Exactly a year ago, Narendra Modi inaugurated the giant Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel statue facing the Narmada Dam. It is 3.2 km away from the dam on a 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 in its six years. The project worth Rs 2,989 crore was won by Larsen and Toubro. 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.
In the beginning 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 money came from Indian PSUs and corporations, either coerced or currying favour. 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. Hundreds of Chinese workers also toiled 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 also give Modi a political lineage to distinguish him from the parent RSS which sat out the freedom movement. Ironically, Modi 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 Sardar 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 Patel’s legacy.
That 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 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.”
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.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi has invested hugely in creating the illusion that the Congress’ preferred leader was the Sardar and that Jawaharlal 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 Modi tried to don it. But the Congress' 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 Sardar 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 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, particularly after the advent of Indira Gandhi. It’s another matter that after its ideological peregrinations for half a century, the Congress returned to the very same laissez faire economics favoured 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 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 policy analyst. Source: Author's Facebook timeline
It is also well known that the Congress had little time for the Sardar's legacy till Modi tried to don it. But the Congress' 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 Sardar 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 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, particularly after the advent of Indira Gandhi. It’s another matter that after its ideological peregrinations for half a century, the Congress returned to the very same laissez faire economics favoured 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 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 policy analyst. Source: Author's Facebook timeline
Comments