Skip to main content

A Gandhi-made nationalist, Sardar Patel survives as "maker" of majority Hindu India

By Nilesh Jain*
“It would perhaps not be unfair to say that Vallabhai Patel was the founder of Indian Partition" – Maulana Azad (‘India Wins Freedom’, 1988, page 198)
Whenever we talk about the partition of India, we almost always end-up discussing the man who broke up India. And, the discussion almost always leads to the conclusion that, it was Jinnah, if Indians are discussing, and it was Gandhi, Nehru or Patel, it’s happening in Pakistan. The inherently biased results are the products of Indian nationalism, and/or Pakistani nationalism.
The recent inauguration of the Statue of Unity has once again resurrected the debate on Indian nationalism and Patel’s nationalism. Two sides are fighting an information war on the concept of nationalism. One point of view suggests that Patel’s nationalism has created “geography of unity with the spirit of nationalism”, and the other washes it off as an act of propaganda to polarise for the next general election.
The existing literature on the partition of India evidently proves that Patel was nationalist as well as a Hindu nationalist. In India, positive nationalism, as well as negative nationalism, provides that Jinnah was a Muslim nationalist vis-à-vis he broke India, and somehow Patel’s nationalism saved India. But, the evidence suggest otherwise. Let’s look at ‘What is nationalism?’
Nationalism is a political, social, and economic system characterized by the promotion of the interests of a particular nation, especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining sovereignty (self-governance) over the homeland (Triandafyllidou A, “National Identity and the 'Other”, 1998, Ethical and Racial Studies, page 595). Nationalism is a modern-day habit of assuming that the people of the particular area or locality can be classified as an ‘insect’ or an ‘animal’ of a particular nature and can be easily labelled as ‘good citizen’ or ‘bad citizen’.
But the impunity of the concept lies in “placing it beyond good and evil and recognising no other duty than that of advancing its interests”. Nationalism sinks the individuality of the individual and creates an obligation on the individual to secure more power and prestige for the nation beyond good and evil.
From the philosophical point of view, it is purely negative but the political society provides it much needed support to survive. The existence of it among intellectuals helps exacerbate it among the general public. The concept more-or-less provides grounds for the general conspiracy of silence among the populace.

Jinnah’s nationalism

Pakistan was born to be a modern democratic state, so was India, where religion would not be the business of the state. Jinnah appointed a Hindu as the law minister of the first cabinet, precisely to drive home hope that the newly-formed Muslim homeland was not exclusively for Muslims but that minorities of whatever belief would also be a part their new nation.
Once hailed as the best ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity by Gopal Krishna Gokhale, a staunch Indian nationalist would one day take a flip and end up destroying the very unity he had so cherished in his early career. Indian politics was to show a different colour after the fateful 1920 annual session of the Congress in Nagpur.
Mahatma Gandhi moved a resolution setting “the attainment of Swaraj” by “all legitimate and peaceful means” as the goal. The dissent from Jinnah was not allowed to voice it his concern. Some delegates shouted him down, calling him a “political imposter,” nothing less, and insisting that he refer to Gandhi as ‘Mahatma’!
According to KM Munshi, “Jinnah, however, warned Gandhi not to encourage fanaticism of Muslim religious leaders and their followers” (Munshi, KM “Pilgrimage to freedom”, 1967, page 22). Gandhi himself informed to the Governor of Bengal, Richard Casey, that “he (Gandhi) had ruined politics in India by dragging up a lot of unwholesome elements in Indian life and giving them political prominence, that it was a crime to mix up politics and religion the way he had”.
Jinnah resigned from the Congress but continued to negotiate for a united, pluralist India. Speaking in the Central Legislative Assembly in 1925, he declared, “I am a nationalist first, a nationalist second, and a nationalist last.” After political exile, Jinnah came back in mid-1930s as a nationalist, but a worried one.
In election of the Provincial Legislatures in 1937, the Congress obtained a clear majority in Madras, United Province, Bihar, Central Province and Orissa. In Bombay, the Congress had won nearly half the seats. But, it won Muslim reserved seats, out of 9 contested out of total 66 Muslim reserved seats; and in Bombay, it had contested 2 out of 30, losing both. The question arose, whether the Congress should form coalition governments in provincial assemblies or not? The decision against coalition proved to be disastrous and short-sighted.
During the election, two parties co-operated in the campaign, especially in the United Province. Both the parties developed a tacit understanding that a coalition government would be formed. The Congress won with a clear majority and the league offer of the coalition government was treated with disdain.
Statue of Unity
After the 1937 elections, Jinnah said “nobody will welcome an honourable settlement between the Hindus and the Muslims more than I and nobody will be more ready to help it” (Mansergh, N, “Transfer of Power”, 1976, Vol. VI, page 616-17. Extract from Casey’s diary dated December 6, 1945). And, he appealed to Gandhi to tackle this question. The response was a bit depressing. Gandhi said “I wish I could do something, but I am utterly helpless. My Faith in unity is bright as ever: only I see no daylight but impenetrable darkness and in such distress, I cry out to God for light” (Rao Shiva, “Framing of India’s Constitution”, 1968, page 22).
Nehru wrote a letter to Jinnah on April 6, 1938, in which he said that “…the Muslim League is an important communal organisation and we deal with as such. ...And, the other organisations, even though they might be younger and smaller, cannot be ignored”.
To which Jinnah replied: “Your tone and language again display the same arrogance and militant spirit, as if the Congress is the sovereign power…I may add that, in my opinion, as I have publically stated so often, that unless the Congress recognizes the Muslim League on a footing of complete equality and is prepared as such to negotiate for a Hindu-Muslim settlement, we shall have to wait and depend upon our ‘inherent strength’ which will ‘determine the measure of impotence or distinction; it possesses...” (Bolitho Hector, “Jinnah”, 1954, page 117).
Even as late as September 28, 1939, he said at the annual dinner of the Old Boys of Osmania University, “I have always believed in a Hindu-Muslim pact, but not a pact that will mean a destruction of the one and a survival of the other.” But that was the end of it in the public arena.
Jinnah had very deliberately raised the demand for Pakistan with the confidence that Congress would never accept it and would instead deal with him as the “sole spokesman” of the Muslims of India to work out the details of a post-Independence India.
Thus, Pakistan was a Plan B of nationalism. But for the plan B to be effective for a negotiation, Jinnah had to show that the Muslims of India were asking for Pakistan in earnest. In the end, the Jinnah insistence led to the partition of India. However, he was not the only one.

Patel’s nationalism

“I was surprised that Patel was now an even greater supporter of the two-nation theory that Jinnah. Jinnah may have raised the flag of partition but now the real flag bearer was Patel”, said Maulana Azad (Azad M ‘India Wins Freedom’, 1988, page 201).
According to many right-wing historians, Gandhi showed shrewd judgment when he anointed Nehru rather than Patel as his successor. Patel was the party boss with a firm grip on the party machine, which was ensured by his skills as a fund collector. However, Patel was coarse to a degree and was ignorant of world affairs, despite his admirable qualities.
In November 1945, Patel inaugurated a swimming pool on Marine Drive in Mumbai, just next to the Chowpati Beach, the Pransukhlal Mafatlal Hindu Swimming Pool. It was and still is exclusively for the use of Hindus. Its door remains shut, even today, for Muslims and other communities.
On November 18, 1945, Jinnah issued a statement in a response to a rejoinder to Patel’s speech at the All-India Congress Committee (AICC) session. Jinnah said, “As to his other slogans that Hindus and Muslims are brothers and one nation, the less Sardar Patel talks about it [the] better. It does not come with any grace from his mouth, at any rate. For did not Mr Vallabhbhai Patel perform the opening ceremony of swimming bath in Bombay meant exclusively for Hindus? Has he forgotten that some young men demonstrated protesting against his participation in the opening ceremony of the swimming bath which excluded the Muslim brethren even sharing the sea-water” (Waheed Ahmad, “The Nation’s Voice”, 1947 Vol IV).
Nehru wrote, “Many a Congressman was a communalist under his national cloak” (Nehru J, “Autobiography” (1936) page 136) -- this is also written for Patel, as claimed by many historians.
Azad was excluded from the first Cabinet of free India. “Sardar is decidedly against his membership in the Cabinet... It should not be difficult to name another Muslim for the Cabinet” (Gandhi, M “The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi”, 1960, Vol IX page 408).
Azad convened the Indian Union Muslim Conference in Lucknow on December 27, 1947, at which he pleaded for the dissolution of the Muslim League and urged Muslims to join the Congress. A resolution on these lines was unanimously adopted the next day (Noorani AG, “The Muslim of India: A Documentary Record”, 2003, page 65). To which, on January 6, 1948, Patel questioned Azad’s patriotism and also invited the Hindu Mahasabha and the RSS to join the Congress, simultaneously in one and the same speech.
Patel was always a Hindu nationalist. He was a Gandhi-made nationalist. So, he survived in India as a great leader and a maker of a modern and majority Hindu India. However, Jinnah is considered as the man who broke up India. Even though from the very beginning Jinnah was an Indian nationalist. However, both the nationalisms had one side effect – Partition of India. Whether it’s position nationalism or negative nationalism, it only produces division among the people.
---
*Researcher scholar at the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi

Comments

TRENDING

Top upper caste judges 'biased' towards Dalit colleagues: US Bar Association report

By Rajiv Shah  A high profile report prepared by the influential  American Bar Association (ABA) Center for Human Rights , taking note of the fact that “in the 70-year history of the Indian Republic, only six Dalit judges have been appointed to the Supreme Court”, has taken strong exception to what it calls “lack of representation of Dalits” in the legal profession and the judiciary.

Savarkar 'criminally betrayed' Netaji and his INA by siding with the British rulers

By Shamsul Islam* RSS-BJP rulers of India have been trying to show off as great fans of Netaji. But Indians must know what role ideological parents of today's RSS/BJP played against Netaji and Indian National Army (INA). The Hindu Mahasabha and RSS which always had prominent lawyers on their rolls made no attempt to defend the INA accused at Red Fort trials.

Billion vaccine doses? Devil is in details: 70% haven't got 2nd jab; numbers jacked up

By Prof Ujjwal K Chowdhury*  India has reached the one billion Covid-19 vaccinations milestone. It is indeed a great news and a big salute to the less paid ordinary health-workers in interiors of India for this feat. The government wants all of India's 944 million adults to get vaccinated this year. Around three-quarters of adults in the country of 1.3 billion people have had one shot and around 30 percent are fully vaccinated, the government says.

Buddhist shrines were 'massively destroyed' by Brahmanical rulers: Historian DN Jha

Nalanda mahavihara By Our Representative Prominent historian DN Jha, an expert in India's ancient and medieval past, in his new book , "Against the Grain: Notes on Identity, Intolerance and History", in a sharp critique of "Hindutva ideologues", who look at the ancient period of Indian history as "a golden age marked by social harmony, devoid of any religious violence", has said, "Demolition and desecration of rival religious establishments, and the appropriation of their idols, was not uncommon in India before the advent of Islam".

Failure of 'trickle down theory' behind India's poor Global Hunger Index rating

By Dr Gian Singh*  On October 14, 2021, two organisations, Concern Worldwide (An Irish aid agency) and WeltHungerHilfe (a German organization that researches the problem of global hunger), jointly published the Global Hunger Index (GHI) for 2021. These organizations have included 116 countries in the world hunger rankings.

Global Hunger Index: Govt of India response pathetic, 'lacks' scientific empirical evidence

By Fr Cedric Prakash SJ* Come 16 October – and the world once again focused on the most basic need for a person’s survival: food! The first World Food Day was observed in 1994, to mark the launch of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations. Ever since, the day is marked to highlight the need and importance of food security across the world. The significance is accentuated especially in these difficult times like the C-19 povidandemic. The theme for 2021 is ‘Safe Food Now for a Healthier Tomorrow’, emphasising on the various immediate and long-term benefits of consuming safe and healthy food.

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.

Fresh efforts to subsume Buddhism within Hindu fold 'undermining' Ambedkar

By Aviral Anand*  From Yeola in 1935, when Dr Ambedkar announced that he would not die a Hindu, to Nagpur in 1956 when he converted to Buddhism, is a considerable distance in time. But, there was in him a need to make a public announcement in 1935 about moving away from Hinduism. 

March opposes Sabarmati Ashram renovation: 'Mahatmaji had kept open for access to all'

Counterview Desk A Sevagram to Sabarmati march, which began on October 17 from Wardha (Maharashtra) and will end on October 24 in Ahmedabad (Gujarat), has demanded that the Sabarmati Ashram, the government should not impose "the fashion and glitz of a shallow modernity" at the cost of Rs 1,200 crore, in the name of renovating the Ashram founded by Gandhiji.

Nehru legacy? GDP-centric growth has had 'no positive impact' on people's livelihood

By Dr Kamal Nayan Kabra*  Experience has shown that many counties adopt measures to go in for the growth of their GDP, basically in the existing framework, though also going in for, at the same time, new products and technologies and similar other changes. It is believed that by means of this process enough new job opportunities would emerge to meet the economy’s needs both in terms of numbers as also in terms of the requisite remuneration (wages) as also the supplies of the goods and services to maintain the economy on an even keel.