Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel world larjest Startue The Iron Man
The stage was set, the scene was unique if not rare; one was a Prime Minister and the other an aspirant. They were discussing a man who was the Sardar [grand leader] of his times. The PM aspirant bluffed it as always, and the Sardar PM boxed him into his place. Yes, we are talking about Manmohan Singh and Modi spar about Sardar Patel. After PM aspirant’s desperate attempt to usurp the Sardar legacy, the PM is desperate to show how secular Sardar was.
Hello you Guys, your slip is showing!
My quest is not just to know how secular Sardar Patel was, but to try to probe how communal he was, if he was? Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel has left behind a mixed legacy. Discretion is needed while following the lessons taught by the heroes of our history.
The Iron Man Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel
Sardar Patel’s ability of taking the right [and tough] decisions at the right time, made him the Iron Man, a virtue lacking in today’s vote-bank bound leaders. Mountbatten while disparaging Gandhi’s plan of spending the rest of his life in Pakistan described him as the only man who has his feet firmly on the ground. Formidable Vallabhbhai Patel was a man with a sense of reality; reality which could hurt but nevertheless had to be faced. He was said to have complete and firm control over the organization of his party (Congress) and became the first deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister of the newly freed India. J B Kriplani counts, shrewdness, determination, administrative capacity, and the ability to take definite decisions at all important occasions, as some of his chief characteristics. He also notes that Sardar could not bear opposition and he saw to it that those who opposed him had to pay the price. Later in the day, Mountbatten changed his view and called him as hysterical as the rest of the Congress Leaders. This happened due to a change in Patel’s stance about CHT, where he wrote stating that if it were imposed in East Bengal, the people would be justified in resisting this award by force and the Central government would be bound to support them.
Among the feathers in the Patel cap are counted the merger of more than 500 princely states into the newly formed Union of India. 550 states out of 560 had Hindu kings ruling over Hindu populace, their blending came comparatively easier with a promise that their riches would not get affected. But the real brain behind this is said to beV.P.Menon who was amongst the personal staff of Mountbatten, and often described as closer to Sardar Patel. Formidable Sardar’s approach was often mixed. Even the British officials accepted that they couldn’t have done it without or better than him. When the ruler of Manipur resisted the full integration into the Union, Patel thought out aloud, Isn’t there a brigadier in Shillong? After that it was only a matter of days that this problem was solved. It was for his steely resolve that the Union of India is what we see today. This steely touch and unambiguous stand might be missed in the days of Telangana turmoils.
Operation Polo or, Action’ the annexation of Hyderabad from the State of Nizam and Junagarh, both with Muslim rulers also go to his credit. Patel was the chief architect of both the annexations, especially the latter, in which thousands of Muslims lost their lives. It was Sardar Patel who appointed General Choudhary as army in charge and K.M.Munshi as regent, known for his strong Muslim bias who accomplished the task. Former PM Aspirant Mr. L.K. Advani put a bombshell recently by claiming that Nehru had openly called Patel, a communalist when he heard his plans about Hyderabad.
Sardar Patel and Muslims:
The general impression about Sardar Patel is that of being anti-Muslim. The second last Viceroy of India Lord Wavell [1944-47] dubs him as ‘communal and anti-Muslim’. Wavell thought of Sardar Patel as the only one of the congressmen capable of standing up to Gandhi.
Madhav Godbole former Union Home secretary in his book, The Holocaust of Indian Partition: An Inquest , explains that,Patel’s image as a communalist was, in no small measure , due to his openness and strong condemnation of Muslim communalism. It is obvious that communalism whether Hindu or Muslim needs to be condemned. But our PM aspirants would do better to make a note of how Patel did everything to protect Nizamuddin Dargah in Delhi with special orders to avoid its desecration, during the bloody September of 1947. His unannounced visit to Nizamuddin was a clear indication that he meant business; business of running his country in a saner, safer way. Here I recall complete destruction of the first Urdu poet Wali Gujarati’s mazar in Ahmedabad, all in a night! The mazar[tomb] of the pioneer Gujarati Ghazal writer and poet, Wali Gujarati was located right outside the Police Commissioner’s Office. It was destroyed and then levelled, with concrete poured for vehicles to move over it. This incident occurred in 2002. Modi never said a word in condemnation. This is in contrast with Sardar Patel protecting the tomb of Nizammuddin Aulia.
Sardar Patel was also against division of army on communal lines, where soldiers were asked to choose India or Pakistan, calling it the surest way to ensure a civil war. Also, during the same period he had allowed Sikhs to carry their kirpans; going against Nehru, who wanted a ban. As his feet were firmly planted on the ground, he had the moral courage to take a step backward whenever the situation demanded of him. People suspected Patel of opposing the Nehru-Liaquat pact but H.V.R Iyengar rejects it. To explain this, Iyengar narrates how Patel despite his impregnable way of dealing with issues, used to retract from an earlier stance, if he found he was in the wrong. Patel was disturbed due to the massacres of Hindus in East Pakistan which, led to repercussions in West Bengal where Muslims were killed for revenge. An incident happened where several thousand Muslims hidden in a warehouse of a jute mill, were set alight by Hindus . Thousands succumbed in the fire. Iyengar reports Patel telling him ,
