BD Sharma
Sardar Patel has been brought in the limelight by the BJP after it emerged as the main opposition party and later on as the ruling party. On the one hand the party designed to belittle Nehru- the icon of the Congress party and its present leadership and on the other hand it eulogised Patel. Sardar Patel fits the bill suitably as some of his thoughts weld in the frame of thinking of BJP. His differences with Nehru on a host of issues are a part of history and provide a lot of fodder both to the historian as well as the common man. Some years back, LK Advani came out with his blog in which he cast aspersions on Nehru for his role during the Hyderabad crisis and sang paeans of Patel on his firm, bold and timely intervention. Some days back Prime Minister Modi in his address in Parliament had also stated that Pt. Nehru had not handled the Kashmir issue properly and if Sardar Patel’s line of thinking were allowed, there would have been no issue on Kashmir as the State would have got fully integrated with India. This assertion of the Prime Minister has been contested by many including Prof Saifuddin Soz, a senior Congress leader, who, as reported in the Daily Excelsior, has contested this statement and asserted that Sardar Patel had consistently been offering Kashmir to Pakistan. It was, however, a folly on the part of Liaqat Ali, who evinced interest in Hyderabad instead of Kashmir despite the fact that Hyderabad had no land connection with Pakistan. He has quoted Mohammad Ali, former Prime Minister of Pakistan and Shaukat Hyat Khan, a senior Muslim League leader in support of his contention.
Simultaneously, the autobiography of Mehr Chand Mahajan, Prime Minister of the State in 1947 is being republished shortly which has also revived the memories of that time. The account given by Mahajan regarding accession of our state and Prime Minister’s speech has raised a lot of interest not only in the media but also in the social media. Obviously the role of Pt. Nehru and Sardar Patel, the two key players in the formative years of our nation come into focus in any discussion of that period. Before independence, Gandhiji had bestowed the leadership of Congress upon Nehru because of his popularity amongst the English elite, flair in international affairs, liberality in outlook and socialistic thinking in economic ideology. Sardar Patel on the other hand, despite his robust organization-building capacity, clear-headed thinking and vast base in the Congress party was left to play the second fiddle. Earlier also he largely remained under the shadow and submission of Mahatma Gandhi. It was during the Cabinet Mission of 1946 that the Sardar came out of his own. Peter Clarke, the famous English historian in his masterly work “The Last Thousand Days of the British Empire” tells us that the Mission wrangled for days together with Congress leaders without any progress because of waywardness of its leaders. Only Patel struck them as a man of business. Mountbatten, immediately after his arrival in India also found Patel to be a man of action and in the course of time engaged with him in solving many intricate problems. It was Mountbatten who insisted upon Nehru to allocate Ministry of States to Patel though Nehru was interested to retain it for himself. The Indian nation should always be thankful to Mountbatten for this decision as it was because of Patel that the integration of States took place smoothly.
Though the Sardar got more than 550 states integrated in India efficiently yet the accession of Jammu and Kashmir remained a bone of contention between the two nations. Many people feel that the problem lingered on because of some decisions of Pt. Nehru like its reference to UNO, the grant of of autonomy to the State and early ceasefire. Patel was not in agreement with him on these decisions, they point out. Some people, on the other hand, assert that it is merely a ploy to denounce Pt Nehru as he had taken all these decisions in consultation with his cabinet colleagues. On the contrary, they point out that it was Patel who was in favour of integration of the State with Pakistan. They refer to various authors in support of their contention.
One of them, Rajmohan Gandhi in his book “Patel; A Life”, states that Patel was ready to hand over the State to Pakistan if Jinnah had agreed to let India have Hyderabad and Junagadh. He refers to Patel’s speech at Bahauddin College in Junagadh in this connection. Another biographer Balraj Krishna, in “Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel” states ‘But for Nehru, he could settle the Kashmir in no time by arranging that the Kashmir valley go to Pakistan and East Pakistan to India. Both countries would benefit from such an arrangement.’ Another book “The Shadow of the Great Game- the Untold Story of India’s Partition” by Narendra Singh Sarila shows that Mountbatten had explained to Maharaja Hari Singh that his choice was between acceding to India or Pakistan and made it clear that he had assurances from the Indian leaders that if he acceded to Pakistan, they would not take amiss. HV Seshadri’s book “The Tragic Story of Partition” has also quoted Menon stating that Patel had no objection to Kashmir going to Pakistan. In “Freedom at Midnight” an exchange between Mountbatten and Patel has been recorded wherein the former proposes that he could motivate the princes to join with India if some of their privileges are allowed to be retained. Patel agrees to the proposal provided all the ‘apples’ are put in his basket. Mountbatten asks for sparing a dozen apples and later Patel agrees to leave six. Some people take the reference to apples as an allusion to Kashmir.
The proponents of this theory easily forget that the events were taking turns very rapidly before 15th August, 1947 and negotiations regarding mergers of States were taking place hectically. A number of options were being evaluated by all the players in the game. In the course of these discussions even if any option regarding the merger of our State had been contemplated in one way or the other by Patel, the same cannot be construed to be in accordance with the contours of his thinking. So to suggest that Patel had consistently been for merger of the State with Pakistan is strange and illogical. It is unbelievable that a pragmatic and seasoned leader like Patel would not have seen the writing on the wall like the Maharaja though showing his keenness on independence but never thinking of acceding to Pakistan. Then Sheikh Abdullah, a popular leader of Kashmir was vociferously advocating accession of the State to India. According to Maniben’s Diary, Patel had been actively interacting with Sheikh Abdullah and then Dy Chief Minister. of State Batra during the months of Sept. and October, 1947. This was obviously for accession of State and shows Patel’s deep keenness in ensuring it. As far as the other opinion is concerned, only a naïve would have asked Jinnah to surrender its East wing i.e. half of Pakistan in exchange of Kashmir.
No doubt, Pt Nehru was taking a lot of interest in the affairs of our state much before the dawn of independence because of his emotional attachment to the State and his friendship with Sheikh Abdullah. Sardar Patel had in the circumstances seen advantage in having Nehru in the driver’s seat. But Patel was not found wanting as and when the need arose. It has been revealed by Gen. Manik Shah (then Colonel) to journalist Prem Shanker Jha that when the question of sending the army to Kashmir was being discussed in the Defence Council, Panditji had reservations for fear of adverse reaction from the international community. He was showing some reluctance to send the army even after being told about the seriousness of the situation near Srinagar on 25th October 1947. Nehru started talking about the United Nations, Russia, Africa, God Almighty, everybody, until Patel lost his temper. He said, ‘Jawaharlal, do you want Kashmir, or do you want to give it away.’ Nehru said, “Of course, I want Kashmir.” Then Patel said, “Please give your orders.” And before Nehru could say anything Sardar Patel turned to Manekshaw and said,’ you have got your orders’. Army consequently was rushed and the situation was saved. A man with such clarity in his mind with respect to his country’s objective and who could go even to the extent of crossing swords with his Prime Minister over it, would have never thought of handing over Kashmir to Pakistan.
Thirdly, Patel involved himself head and soul in monitoring the army operations in Kashmir. As told by Gen. Harbaksh Singh (then Dy Brig. Comm.) Patel air dashed to Srinagar as early as on 4th of November, 19 47 along with Sardar Baldev Singh to personally take stock of the situation and to assess Army’s further requirements despite the situation around the Srinagar air field being very vulnerable. No one can ever believe that a man who was so comprehensively involved in ensuring the ouster of raiders from the state would ever think of gifting the same to Pakistan.
It goes without saying that Patel had no cobwebs regarding integration of the state as has been highlighted by Durga Dass, the veteran journalist who records in his book’ India from Curzon to Nehru’ that Nehru favoured incorporation of a section in the constitution establishing a special relationship with the State. Patel wanted the state to be fully integrated with the Union. The Cabinet was divided over this and the Constituent Assembly favoured the Sardar’s stand. However in deference to the smooth functioning of the Govt., Patel agreed to back Nehru’s formula. This fact also unequivocally proves his clear headed approach regarding the accession of the state.
In the ultimate analysis it would be wrong to brush aside Nehru’s contribution as it was because of Nehru that Sheikh Abdullah came forward in favour of accession and to army’s support and maintenance of communal harmony. Moreover, Nehru’s influence over the Governor General was also helpful. However it is also a fact that Pt. Nehru committed some mistakes in the matter over a period of time. He was too sensitive to international opinion without realizing that in the process of laying strong foundations of a nation, a statesman has to act firmly and bid goodbye to feeble niceties. Many a time he could not foresee the consequences of his actions and often found his feet away from the ground of realpolitik. Patel, on the other hand, was an embodiment of realism. He was pragmatic, practical and a hard but realistic bargainer. He dealt with any issue with a firm and ruthless hand and one can safely say that if he had his way, he would have tackled this issue in a more pragmatic manner.
(The author is a former civil servant)
feedbackexcelsior@gmail.com
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel