The writer is a columnist. He is also a former editor of the Mumbai-based English newspaper Mid Day and the Gujarati paper Divya Bhaskar
aakar.patel@tribune.com.pk
How Patel, who died in 1950, could have changed independent India’s destiny in three years was not explained by Modi. And what Patel would have done to do this was also not clear to the impartial observer. Did Modi mean that Indians would not have been so poor and backward had Patel led us instead of Nehru? Was that the meaning of “changed India’s destiny”? But Vallabhbhai Patel had no background of economic achievement or even understanding. Like the other great leaders of the time, his background was in law and his job was that of home minister.
No, what Modi was reaching for, of course, was the ‘unity and integrity of India’. In the ossified RSS mind, this is still under threat from Muslims and it is they whom Patel would have fixed and put in their place had he been prime minister.
This is what Modi meant, but is it true? Let’s look at it. But first, as I have said, Modi’s is not a serious view and Patel’s lifespan and background should make that clear. Declaring that Patel should have been prime minister instead of Nehru is the sort of thing said loosely in drawing room conversation, and something prime ministerial candidates should avoid.
In his book Sardar Patel and Indian Muslims, Rafiq Zakaria shows how Patel was actually secular and tolerant. His message to Hindus in the Constituent Assembly was: “It is for us who happen to be in a majority to think about what the minorities feel and imagine how we would feel if we were treated in the manner in which they are treated.”
Patel was no bigot and certainly not the anti-Muslim (though my uncles will be horrified to be told this) figure that those who lionise him for this reason seem to believe. He was instrumental, according to Zakaria, in giving Indian Muslims the right to proselytise and convert Hindus to Islam. This is what separates India from the states surrounding it and makes it civilised. Patel was also instrumental in giving minorities the right to run their own institutions. This is not the sort of work we imagine when we think of the no-nonsense Vallabhbhai. It is true, of course, that Patel looked on Muslim motives with suspicion after Partition. But he was able to put himself above his emotions. In fact, against the wishes of Dr Ambedkar, he gave Muslim leaders in the Constituent Assembly the opportunity to themselves take back their demand for separate electorates in India. This is something the Sikhs had demanded assuming, wrongly as Patel knew, that Muslims would also want it. This great gesture from Patel absolved Muslims from the charge of continued separatism.
Gandhi said this of Patel: “I know the Sardar ... His method and manner of approach to the Hindu-Muslim question, as also to several other questions, is different from mine and Pandit Nehru’s. But it is a travesty of truth to describe it as anti-Muslim. The Sardar’s heart is expansive enough to accommodate all.”
When Hindus and Muslims rioted, yet again, in Ahmedabad in 1941, Patel was in jail. This is what he told Gujaratis on his release: “The wounds that were inflicted on me, deep down within me, when I heard of what took place during the riots in this city, have still not healed. If even 10 had been bold enough to stand up to the miscreants, this would not have happened. In future, do not ever run away. Put up the defence. Face your enemy with a superior force: Gandhiji’s path of non-violence.”
How different Sardar Patel’s response is from that of Modi, who still defends his ministers, convicted of participating in a riot, 60 years later. The grand tribute Modi thinks he pays to him, Patel himself would not have appreciated.
Published in The Express Tribune, November 3rd, 2013.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS (27)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
It is not a Khalistani propaganda but a truth which is very hard to digest by followers of falsehood. If government does not allow to publish an inquiry report, it does not means other agencies do not have sources(William Dalrymple who is fond of India, exposed this too). razakars and corrupt Nizam also killed innocent people but that does not make Patel a secular man. Read every other historian except a few Hindu lunatics which included agents of so called Indian secularism and all of them will agree with facts. Which secularism asks courts, police and administration to protect criminals only secularism of Advani, Patel, Indira, rajiv and Narsimha. These people need to be exposed. Hopefully religious Hindus who believe in Truth and believe that people of minority are also creation of God and God lives in everyone will dare to side with me. By the way Muslim rule lasted for 500 years. They were not fair rulers, corrupt and looters of public money( They robbed both Hindus and muslims) but during this period not a single movement was started for independence except a communist upsurge, where were these brave people that time? They did this heinous crime because they were protected from prosecution and assisted by Indian army. Aval Allah noor upiaa kudrat key sab Bandey, ek noor tey sabb jag upjiaa kaun Bhaley ko Mandey(Saint kabir)
The 'what if' scenarios in the case of the then sub continent are too numerous to have a meaningful dialogue or even a. Conclusion. So then we are left with what we really have in terms of the leadership of India. The argument the author puts forth that Patel lacked a background in economics or finance is shallow at best. Nehru as best I know was no economist but instead was a barrister and a 2nd rate statesman. We could then based on Nehru's personal ambitions and self centered drive ascertain that things may have been different had a man other than Nehru been at the helm or even prepartition at the forefront. Afterall, this was the same man who stabbed the man in the back several times whom he reffred to as Bapu. From what little I know of Sardar Patel is that he was a figure who lurked in the shadows and never really was a front runner who exhibited bold thinking a fact Gandhi himself and the historians of the era acknowledged.
@IndiaFirst V/s HinduRashtra:
With correction of date:
Sardar Patel’s letter dated February 27, 1948 to Nehru clearly says that he was aware of day-to-day investigation of the murder of Mahatma Gandhi and there was no direct or indirect hand of RSS in the murder of Mahatma Gandhi; he claimed that Gandhi was murdered by a very small fanatical group of the Hindu Mahasabha. This letter written in response to Nehru’s letter when Nehru was in Paris, is available in Sardar Patel’s volume .
The Home Minister Sardar Patel had no doubt in his mind as to who had conspired to kill Gandhi. That is why RSS was absolved of the killing by Patel in February 1948 within a month of Gandhi's murder.
@IndiaFirst V/s HinduRashtra:
Sardar Patel’s letter dated February 27, 1949 to Nehru clearly says that he was aware of day-to-day investigation of the murder of Mahatma Gandhi and there was no direct or indirect hand of RSS in the murder of Mahatma Gandhi; he claimed that Gandhi was murdered by a very small fanatical group of the Hindu Mahasabha. This letter written in response to Nehru’s letter when Nehru was in Paris, is available in Sardar Patel’s volume .
The Home Minister Sardar Patel had no doubt in his mind as to who had conspired to kill Gandhi. That is why RSS was absolved of the killing by Patel in February 1948 within a month of Gandhi's murder.
@Jasbir Singh:
u r wrong.......In-fact the Razakars led by Qasim Rizvi killed more Hindus in Hyderabad they were in majority........Khalistani propaganda will not suceed......
This is wrong article. Patel was the brain behind the killing of over 200000 muslims by Hindu mobs in Hyderabad in 1948. Nehru did bring crocodile ears on that. Patel never repented on this. Report on that incident is still burried. Patel was the one who got offended from the too many Sikh officers in army and he was the one who issued orders against settlement of sikhs who were displaced from Pakistani Punjab in and around Amritsar. He was an arrogant and egotistic person. Gappa(n) naa maro bhau jee, shukriya and rabb rakha
Sardar Patel was Gandhian to core..and it was Him as Home Minister banned RSS , as RSS was suspected to be behind cowardly act of killing unarmed, non-violent Mahatma Gandhi. Sardar Patel with able support of civil servant VK Menon was instrumental in bringing princely states under Indian communion. Sardar Patel was iron fisted in defending secular fabric of India, unlike RSS which promotes communal hatred. BJP failed miserably during attacks on Parliament building, Akshardham temple, Kargil and hijacking of IC 184. BJP /RSS have come out to be pauper and weak kneed while handling all these crises. Just making hypothetical statements on " what Sardar Patel done ...etc etc" is nothing short do fantasy. Instead intelligent, educated Indians should look ahead to face dangers of communal agenda of BJP/RSS.
ETBLOGS1987
“Patel was no bigot and certainly not the anti-Muslim (though my uncles will be horrified to be told this) figure that those who lionise him for this reason seem to believe.”
Indeed he was no bigot, so a true secular party lionises him while a pseudo secular party which believes in minority appeasement has ignored his stellar contribution to keeping India united and integrating it.
Difficult to understand how a non entity tabloid writer in India finds space in a leading newspaper of Pakistan.
Patel knew how to put razarkars in their place while uniting hyderabad to India.
Mr. Aaker Patel, why after Modi came to the national scene, it has become a fashion to depict any appeasement to Muslims as secular and tolerant whereas if you talk of equality to Muslims is regarded as communal ?
Why when Modi reaches out to Muslims, people like you call it crocodile tears , whereas those reached out to Muslims all these years and kept them as poor called secular or savior of Muslims ?
I hope author knows that nehru's background was also in law and he was not a master of Economics. Also, patel's dont need degree of economics for managing businesses, just see around the world all patels are businessman. even here in karachi and around the world, patels aka gujarati, parsi, sindhi, marwari are best natural born businessmans and administrators even ahead of jews. Dont forget that creators of both pakistan and india are gujaratis. We dont know what patel would have done if he was prime minister of india but he was most favored candidate for PM position. also we know that he did unite india, which pakistan failed to do by even trying religion and language at its best and here our leaders say we will create global ummah but refuse to sit with each other and blame others. There are no offending statements, so ET should display my comments.
I hope author knows that nehru's background was also in law and he was not a master of Economics. Also, patel's dont need degree of economics for managing businesses, just see around the world all patels are businessman. even here in karachi and around the world, patels aka gujarati, parsi, sindhi, marwari are best natural born businessmans and administrators even ahead of jews. Dont forget that creators of both pakistan and india are gujaratis. We dont know what patel would have done if he was prime minister of india but he was most favored candidate for PM position. also we know that he did unite india, which pakistan failed to do by even trying religion and language at its best and here our leaders say we will create global ummah but refuse to sit with each other and blame others.
So the Hindus, Christians have to be secular . But Muslims can be extremists?
I regret we had a empire because these are dregs we end up with.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2484232/Drug-dealers-500-000-cannabis-haul-jailed-neighbours-sniffed-drug-den-called-police.html#comments
I am wondering how the history of two countries is diffrent from each other in pakistan one is villon the same person is hero in india our heros are diffrent our food the size of bread like naan in pakistan is bigger than indias and same way our cloths the way of living and last of all mr patel and mr nehru are two greatest villons of all india congress for muslims of pakistan and india the are heros to muslims???? Aurangzeb alamgir (ele rahmah) and Sultan Mehmood Ghaznavi (ele rahmah) are two greatest heros of us and in india ??
"It is true, of course, that Patel looked on Muslim motives with suspicion after Partition. But he was able to put himself above his emotions. In fact, against the wishes of Dr Ambedkar, he gave Muslim leaders in the Constituent Assembly the opportunity to themselves take back their demand for separate electorates in India. This is something the Sikhs had demanded assuming, wrongly as Patel knew, that Muslims would also want it."
And in this bigoted Pakistan, Christians and other minorities already have this right of separate electorate.
"This great gesture from Patel absolved Muslims from the charge of continued separatism."
Did he really? Is there no place in India called "Mini Pakistan".
It is because of the machinations of people such as Patel, that Quaid-e-Azam Jinnah wanted a separate homeland for Muslims. Rafiq Zakaria's family stayed back,so ofcourse for them Jinnah is all evil and Patel is all angel.
@Author:
"Patel was no bigot and certainly not the anti-Muslim (though my uncles will be horrified to be told this) figure that those who lionise him for this reason seem to believe."
Wow! Then why your uncles would be horrified??????
Aakar Patel is a well known bigot who will lie brazenly and without compunction. For the real factual picture the best source is the Modinama series by Madhu Kiishwar (e-book can be downloaded from www.manushi.in)
Patel was a staunch believer in the minority hostage theory. On this and many other issues, he agreed with the President of the Hindu Mahasabha, S. P. Mukherjee. Patel repeatedly threatened the Liaquat Ali govt that if persecution of the Hindus continued in Pakistan, the Indian Muslims would bear the brunt (and in many occasions followed on the threat). Gandhi, Patel, Rajendra Prasad etc were Congress right, in cahoots with the "big business" and the money magnets of the day. They were also part and parcel of the soft majority communalism which has engulfed India today. Only Bose and Nehru (and before them C. R. Das and Motilal) were truly secular in pre-partition India. As for Modi, his true ideological predecessors are Patel and Mukherjee, on many issues of the day who were indeed on the same page.
MAJ and the ML ideologues deliberately referred to India as Hindustan during partition. When Gandhi died in 1948 MAJ again deliberately said a great Hindu leader has died.
Following this logic....In Hindustan Muslims admire the politician who granted them the right to convert Hindus to Muslims. In the Muslimstan, the Muslims reduced the Hindu population from 25% to < 2%. Not satisfied, ensured constitutionally guaranteed 2nd class citizenship to Hindus and still not satisfied converting and harassing the remaining Hindus.
Then every day you write angry agitated columns demanding why BJP is popular in Hindustan. Truths Are Self-evident.
Let aside Modi, I am glad to read an unbiased account of Sardar Patel by another Patel. I have always been sceptical of Maulana's or RSS' take on that person. Both of them looked at him from their narrow prism. Patel did not envision any Hindu Nation (or Akhand Bharat) as RSS would like us to believe nor was maintaining law & Order in Delhi his personal duty/moral responsibility as Maulana ji would like us to believe. Partition, Kashmir & China were other issues where there was profound difference b/w Nehru and Patel - with the benefit of hindsight, Nehruji's vision turned out to be more rose tinted than real (nobody's above mistake).
Simple Fact is that Patel was Deputy PM and Home Minister for a very brief period and had a primary job of politically integrating the entire country in a short time span, so as to avoid Internationalisation and disintegration of entire India. Also he was a senior member of several committees of Constituent Assembly on Fundamental Rights, minority rights etc. By looking at the map of India and the relevant provisions of the Constitution, I think one can conclude that he did his job in a fine manner. Period.
1)Mr Aakar Patel refuses to mention why The so called Congressman has been ignored by Congress for 60 yrs.....every other govt scheme is named after fake Gandhi family and mass murder Rajiv gandhi.........Why this sudden realization about The great Sardar...???????
2)Yes,Sardar Patel was secular.......BUT Not vote bank secular;In which one community can marry 4 times(against the constitution),loans are given but told not to be paid,the widows of persons particular religion are given pension ignoring others.....An Communal Violence Bill is proposed which assumes that only Majority community can do riots.......
No Aakar, what your uncles and other relatives probably meant is that Sardar Patel would not have let the Kashmir problem fester. Look at how he united the nation post independence. He took some tough decisions and was able to assimilate numerous tiny princely states into India. Even in case of complications, he settled the matter judiciously rather than go crying to a third party. Even Gandhi told him "the problem of the States is so difficult that you alone can solve it".
What they also probably meant is that if Sardar Patel were alive in 1962, he would have found a way to beat the Chinese back.
They may have also alluded to the fact that Sardar Patel did not believe in the politics of appeasement. In all his deeds, he acted for the betterment of the country and was blind the religion of its people.