Skip to main content

Sardar Patel became anathema for Congress, particularly after advent of Indira Gandhi



By Mohan Guruswamy*
Narendra Modi will tomorrow inaugurate the giant Sardar Patel statue facing the Narmada Dam, 3.2 km away on the river island called Sadhu Bet near Rajpipla in Gujarat. Standing almost six hundred feet tall, it is the world's tallest statue. The project began in December 2013, and is probably the only achievement the Modi government has to show. The project worth Rs. 2989 crores was won by Larsen and Toubro (L&T). Initially the total cost of the project was estimated to be about Rs 3,001 crore and was paid for by the Government of India. 
Initially Modi flagged off as to be built by small contributions and crowd funding, but like all his other projects the means were actually something else. The bronze plates to create the likeness of Sardar Patel were imported from the TQ Art Foundry, a part of the Jiangxi Toqine Company in Nanchang, China. Hundreds of Chinese workers also toiled at Chad Bet to “assist” L&T in the concrete construction of the statue core.
Despite its Chinese lineage, the Patel statue was as much a bold assertion of Gujarati nationalism as it was to give Narendra Modi a political lineage to distinguish him from the parent RSS which sat out the freedom movement. Please note he didn’t build a statue of Guru Golwalkar or Deendayal Upadhyaya or even VD Savarkar. Or for that matter even Subhash Chandra Bose who still has a far bigger imprint on our minds than Vallabhbhai Patel ever did.
After Modi’s brazen attempt to draw political sustenance from the memory of Sardar Patel, an unseemly argument has broken out between the Congress and BJP over who are the true inheritors of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel’s legacy. That the BJP’s not so disguised attempt to arrogate it for itself in a bid to give itself a nationalist movement genealogy is a tawdry attempt to rewrite history. 
What Sardar Patel thought of the RSS is a matter of record. He minced no words about what he thought of it -- that it was fascist and narrow minded, and was responsible for the climate of hatred that led to Gandhiji's assassination. In a letter on July 18, 1948, after Gandhi’s murder, the Sardar wrote to Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, who would later found the Jan Sangh:
“As a result of the activities of these two bodies [the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha], particularly the former, an atmosphere was created in the country in which such a ghastly tragedy became possible. There is no doubt in my mind the extreme section of the Hindu Mahasabha was involved in this conspiracy. The activities of the RSS constituted a clear threat to the existence of the Government and the State.” 
The RSS now has the government but it still presents a clear and present danger to the original idea of India, as an inclusive, egalitarian nation united by a Constitution and a shared purpose.
Modi has invested hugely in creating the illusion that the Congress party’s preferred leader was the Sardar and that Nehru was imposed on it. Nehru became PM because he was by far the Congress’ most popular politician, after Gandhiji. Nehru was the party’s star campaigner, captivating people with his soaring oratory and easy communication style in Hindustani. Patel might have had a firm grip on the Congress organization, but he was far behind Nehru in popularity and charisma. 
Patel himself conceded this at a massively attended Congress rally in Mumbai, when he told the celebrated American author and journalist Vincent Sheean, “They come for Jawahar, not for me." Patel’s realism was the hallmark of his politics and that made him the perfect foil to Nehru’s idealism.
It is also well known that the Congress had little time for the Sardar's legacy till Narendra Modi tried to don it. But the Congress's attempt to rediscover the Sardar's legacy and claim exclusive rights over it is also no less tawdry. Even when LK Advani tried it was not taken seriously. 
But like the Sardar, Modi too is a Gujarati and that has a certain resonance in that state. We know how strongly Modi feels about the Gujarati identity. His unwillingness to insure the Asiatic lion against extinction by translocating a few prides emanates from this.
It is well known that there were serious differences between Jawaharlal Nehru and Vallabhbhai Patel. It was less a clash of personalities as it was a clash of ideologies. The Sardar espoused a more robust and practical nationalism, and laissez faire economic policies. Nehru wanted to dismantle the colonial bureaucratic system but Patel wanted to retain the centralized civil service structure, the price for which we are still paying. Nehru was more internationalist, more leftist than realist, and preferred central planning to free market policies. 
Their policy inclinations were as different as chalk and cheese. But both were patriots tempered by the nationalist movement and both were popular leaders of the Congress rank and file, and the nation as a whole. Above all both were thorough gentlemen and whatever their differences never disrespected each other and subverted each other with factional intrigue. They preferred a moderation in language that would now been seen as a sign of weakness. They preferred to conciliate rather than divide.
It is also well known that after the death of Sardar Patel, something akin to a purge took place in the Congress and the Congress leaders who preferred to support the policies and politics espoused by the Sardar were shown their place or shown the door. The party donned socialist colours and its transformation was complete. 
With this physical purge, the intellectual purge of the Congress party also gathered pace, and Sardar Patel was practically airbrushed out of the Congress pantheon. For all practical purposes Sardar Patel became anathema for the Congress party, particularly after the advent of Indira Gandhi. It’s another matter that after its ideological peregrinations for half a century, the Congress party returned to the very same laissez faire economics favored by Patel and rejected by Nehru.
Congress leaders, who now claim to be legatees of Sardar Patel, would hardly know of him and what he stood for. For a start their language is different. Those days they belonged to a very different school of politics. Politics was about policies and grand ideas. To qualify in politics nowadays, one has to be a graduate of the school for scoundrels, where sycophancy and personality worship are the main attainments needed.
Sardar Patel had a thriving law practice he abandoned to heed the Mahatma's call, Jawaharlal Nehru was a superbly educated and highly evolved personality, and politics to him was a calling, not an occupation. Neither Narendra Modi nor Rahul Gandhi has much in them to claim such legacies. They are symptomatic of the sad days that have befallen the nation midwifed and contemplated by Nehru and Patel.
---
*Well-known public policy expert. Source: Author's Facebook timeline. Email: mohanguru@gmail.com

Comments

TRENDING

US govt funding 'dubious PR firm' to discredit anti-GM, anti-pesticide activists

By Our Representative  The Alliance for Sustainable & Holistic Agriculture (ASHA) has vocally condemned the financial support provided by the US Government to questionable public relations firms aimed at undermining the efforts of activists opposed to pesticides and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in India. 

Modi govt distancing from Adanis? MoEFCC 'defers' 1500 MW project in Western Ghats

By Rajiv Shah  Is the Narendra Modi government, in its third but  what would appear to be a weaker avatar, seeking to show that it would keep a distance, albeit temporarily, from its most favorite business house, the Adanis? It would seem so if the latest move of the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC) latest to "defer" the Adani Energy’s application for 1500 MW Warasgaon-Warangi Pump Storage Project is any indication.

Bayer's business model: 'Monopoly control over chemicals, seeds'

By Bharat Dogra*  The Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) has rendered a great public service by very recently publishing a report titled ‘Bayer’s Toxic Trails’ which reveals how the German agrochemical giant Bayer has been lobbying hard to promote glyphosate and GMOs, or trying to “capture public policy to pursue its private interests.” This report, written by Joao Camargo and Hans Van Scharen, follows Bayer’s toxic trail as “it maintains monopolistic control of the seed and pesticides markets, fights off regulatory challenges to its toxic products, tries to limit legal liability, and exercises political influence.” 

Militants, with ten times number of arms compared to those in J&K, 'roaming freely' in Manipur

By Sandeep Pandey*  The violence which shows no sign of abating in the ongoing Meitei-Kuki conflict in Manipur is a matter of concern. The alienation of the two communities and hatred generated for each other is unprecedented. The Meiteis cannot leave Manipur by road because the next district North on the way to Kohima in Nagaland is Kangpokpi, a Kuki dominated area where the young Kuki men and women are guarding the district borders and would not let any Meitei pass through the national highway. 

105,000 sign protest petition, allege Nestlé’s 'double standard' over added sugar in baby food

By Kritischer Konsum*    105,000 people have signed a petition calling on Nestlé to stop adding sugar to its baby food products marketed in lower-income countries. It was handed over today at the multinational’s headquarters in Vevey, where the NGOs Public Eye, IBFAN and EKO dumped the symbolic equivalent of 10 million sugar cubes, representing the added sugar consumed each day by babies fed with Cerelac cereals. In Switzerland, such products are sold with no added sugar. The leading baby food corporation must put an end to this harmful double standard.

'Flawed' argument: Gandhi had minimal role, naval mutinies alone led to Independence

Counterview Desk Reacting to a Counterview  story , "Rewiring history? Bose, not Gandhi, was real Father of Nation: British PM Attlee 'cited'" (January 26, 2016), an avid reader has forwarded  reaction  in the form of a  link , which carries the article "Did Atlee say Gandhi had minimal role in Independence? #FactCheck", published in the site satyagrahis.in. The satyagraha.in article seeks to debunk the view, reported in the Counterview story, taken by retired army officer GD Bakshi in his book, “Bose: An Indian Samurai”, which claims that Gandhiji had a minimal role to play in India's freedom struggle, and that it was Netaji who played the crucial role. We reproduce the satyagraha.in article here. Text: Nowadays it is said by many MK Gandhi critics that Clement Atlee made a statement in which he said Gandhi has ‘minimal’ role in India's independence and gave credit to naval mutinies and with this statement, they concluded the whole freedom struggle.

Can voting truly resolve the Kashmir issue? Past experience suggests optimism may be misplaced

By Raqif Makhdoomi*  In the politically charged atmosphere of Jammu and Kashmir, election slogans resonated deeply: "Jail Ka Badla, Vote Sa" (Jail’s Revenge, Vote) and "Article 370 Ka Badla, Vote Sa" (Article 370’s Revenge, Vote). These catchphrases dominated the assembly election campaigns, particularly across Kashmir. 

Swami Vivekananda's views on caste and sexuality were 'painfully' regressive

By Bhaskar Sur* Swami Vivekananda now belongs more to the modern Hindu mythology than reality. It makes a daunting job to discover the real human being who knew unemployment, humiliation of losing a teaching job for 'incompetence', longed in vain for the bliss of a happy conjugal life only to suffer the consequent frustration.

Will Bangladesh go Egypt way, where military ruler is in power for a decade?

By Vijay Prashad*  The day after former Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina left Dhaka, I was on the phone with a friend who had spent some time on the streets that day. He told me about the atmosphere in Dhaka, how people with little previous political experience had joined in the large protests alongside the students—who seemed to be leading the agitation. I asked him about the political infrastructure of the students and about their political orientation. He said that the protests seemed well-organized and that the students had escalated their demands from an end to certain quotas for government jobs to an end to the government of Sheikh Hasina. Even hours before she left the country, it did not seem that this would be the outcome.