A eulogy for 'Iron Man of India' Sardar Patel -II

Keeping in view the elections to provincial assemblies under the new Act, Gandhiji would, for a second time, nominate Nehru in 1936 to succeed Prasad as President. In 1937, Nehru wished to continue as Congress President for yet another term. The Party, however, favoured Patel for the office. Once again, Gandhiji would ask Patel to stand down in favour of Nehru in spite of the constant friction between Patel, supported by the working committee, and Nehru over his leanings towards socialism and his opposition to acceptance of power in the Provinces. Nevertheless, it was made clear to Nehru in a statement issued by Patel, but drafted by Gandhiji himself, that the Congress President had no dictatorial powers and was bound by the decisions of the majority.

Patel and Gandhiji were rarely in disagreement on the strategy and tactics of the Congress in its fight for Independence. Patel implicitly trusted Gandhiji's instinct. It was said in jest that Patel had locked his mind and handed over the key to his 'master'. This was not true as Patel had a mind of his own and did differ with Gandhiji in the years before independence. Any occasional difference in point of view would be discussed frankly with Gandhiji, in private, and sorted out.

On the other hand, Nehru never concealed his differences with Gandhiji which were fundamental as their correspondence would reveal. But invariably he would fall in line in the end. Much against the thinking of Gandhiji, Nehru pushed the Congress into jettisoning Dominion Status in favour of full Independence during the years 1927-29. Patel was in favour of Congress contesting the General Election to Provincial Assemblies, held in 1936-37, under the 1935 Act. He was keen on capturing power in the provinces in preparation for ultimate independence. Nehru opposed him but was overruled by the working committee.

When Governor General Linlithgow dragged India, without consulting Indian opinion, into the Second World War in September,1939, Gandhiji and Patel were in favour of conditional support to Britain. But Nehru vehemently opposed the idea. In rebound, his proposal for immediate mass action against the government was rejected by Gandhiji and Patel, though, on his insistence, Congress pulled out its provincial governments from office, much against the thinking of Patel. This turned out to be a grave mistake. In early 1942, though Gandhiji, supported by Patel and others rejected Cripps' offer regarding constitutional advance, as a postdated cheque on a crumbling bank, Nehru advocated further negotiation. Later, when Patel fully backed Gandhiji on the 'Quit India' movement, Nehru dragged his feet to the point that he had contemplated broadcasting from the All India Radio, an appeal urging the public not to embarrass the war effort. He and Azad were overruled.

In spite of such basic differences in outlook and thinking, Gandhiji, having already declared Nehru as his political heir, more than once, would help him to become Congress President for a third time in 1946, though 15 out of 18 Congress Committees favoured Patel. This step, ipso facto, made him the head of the Interim Government in August 1946 and thereafter, the

first Prime Minister of Independent India.

19. At different times, Gandhiji had explained his preference for Nehru over Patel as his political heir, for the following reasons. Nehru had a greater appeal to youth, than Patel. Notwithstanding their differences since they became fellow workers, Nehru would speak Gandhiji's language after he was gone. He would rein in the socialists in the Congress. He would be more acceptable to Muslims. He might split the party, if denied the leadership. Better known abroad, he would carve out a role for India in the international arena. Most importantly, 'as a Harrow boy, a Cambridge graduate and a barrister,' he was best suited to negotiate with the British on transfer of power.

Not one of these assumptions had been vindicated by subsequent events. The crucial agreement for immediate transfer of power based on partition and dominion status was the achievement of Patel, advised and aided by V P Menon who was Reforms Commissioner. They were both convinced that the Cabinet Mission Plan for a Federal United India consisting of three groupings of autonomous States on religious lines, would leave India weak and exposed to constant communal clashes without ruling out the emergence of Pakistan at a future date. They did not want to lose time to build a resurgent India. Though, Patel was not very conversant with international affairs, unlike Nehru who prided himself on his exposure to the world, he read the Chinese tea leaves on Tibet and its border with India accurately, whereas, Nehru went hopelessly wrong.

Patel might have lacked the charisma, superior education and flowery English of Nehru but he had a superior record of struggle, service and success than the latter. If Patel had chosen to contest, he would have won decisively and Nehru would not have split the party, going by his past record of never leaving Gandhiji even when they had serious disagreements as in 1927 and 1940-42. Patel refrained from a showdown because of his unswerving loyalty to Gandhiji and his patriotic disinclination to create a division in the party at a crucial juncture of negotiations with the British for Independence. Considering the difference in age between them, Nehru could still have become the Prime Minister after Patel, even if the first chance had been given to the latter. Gandhiji's decision had cost India dearly in the form of an unresolved Kashmir issue and an equally intractable border dispute with China.

It was a testimony to the magnanimity and patriotism of Patel that he bore the same loyalty to Nehru as Prime Minister as he swore to Gandhiji as his supreme leader. He did have serious differences with Nehru in outlook and on policy which he articulated with his characteristic candour and bluntness but had never let him down. To cite two important instances, Nehru-Liaquat Pact on the communal situation in the then East Pakistan and Article 370, according special status to Kashmir, were vehemently opposed by the Congress party rank and file. The former led to a public outcry in Calcutta. In both these matters, it was the intervention and help of Patel that saved the day for Nehru as Prime Minister. On the other hand, Nehru was ever giving Patel pinpricks on the issue of Prime Ministerial authority and trying to undercut him on procedural issues of governance which finally led to his request to Gandhiji for relieving him from the Cabinet. Gandhiji's assassination averted that step and Patel carried on relentlessly till death, despite his rapidly deteriorating health.

Patel's success in integrating 562 Princely States with the rest of India in less than 15 months was an unprecedented achievement of

monumental proportions in the annals of history. He employed every arrow in his quiver – persuasion, arm-twisting, allurement, generosity, intrigue and force to achieve his objective. It was a demonstration of great statesmanship and consummate display of strategic foresight and tactical wisdom in equal measure. In accomplishing this humongous task, Patel showed great sagacity in leaning on Mountbatten, the Governor General as much as he did on VP Menon, without at anytime surrendering his own judgment to that of the former. This was in sharp contrast to Nehru who was led up the garden path by Mountbatten on the Kashmir issue.

Against such a back drop, Nehru's decision to take away Kashmir from Patel and handle it himself with disastrous consequences was inexplicable. The credit for framing the Indian Constitution is given to Ambedkar by the laity. What is not known is that, apart from the signal contributions of such legal luminaries like Alladi Krishna Swamy Iyer, K M Munshi and B N Rao, the brunt of the responsibility to push through the Constituent Assembly, important provisions like minority rights and reservations for SC/ST communities was borneby Patel who had chaired over half a dozen Sub Committees. Also, not many are aware that it was at the instance of Patel that non-Congressmen like Ambedkar and Shyama Prasad Mukherjee were inducted into the government. It is also little known that he was the progenitor of "Amul" the brand name which symbolizes "the taste of India."

Patel chose his aides wisely; gave them trust and space and valued their advice. In every endeavor he undertook, he displayed prescience, perspicacity and pragmatism in measures not matched by any of his compatriots. He was candid and impartial in his dealings with colleagues. A vivid example of this was the continued intimacy between him and Rajaji even though he backed Rajendra Prasad and not Rajaji to become the first President of India. He died without the slightest blemish or whisper on his character. He left no worthwhile property behind. He was a God fearing person who ever failed to invoke God's will and grace in his speeches, conversations and correspondence.

There was not a single Indian nor a foreigner who had dealt with Patel and not acknowledged his pre-eminence as a leader, administrator and statesman. Even his worst critics like socialists had to admit after his death that they judged him wrongly. The same could not be said of Nehru, whose judgement and decision making in crisis situations had been contested even by some of his admirers. Patel's intense dislike of cant, double speak and opportunism as also his natural instinct to call a spade a spade did expose him to the criticism of being pro-Hindu. Even if it was valid, he was not anti- Muslim.

From times immemorial, the Indian subcontinent was united only culturally and not administratively. Even under the British rule, there was a British India and a Princely India. Today, these two Indias are one, thanks to Sardar Patel. This makes him, perhaps, the greatest Indian after the 'Mahatma' in modern times.

Patel was the best 'Prime Minister' that India never had. For whatever reason, his role and contributions in the Independence struggle and his unique achievement in unifying India, as we know it today, had not been sufficiently celebrated nor even acknowledged. The 'Statue of Unity' erected in his memory, apart from making amends for past neglect, will ever remind Indians of Vallabhbhai Patel as the builder of United India. But the real homage to him lies in the undeniable reality that whenever India is in crisis, every informed Indian wishes that Sardar Patel has been alive to solve it.

(This is the concluding article. Writer is a former Governor of Tamil Nadu)