Whose Sardar is he anyway?
Whose Sardar is he anyway?
Tarun Vijay questions the Congresss claim
on a leader it sought to sideline
It's good to find that Sardar Patel has re-emerged in the Congress
Partys offices, at least in Gujarat. It will be interesting
to know that in the offices of the Deputy Prime Minister L K Advani
and BJP president Venkaiah Naidu, one does not find portraits of
either Shyama Prasad Mookerji or Deen Dayal Upadhyaya, but of Sardar
Patel.
His photos may be found even in
some RSS offices. That the Congress, which saw nothing beyond the
Nehrus until now and which named all buildings, squares and stadiums
under its control after the descendants of the Nehru dynasty, has
to take refuge in the Sardar signifies the power of the Hindu votebank.
This is the time to dwell on what
Sardar stood for and the reasons for the serious differences between
the then Prime Minister and his deputy Prime Minister during those
turbulent days. Nothing gives us more insight than the diary of
the Sardars daughter, Maniben Patel (edited by P N Chopra,
published by Vision Books).
It reveals how Nehru could not tolerate
the Sardars stature, how he tried to demolish the institution
of collective leadership and humiliate him on issues like Kashmir.
It also tells us the Sardars views on Communists, Muslims
and the conversion of Hindus.
Nehru tried to go soft on the Hyderabad
action, apparently to appease Muslims. But the Sardar told C Rajgopalachari
in no uncertain terms that nothing would stop him from pursuing
strong action to remove an ulcer, and that Nehru
should remain within his limits.
The diary says: Sardar
Patel bluntly told Rajaji that he would not want the future generations
to blame and curse him for allowing an ulcer in the heart of India.
On one side is western Pakistan and on the other side eastern Pakistan
(with their idea of (a) pan-Islamic bloc... (they want to) come
to Delhi and establish the Mughal empire again. Once we enter Hyderabad,
it is no longer an international affair. It is the States Ministrys
function. How long are you and Panditji going to bypass the Ministry
of the States and carry on? (September 13, 1948).
Those who publish Patels photographs
on their manifestos in Gujarat dont have the courage to call
a spade a spade. Kashmir alone isnt behind Pakistans
hatred for India. Its just a manifestation of centuries old
animosity against Hindus that has continued since the times of Muhammad
bin Qasim. Give them Kashmir today, they will find another excuse
to attack us next day till he reaches Delhi.
The diary says, Sardar
Patel was very unhappy that Nehru had taken the Kashmir issue to
the UN which tied Indias hands. His idea was that India should
extricate itself from the UN patiently and then solve the Kashmir
problem forever. He was also unhappy when reports came that the
fertilised land left behind in Jammu by Muslim zamindars who had
migrated to Pakistan was not being given to Hindu refugees.
Instead, the Sheikh was insisting
on settling only Muslim refugees on such land (May 1, 1949)... (there
were reports) that the majority of government employees were pro-Pakistani.
Exactly the same complaints we hear from the Valley and even Jammu
today.
Nehru was a close friend of Sheikh
Abdullah, while the Sardar didnt trust him at all. The diary
reveals that even Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad, former prime minister
of Kashmir, felt that the Sardar could have solved Kashmir if Nehru
had not intervened. Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad, on the other
hand, was insisting that the Sardar should settle the Kashmir issue
as he had done Hyderabad. But Nehru would not allow it. Iyengar
reported that the Sheikh wanted to have an independent Kashmir.
Upon hearing this, the Sardar said he would ask the Maharaja to
return to Jammu as he did not place any trust in Sheikh Abdullah
(May 12, 1949).
Maniben also refers to a discussion
about the possibility of the partition of Kashmir which involved
India retaining Jammu and handing over the rest of the state to
Pakistan. Patel retorted: We want the entire territory...
and battle for the whole of Kashmir (July 23, 1949).
The Sardar was happy to see Guru
Golwalkar, the then RSS chief, released from jail and wanted to
welcome RSS workers in the Congress. On 3rd August, 49, says the
diary: Glad at release of Golwalkarready to welcome
in Congress. Bapus (Sardars) task to make their entry
easy.
Today, a Congress leader attends
an Osama tainted institute in London but wont say a word on
the atrocities on Hindus in Bangladesh. The Sardar reacted differently
under similar circumstances. Maniben records: Sardar
Patel was not happy with the Nehru-Liaquat Ali Pact as it did not
stop the exodus of Hindus from East Pakistan which went on increasing
and a large number of Hindus continued to migrate to India.
Sardar Patel observed that he was
not so much worried about the killings, after all 30 lakh people
had died in the Bengal famine, but he could not stand assaults on
women and their forcible conversion to Islam... (April 5, 1950).
The Sardar further said: Hindus
had been totally finished in Sind, Punjab, Baluchistan and Frontier
Provinces. It was being repeated in East Pakistan and people like
Hafizur Rehman, who had stayed on in India, would be clamouring
for (a) homeland in India. What would be our position then. Our
posterity would call us traitors. (April 24, 1950)
Sardar Patel did not trust the Communists
either. He told M O Mathai, Nehrus Special Assistant, If
we have to build up the nation, Communists would have no place there.
(September 13, 1948). He didnt know that though
his photo would be used on the Congress manifesto, and that the
same people would join hands with the Communists whom he hated the
most.
Interestingly, Maniben mentions
in her diary that Sardar had one common goal with Savarkar. They
differed on several issues but both of them wanted the four
crore Muslims in India to be loyal to the country; otherwise there
was no place for them (August 16, 1949). Compare these
views with the RSS stand today!
The writer is editor of the RSS
journal Panchjanya
|