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

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".

World Bank proved right, Narmada is already a destructive project: Medha Patkar

By Rajiv Shah  Narmada Bachao Andolan leader Medha Patkar has said that the World Bank’s independent review mission, which brought out the Morse Commission report , has been proved right: The Sardar Sarovar dam has not only failed to live up to the loud promises made for irrigating large arid areas of Saurashtra and Kutch in Gujarat, those who were displaced and resettled in Gujarat are getting increasingly restive as many of them are unable to get the promised water for irrigation and some for drinking water too. While 50,000 families have been resettled in three states and 20,000 have received land rights as land or cash, the authorities have not calculated what should be done with 15,000 families, whose houses are acquired for Sardar Sarovar but following changing backwater levels of the Sardar Sarovar dam, they are denied rehabilitation, Patkar tells Counterview in an interview (part1*): *** Q: What is the latest position in your view as far as the Sardar Sarovar dam is concerned?

Vadodara violence: Fine Arts Faculty alumni raise fingers at Varsity's political appointee

Hasmukh Vaghela with PM Counterview Desk  In a statement, alumni of the Faculty of Fine Arts (FoFA), Maharaja Sayajirao University (MSU), Baroda, Gujarat, referring to the “violence” by right-wing groups for displaying “objectionable” paintings that “hurt religious sentiments” at the one of India’s top fine arts institute May 5, have taken strong exception to “the assault and rustication” of one of the students, and lack of action taken against those who “violated” the institution and committed the act. Floated as an online petition seeking wider support, the FoFA alumni, in their statement, addressed to the vice chancellor, MSU, said, there should be “thorough” investigation in the whole incident and “immediate action” should be taken against syndicate member Hasmukh Vaghela, MSU, who sparked the assault, and “other co-conspirators” for breaching “university code of conduct and unlawful activities committed in broad daylight”. While the alumni statement doesn't say so, Vaghela

Upholding labour rights, Nehruvian scientific temper, Rajni Patel opposed Emergency

By Harsh Thakor*  Rajni Patel, who died 40 years ago, whatever his flaws, had one great quality: his human touch to offer selfless service and ability to galvanise or influence human beings from all walks of life. Few people would ever go out of the way to help someone or serve as selflessly without aim of personal gain. Rajni championed Nehruvian secular ideas and scientific temper. As a master in public relations he revealed utmost humility. As a barrister, he never appeared against the trade unions or workers. A Fabien Socialist he opposed liberal capitalism and radical socialism. Unlike most lawyers, he did not succumb to the lure of amassing wealth. Rajni was born in Sirsa, in Gujarat, on the very day Gandhi set foot on Indian soil, on 9th January, 1915. He gained his baptism through one of Gandhi's speeches calling for the boycott of foreign goods, which was the virtual turning point of his life. Rajni toed Gandhi to organise boycott of foreign goods. Rajni was able to cros

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.

UK leader cites Indian farmers' struggle one of top global fights against neoliberal order

Counterview Desk  Jeremy Corbyn, member of the UK Parliament, former leader of the UK Labour Party and founder of the  Peace and Justice Project , in his  inaugural speech to the  Progressive International’s  Summit at the End of the World on May 12, 2022, has said, what is happening across globe suggests that "image of apocalypse -- bombs and raids, oil spills and wildfires, disease and contagion -- is a reality for people across the planet." In an adaptation of his speech, distributed by  Globetrotter , Corbyn, however, said, there are fresh examples action, too -- by Indian farmers forcing Prime Minister Narendra Modi to withdraw three neo-liberal laws;  by workers, communities and activists against the top giant multinational Amazon's "greed and exploitation"; and by Latin American people's struggle to say "no more to the domination by imperialism, the destruction of their communities and the abuse of their environments." Stating that this is n

This Maoist justified US, western Europe's anti-Soviet stance, even Bhindranwale

By Harsh Thakor*  A glaring example of the extent to which those seeking to identify themselves as revolutionaries can go in making odd compromises with those normally considered as “class enemies” in Marxist jargon is late Kondapalli Seetharamiah. Few know that this Maoist organiser two decades ago was so enamoured by the Chinese three worlds theory that he called for a united front with the United States and other western countries against what he considered Soviet social imperialism! This wasn’t the only “compromise” Seetharamiah made during his career as a revolutionary. On Punjab he took a most eclectical stand of supporting Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale, thus soft-pedalling the terrorist Khalistani movement. Among his other opportunist alliances, about which few are aware of, include support to the Akalis in Punjab, on one hand, and the NTR Telugu Desam regime in Andhra Pradesh, on the other – all part of his anti-Congress thrust. Also known as KS, this Maoist started his career as

Welfare? Govt of India spends just 19% of manual scavengers' rehabilitation budget

By Bharat Dogra*  While the Dalit community has been always known for higher levels of poverty as well as social discrimination, even within the Dalits there is a sub-section known for even worse levels of poverty as well as social discrimination. This is the section which was traditionally involved in manual scavenging. The shocking injustice they have suffered from over the years has been widely recognized leading to a ban on manual scavenging. At the same time there is urgent need for the rehabilitation of those engaged in manual scavenging. Hence a self-employment scheme for the rehabilitation of those engaged in manual scavenging was drawn up. The allocations and the expenditure for this scheme for the last eight years are shown in the Table below: Union Budget for Self-Employment Scheme for Rehabilitation of  Manual Scavengers (in Rs crore) By Budget Estimate we mean the original allocation made when the budget is presented. It is clear from this table that the actual expenditure

Why is NIOH-ICMR 'official' making false claims on silicosis?: Health rights NGO

Counterview Desk In a letter to the Director General, Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), New Delhi, Dr Jagdish Parikh, trustee, health rights NGO People’s Training and Research Centre (PTRC), Vadodara, and Jagdish Patel, director, PTRC, have said that the claim being made for the use of biomarker for detection of silicosis raises concern about scientific tenacity of the diagnosis of the deadly occupational disease. The letter also objects to the reported claim by a top health official that it is possible to detect silicosis at the sub-radiological stage. It asks, “What is this subradiological stage of silicosis? We have not heard any such scientific term being used. Again, the report is using a term which is not found in any scientific literature so far. Is this term acceptable by ICMR? Is ICMR thinking of any explanation?” Text : This is with reference to our letter dated November 28, 2021. In our communication we had raised our concern about the scientific tena

Custodial death of Muslim youth: Govt of India told to ratify UN convention on torture

Counterview Desk  Kirity Roy, secretary, Banglar Manabadhikar Suraksha Mancha (MASUM), and national convenor, Programme Against Custodial Torture & Impunity (PACTI), Hooghly, West Bengal, in a representation to the chairman, National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), has drawn to the custodial death of a Muslim youth following his torture in police custody after registering a "false case" based on manufactured records. Seeking "proper investigation" the whole incident, Roy in his plea insists, the incident legitimizes his organisations' long-standing demand "for immediate ratification of the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment and Punishment." Text : Here I want to draw your kind attention to one incident of custodial torture by the Deganga police personnel and the subsequent custodial death of one Muslim man from the Other Backward Class community in Dum Dum Central Correctional Home. The name o