The Sardar praised the RSS for
defending vulnerable Hindus and Sikhs in 1947, but that cannot be taken as
support for the RSS, which he banned in 1948.
Rajmohan Gandhi
Despite
sharply expressed differences,Vallabhbhai Patel (1875-1950) and Jawaharlal Nehru (1889-1964) formed a remarkable
partnership at India's helm during the first three years of Independence,
ending only when Patel died in December 1950. Patel the realist was home
minister and deputy premier, Nehru the visionary was premier and foreign
minister. The two constituted a formidable pair.
Patel represented Indian nationalism's Hindu face, Nehru India's secular and
also global face. Their partnership, necessary and fruitful for the country,
was a solemn commitment that each made to the other.
When
Gandhi was killed, it was put down in writing. The Sardar's initial wish, when
the Mahatma was killed, was to resign. India's home minister, he reasoned,
should have protected its most valued person.
He wrote
a letter of resignation to Nehru but did not send it. On February 3, 1948 —
four days after the assassination — he received a letter from Nehru in which
the latter said that during "over a quarter century" when the two
together "faced many storms and perils", his "affection and
regard" for Patel had grown, that nothing "can happen to lessen
this", and that Gandhi's death required from the two of them "full
loyalty to and confidence in one another". "I can assure you that you
will have that from me," added Nehru.
In his
reply, Patel wrote on February 5, "We both have been lifelong comrades...
The paramount interests of our country and our mutual love and regard,
transcending such differences of outlook and temperament as existed, have held
us together... Bapu's opinion also binds us both. I am fully resolved to
approach my responsibilities and obligations in this spirit."
Don't
Miss the Con-text
Let us
recall the times: 1946 had seen great and large-scale inhumanity in Kolkata,
Noakhali, Bihar and western Uttar Pradesh. This inhumanity reached unspeakable
and even larger levels in the following year in Rawalpindi and Multan in March
1947, and in both halves of Punjab between August and November 1947.
It would
be unfair to judge anyone's lasting opinions from words uttered in that
inflamed and tragic context. If the Sardar praised the RSS for
defending vulnerable Hindus and Sikhs in 1947, he did nothing improper.
But that
cannot be taken as his support for the RSS, which he banned after the Gandhi
assassination. Patel banned the RSS not because he had evidence of its
complicity in the murder — his ministry had concluded that an extremist wing of
the Hindu Mahasabha rather than the RSS had organised it — but because of his
assessment that the RSS was indulging "in dangerous activities".
With
Nehru's agreement, Patel lifted the ban a year later. But Patel also insisted
that the RSS become a solely cultural organisation and adopt a democratic
structure and constitution. Subsequent history showed that his advice was not
followed.
In the
subcontinent's debates of the 1940s, Patel was a defender of Hindu interests.
He was also, after Independence, a defender of India as a secular state and one
of the architects of the Constitution that guarantees equal rights to all
Indians and assures rights to the weak and to religious minorities. In framing
a legal measure or implementing the government's duty to protect the
threatened, Patel went not by his sympathies but by the law.
He was
not anti-Muslim. In January, 1948, he said, "We have just heard people
shouting that Muslims should be removed from India. Those who do so have gone
mad with anger." In February 1949, he spoke of "Hindu Raj" as
"that mad idea".
Sardar is Unhappy
Initially hurt by Gandhi's last fast of January 1948, which sought
minority rights in both India and Pakistan, the Sardar said, referring to
Gandhi, "We take a short-range view while he takes a long-range one."
Patel's candid defence of Hindu rights in pre-1947 discussions has
tempted some elements to try and appropriate him as a Hindu icon with a
concealed yet clear suggestion that Patel's legacy somehow legitimises
anti-Muslim acts.
Statue!
Even the short account here shows that such an attempt would dishonour Patel's great life. Yet, persistent and clever propaganda plus the undoubted fact that Congress governments in recent decades did little to keep Patel's memory alive could enable a false image to trump the facts of history, at least in the short run. I am troubled by Narendra Modi's appeal for support for his Sardar statue contains the following words, "Yet, it is equally true that there are forces within our country that are threatened by this unity. They have used guns and bombs to scare and mislead the people."
Even the short account here shows that such an attempt would dishonour Patel's great life. Yet, persistent and clever propaganda plus the undoubted fact that Congress governments in recent decades did little to keep Patel's memory alive could enable a false image to trump the facts of history, at least in the short run. I am troubled by Narendra Modi's appeal for support for his Sardar statue contains the following words, "Yet, it is equally true that there are forces within our country that are threatened by this unity. They have used guns and bombs to scare and mislead the people."
Terrorism is a reality for Indians, though Pakistanis face it even more.
The words from Modi are not untrue. But linking them so frontally to the Sardar
statue is not a constructive exercise. I smell something political and
polarising in the project.
The writer is a biographer of Vallabhbhai Patel
