weeks after the ban on the RSS, after reviewing investigation reports, Patel realised that banning the great organisation was a mistake. On February 27, 1948, Patel wrote to Nehru in a reply: “I have kept myself almost in daily touch with the progress of the investigations regarding Bapu’s assassination case. All the main accused have given long and detailed statements of their activities. It also clearly emerges from the statements that the RSS was not involved in it at all.” After examining the facts, he, along with many other Congress leaders, repeatedly asserted that the RSS was not involved in Gandhiji’s assassination. About six months later, while the ban was still in effect, Patel went to the extent of repeatedly urging Shri Guruji, the Sarsanghchalak of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, to have the RSS join Congress and stop opposing it. He wrote on September 11, 1948: “I once again ask you to give your thoughts to my Jaipur and Lucknow speeches and accept the path I had indicated for the RSS. I am quite certain that therein lies the good of the RSS and the country, and moving on that path, we can join hands in achieving the welfare of our country… I am thoroughly convinced that the RSS men can carry on their patriotic endeavour only by joining the Congress and not by keeping separate or by opposing.”
Due to the persistent efforts of Sardar Patel and other prominent leaders, Nehru was compelled to unconditionally lift the ban on the RSS on July 12, 1949, just a year and a half after it was imposed. Sardar Patel was elated by the fruition of his efforts to lift the ban and expressed his joy in a letter to Shri Guruji: “Only the people near me know how happy I was when the ban on Sangh was lifted. I wish you all the best.”
Aware of Nehru’s dubious intentions regarding the RSS, Patel and other leaders, while Nehru was abroad, persuaded the Indian National Congress Working Committee to pass a resolution on October 7, 1949, inviting the RSS to join the Congress Party. Upon Nehru’s return, he was displeased with it and attempted to retract the resolution, but only managed to make some superficial changes. The present leaders at the Ahmedabad Session of Congress concealed these facts about Patel in their resolution.
Eventually, over time, even Nehru’s attitude towards the RSS changed at the fag end of his life. Strangely, he allowed the RSS to participate in the Republic Day parade on January 26, 1963, in their “full ganvesh,” a unique occurrence in the history of Republic Day parades, after closely observing the RSS’s patriotic role during the Chinese aggression. Within a year, he met his demise. Will the current Congress carry forward the legacy of Nehru’s last wishes?
Elevating Nehru, Overlooking Patel
Unlike Nehru, Patel did not write his biography famously stating, ‘Why not create history, rather than waste time writing it!’ The fame Nehru could not achieve in twenty years as Prime Minister, Patel garnered in just three years as a formidable Home Minister. Patel, a staunch nationalist, passed away unexpectedly on December 15, 1950. However, during the prolonged Congress rule in post-Independent India, Nehru’s image was prominently displayed, while Sardar Patel was largely overlooked, despite garnering more support within the party than Nehru. Leftist historians, promoted by Nehru and the Congress Governments, continued to elevate Nehru’s image while relegating Patel to a lesser profile. The history of the post-Independent Congress has essentially been reduced to the history of a Nehru family, now inherited by the new “Gandhis.” Gopalkrishna Gandhi, their fellow traveller, noted that the post-Nehru Congress disowned Patel, as quoted by Ramachandra Guha even while praising the “noblest political partnership” between Nehru and Patel. Naturally, the Congress and the “Gandhi” family have reason to fear that Patel may overshadow Nehru in the minds of the average Bharatiya.
Honouring Patel
It was only when Narendra Modi came to power, both in Gujarat and at the national level and constructed the world-class memorial, the “Statue of Unity”, that Sardar Patel’s contributions were brought to prominence. Now, after nearly seven decades, Patel has become “Our Sardar” for the Congress for compelling reasons. While continuing the Nehruvian legacy, Congress seems to use Patel as a tool to attack the BJP and RSS politically, and nothing more.
Throughout the resolution in every paragraph, the focus is less on Patel and more on the Congress’s anxiety to oppose the BJP and RSS. The resolution states, “Once again, Congress is determined to follow the life principles of Sardar Patel to defeat the forces of animosity and division.” In an effort to provide a new direction for thought and action, they have adopted the new slogan “Our Sardar.”
Many in the Bharatiya media have rightly identified this as a “fresh attempt to reclaim the legacy of Sardar.” While the title describes Patel as the flag bearer of the freedom movement, he is more widely recognised as the ‘Iron Man of India’ for his formidable willpower in integrating 562 Princely States into Bharat. To confine Patel solely to the freedom movement is to diminish his legacy. The Congress Party has a long way to go to appropriate Patel’s legacy from the hands of nationalists. To achieve this, Congress must strive hard to prove itself led by nationalists, just as Patel was.
Comments