Mountbatten must have had the shock of his life at the outburst of Sardar Patel to his face which no other Congress leader could have dared to do. Mountbatten had himself recorded what Patel said:
“Since you have come out here, the situation in the country has become worse. There is a civil war on and you are doing nothing to stop it. You won’t govern yourself and you won’t let the Central Government govern. You cannot escape responsibility for this bloodshed”… “If you will not act yourself, then turn over full authority to the Central Government and let us stop the Muslim League war in the Punjab and the North-West Frontier Province; let us stop the Muslim League Army being mobilized in Bengal to attack Assam; let us govern!”
Obviously, Patel had asked for the authority to stop these outrages of the Muslim League by military action. Another shock for Mountbatten and Nehru was the strong stand taken by Patel to remove Auckinleck as the Commander-in-Chief of the Indian Armed forces in 1948. Nehru had been an admirer of Auckinleck and according to Mountbatten the background for Commander-in-Chief Auchinleck’s leaving for home was that he “couldn’t get Patel to believe his integrity”. His agent V.P. Menon also kept trying “to explain to Patel that Auchinleck’s integrity was complete, but it was no use”.
Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel is an icon among our freedom fighters who had at the time of partition realized that his political mentor Gandhi’s ideology of non-violence could not be the basis of the Indian nation, as there were both external and internal threats that had to be dealt with an iron hand for the defense of India as well as Hindus. Throughout his life of a freedom fighter, he had adhered to the Gandhian principles and so much so, that he did not utter a word when he was deprived of being the Congress President, not once but twice, in 1929 and 1946 by Gandhi and both times to appease Nehru.
For the Lahore Congress Session in 1929, 10 PCC’s had suggested the name of Gandhi, 5 of Sardar Patel and only 3 of Jawaharlal Nehru. Yet, Gandhi nominated Nehru and this was repeated again in April 1946 when no PCC had recommended the name of Nehru. Again, Gandhi kept aside the nominations that had come for Sardar Patel and nominated Nehru.
The British intrigues to cut India into pieces, the creation of Pakistan, the brutal violence by the Muslim League against Hindus, and Pakistan’s invasion of Kashmir made Sardar Patel move away from the non-violent ideology as for him the nation was above all.
The firm stand that he took in retaliating to the Islamist violence at the time of partition was his first departure from non-violence even when Gandhi was very much there.It was only the voice of Sardar Patel who vehemently protested when Chittagong and the Chakma Hills were being handed over to East Pakistan as they were non-Muslim areas and Patel had strongly pleaded for their inclusion in India. However, the Congress under Nehru failed to check this. His military actions in Junagarh and Hyderabad had stunned not only the British and Nehru, but the so-called non-violent Congressman too. But for Sardar Patel, India would have had many Pakistans like Hyderabad, Junagarh, Bhopal and Ajmer.
Patel wanted to take Junagarh immediately after the transfer of power whereas the Nawab of Junagarh wanted to accede to Pakistan though more than 85 per cent population was of Hindus. In the words of Mountbatten:
“Vallabhbhai Patel who was a native of nearby Gujarat, was widely excited and enraged. He wanted to invade Junagadh with troops immediately. Seeing the danger, I created quickly the Defense Committee of the new Dominion of which I took the chair. Even if I was criticized at the time, I felt it was right and nobody else had enough knowledge to do it.”
Such records should open the eyes of those Congressmen who boast that Mountbatten was a friend of India. Mountbatten’s support to the Nawab had thus delayed the military action on Junagarh till February 1948: just on the eve of Mountbatten’s departure.
Patel’s policies and actions in relation to Kashmir are well known. He had taken a firm standin spite of being as number two under Nehru, and althoughhis hands were tied on many countsdue to the constraints of democratic values under a stubborn arrogant Nehru. Yet, at a time when Mountbatten was prompting Maharaja Karan Singh not to join any Union and Nehru was all for Sheikh Abdullah, Patel opposed the visits of Mahatma Gandhi and Pundit Nehru in July 1946 to the Viceroy Mountbatten who was insisting for their visits. Ultimately, Patel bluntly added “if it is a choice between two evils, I can consider that Gandhi Ji’s visit would be the lesser evil”.
It was he who could carry through not only the integration of Kashmir with India but even making the Indian forces land there to fight back the Pakistanis. This was a blow for Liyaqat Ali who had been waiting at Abbottabad to hoist the Pakistani flag in Srinagar. Patel’s proposal for Air bombing the entry routes of Pakistanis into Kashmir was overruled by Nehru. Same was the situation when Nehru accepted the ceasefire without ousting the Pakistani forces which that led to the creation of Pak Occupied Jammu & Kashmir (POJK). One must also remember here that Nehru was reluctant about sending Indian troops to Kashmir and it was only Patel who had persuaded Nehru. The idea of raising the Kashmir issue in UN by Nehru at Mountbatten’s advice was also disliked by Patel.
Such differences of opinion over Kashmir had always been there between the two and had come out openly on the issue of Article 370 also. In fact, on the question of giving Rs. 55 crores also to Pakistan it was Sardar Patel who was the first to oppose it in the Cabinet Meeting commenting “not a pie” but Nehru under the influence of Gandhi and Mountbatten agreed to it.
Patel’s opinion about Sheikh Abdullah was reflected in what he wrote to Gopala Swami “whenever Sheikh Saheb wishes to back out, he always confronts us with his duty to the people. Of course, he owes no duty to India or to the Indian Government, or even on a personal basis, to you and the Prime Minister (Nehru) who have gone all out to accommodate him”. How true were the words of Patel was proved by later events.
Patel also wrote that “after all neither Sheikh Abdullah nor Goswami were permanent as the future will depend on the strength and guts of the Indian Government and if we cannot have confidence in our own strength, we do not deserve to exist as a nation”. And no doubt, it is Prime Minister Narendra Modi who demonstrated the confidence and strength to do away with Article 370.
On December 23, 1947 itself, Patel wanted to resign from Nehru’s cabinet for he even differed with Nehru as regards the role of Prime Minister on different issues. On January 12, 1948, Patel had written to both Gandhi and Nehru that Nehru was acting undemocratically by taking decisions on his own on issues that were the purview of other ministers. In fact, it was the death of Gandhi that created a temporary truce between Patel and Nehru.
Any protest by Patel over the conduct and utterances of Sheikh Abdullah to Nehru were side-tracked by Nehru who openly favoured Sheikh Abdullah over anyone else when it came to Kashmir. This was a time when Sheikh Abdullah had been talking with the Americans on one hand of independent Kashmir and on the other hand he was in touch with the leaders of Pak Occupied Kashmir to have a settlement with them.
As in the case of Junagarh, the British supported the Nizam of Hyderabad and the policy towards Hyderabad also became a major issue of contention between Sardar Patel and Nehru. The Nizam of Hyderabad wanted either to accede to Pakistan or remain independent. The British supported him as this secret letter reveals when Burnett wrote to Noel-Bakeron July 21 1948 :
“We have received information from various reliable sources that India may soonmarch her troops into Hyderabad. Sardar Patel’s speech of July 15 is a clear pointedto India’s intentions. If this happens, the whole of the subcontinent would be plunged in bloodshed. It would be regarded as the attack of militant Hinduism on the last stronghold of Muslims in new India and, apart from the fighting in Hyderabad itself,communal disorders of the worst type would break out throughout India. Frankly, I fear a catastrophe even worse if possible than the East Punjab and Delhi massacres.”
However, it was Sardar Patel who ignored these British concerns keeping India’s interests in mind.
The private army of Razakars made brutal attacks on Hindus: killing, raping, looting and burning. Yet, Nehru was not even prepared to stop the transit of non-military goods to Hyderabad and had even pulled up the Bombay government for halting the supply of salt to Hyderabad. Nehru’s actions had convinced Mountbatten that no military action would be authorized against Hyderabad whereas Patel was determined for a direct action. Nehru kept repeating that it was not India’s policy to compel the states for accession, ignoring the atrocities being done by the Razakars on Hindus. The least Nehru could do was to announce the moving of a contingent of the Indian Army to the cantonment in Hyderabad for maintaining law and order. Patel had declared Hyderabad “an ulcer in the abdomen in India” and had warned if Hyderabad did not behave properly; it will have to go the way Junagarh was dealt with. Mountbatten had been forewarned by V.P. Menon: his plant in Patel’s ministry, that Patel had decided for military action but he could not say when as it was not in his purview. Ultimately, it was Sardar Patel who carried out Operation Polo taking over Hyderabad via military action, much to the dismay of Mountbatten.
The Communist Party of India though opposing the feudal autocracy of the Nizam also opposed Patel, calling his actions as “bourgeois Protalitarialism”. This in spite of many communists being killed by the Razakars as they were Hindus.
No history book mentions that when the demand of Meoistan was raised very next to Delhi it was Sardar Patel who through Gopichand Bhargav, the Chief Minister of Punjab had got the leader arrested, closing his school and ceasing his bank accounts. However, it was Nehru who got the traitor released for it was suggested to him by Shri Prakash who had met him in jail on Nehru’s instructions that “such people are useful for them outside”.
Similarly, no history book has ever mentioned that Sardar Patel had proposed to liberate Goa at that time only through military actions but an international image cautious Nehru had opposed this proposal on the ground that what will the world say for we claim that we have achieved independence through non-violence.
However, Goa always remained on Sardar’s mind as it was in 1949, when Sardar was on way to Bombay on an Indian Naval Ship, he asked the Captain to take the ship into Goa waters. The Captain asked for the written order which Sardar Patel gave. On reaching the Goan waters, Patel asked how many soldiers were on the ship. When he was told there were 3,000 soldiers he said then let’s take Goa and the Captain asked for written orders for that. On this Sardar Patel laughed and asked, will you obey those orders or will yousend it to Nehru for approval? The captain said yes, he would have to seek approval. And that was the end of it. However, the RSS kept this demand alive and launched movements also for Goa’s liberation.
Similarly, his letter to Nehru regarding China of November 1949 which raised not only serious concerns regarding China’s intentions towards India, but also suggested methods to counter the Chinese moves, was put into the dustbin by Nehru, the Prime Minister. Patel had not only foreseen the aggressive Chinese designs on India, but had suggested measures to combat them like strengthening the Army and Intelligence presence in the North Eastern states, win over the confidence of the people, build infrastructure and so on. You can imagine that had these suggestions been met in 1949 the results in 1962 would have been totally different but for the Hindi-Chini Bhai-Bhai policies of Nehru.
Sardar Patel was the one who had very strongly pleaded for taking back the Azad Hind Fauj soldiers and officers into the Indian Army but this too was vehemently ruled out by Nehru under the influence of Viceroy Wavell, Commander-in-Chief Auchinleck, and Viceroy Mountbatten.
On May 22, 1946, at a meeting of INA officers in Delhi, it was Sardar Patel who presided over and in his presence a one minute silence was kept not to mourn the death of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, but to pray for his welfare wherever he was. This again was contrary to Nehru, who kept harping on the plane crash death story. It was Sardar Patel who secretly got the films and audio recordings of Netaji’s speeches in South East Asia sent to India. It was he only, who asked the newspapers to publish the photographs of Netaji and INA and not only this, he financed Captain Raturi to take his orchestra all over the country singing the patriotic and marching songs of the Azad Hind Fauj. Though, Sardar Patel intervened in the Naval Uprising he was fully aware that the uprising had been a continuity of the Azad Hind Fauj’s efforts and unlike Gandhi he never called this uprising as a fight for Daal-Roti.
Sardar Patel wanted a strong army for India and though being a Home Minister, he strongly protested to Rajagopalachari, the Second Governor General of the “Indian Dominion”(appointed with the permission of British King in April 1948 by Nehru,) for the speech he had delivered at the Indian Military Academy in Dehradun criticizing the expansion of army and the talk of war. Rajagopalachari had to retract his words writing back to Patel. Sardar’s respect for the Indian Army was also reflected for what he wrote in a personal message to General Thimayya when he lost his brother Major Sonayya in the war with Pakistan:
“Your brother died for a noble cause, and that should be some consolation, if there can be any consolation while mourning the death of a brother while in the prime of life.”
In 1950, at the opening ceremony of the Armed Forces Academy Sardar Patel had stated “During our struggle for freedom, the Indian Armed Forces, were the most difficult hurdles to cross… Nevertheless, we found our officers and men safely installed in positions of honour.”
Not just Nehru but his blue-eyed boy Krishna Menon’s hate for Patel went to the extent that he wrote to the Director of the Intelligence Bureau denouncing Patel.
It was Sardar Patel who initiated the reconstruction of the Somnath Temple much to the annoyance of Nehru who even got a letter written to the Indian High Commissions not to contribute in any way in the fundraising appeals being made internationally. Thus, the Indian Diaspora that had always kept the flag of Hinduism flying in the plantation colonies, was deprived of contributing in this holy task. Nehru’s opposition to this is so well known regarding how he humiliated the then President of India, Rajendra Prasad, barring his presence at the inauguration.
The only Congress leader whom the Muslim League goons attempted to assassinate was Sardar Patel at Bhavnagar on 14th May 1939. Sardar Patel in a letter to Rajendra Prasad himself explained this “…almost everywhere. Its repercussions have been wide and you must have seen that a deliberate and pre-arranged attack was made on my procession in Bhavnagar on the 14th May. This attack was aimed at me, but they missed the mark by giving a signal for the attack just a minute earlier. At the appointed time the signal being given, a crowd of Muslim goondas rushed out from the masjid by which the procession was passing and made a sudden attack with arms. Two of my volunteers were killed and several people wounded. The police were unprepared for the attack and had come unarmed.” In the same letter he wrote “The League is out for mischief and we cannot afford to be weak.”
The Nehru dynasty keeps boasting of Nehru’s arrests under the British but at no point will ever mention the arrests of Sardar Patel or of other Congress leaders which were no less than those of Nehru.
None else then Prof. Sarvepalli Gopal, Nehru’s biographer and also the Chief Editor of Nehru’s Selected Works wrote that “…particularly after the death of Patel, the Cabinet was gradually reduced to a collection of team subordinates”.
Jai Prakash Narain, in 1951 itself had charged Nehru with being a dictator and his reverence for Sardar Patel is reflected in a letter he wrote to Nehru “Since Patel’s death I have, one by one, lost my illusions and it has become a political duty to criticize, even to attack you.”
No doubt, Prime Minister Narendra Modi gives all respect to Gandhian non-violence and assures the world that India stands for peace but at the same time he has carried forward the policies of Sardar Patel for defending India through not only military operations against the terrorist neighbour Pakistan, or a fitting reply to China at the borders, but also increasing the defense budget , promoting all the defense measures, boosting the morale of soldiers that are needed to protect the territorial integrity, constitution and our Indian democracy.
Jai Hind.
Comments