The Namo4PM Facebook Community held a Google+ Hangout with Dr. Anirban Ganguly to debate the question – “Is Narendra Modi the Sardar Patel of Modern India ?”.

The intense discussion that ensued in the Google+ Hangout provided a riveting insight into India’s history since she gained Independence and the political climate in which Sardar Patel achieved the unachievable – integrating as many as 565 princely states into the Indian Union.

Somnath was reconstructed by Sardar Patel. Did Nehru support the initiative?

No nehru did not support because KM Munshi writes that some time in 1950. in a a cabinet meeting Nehru had called the entire proceeding ‘Hindu revivalism’. Sardar Patel had in fact made a pledge to reconstruct Somnath and he in a note to KM Munshi mentions that in fact the restoration of the idol would be a point of honour with the Hindu public. The other aspect was also that Sardar felt that once the temple was reconstructed it would remind the people of their freedom and the necessity to protect freedom and he took personal initiative. NV Ghatgil was in charge of the public works minister. Along with him, KM Munshi, Sardar Patel, took the initiative to reconstruct the temple. Also some critics overlook that the entire Somnath reconstruction plan was a very comprehensive project. It was supposed to have an university, an entire institute along the lines of Anand. Sardar had a wide vision when it came to Somnath and Nehru opposed it saying that it smacked of Hindu revivalism. at one point he even said that he was not aware of the plan and KM Munshi had to show him the cabinet meeting notes which were made in his presence and which said that the Somnath project has been cleared by the cabinet.

Can similar approach be taken to construct the Ayodhya temple?

One of the intentions of re- constructing the Somnath Temple was to destroy a sliver of distrust between Hindus and Muslims. If the Ayodhya Temple has a comprehensive plan like the Somnath there is nothing nonsecular about it. Narendra Modi reminded us of it the day he laid the foundation stone for the Statue of Unity that Sardar’s building of Somnath was true secularism. That concept of secularism is what we need to integrate in our national life today.

Would Sardar in today’s time be considered secular? was he pro Hindu/Muslim, was he anti-Hindu/Muslim? How was he viewed by people then?

There are a number of articles coming out on Sardar these days and they are very selectively quoted from his speeches. many of his speeches are there on Youtube as well. Sardar was a man of the masses and the people looked upon him as an elder brother and an elder statesman. What i felt was that his relation with the people of India was such that he was the only leader who could do plain talking with them in all situations. His speech in calcutta in the January of 1958 is an eye opener. there was no other leader in India at that time who could talk to them in as direct a manner that Sardar did.

His constant re-iteration during those difficult days was that he told all communities “let us sail in the same boat” and he told the Indian Muslims that it was up to them whether they wanted to sail or sink in the same boat. he had a tremendous acceptance among people and among all sections. he was the one who could admonish them, protect them, upbraid them. this is a myth that has been created by the Nehruvian consensus group that Sardar was “communal” in his outlook. Today Sardar would have been labeled a Communalist by the Nehruvians and the Leftists.

Anyone who questioned Nehru or gave an alternate idea of India is, today, labelled a communalist or a fascist. Patel was someone who had national interest at heart and in Calcutta in 1948 he said that those who had demanded Pakistan had got Pakistan and many of those who had demanded Pakistan but remained in India, to those he said to forget the division as ” we are now creating one nation and I invite you to participate in that creation of one nation. ” P Suraya one of the founding members of CPI(M) accused Sardar Patel of colluding in the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi and called him a fascist and Sardar was very pained on this allegation.

There are a lot of similarities between Sardar Patel and Narendra Modi. Is Modi carrying forward Sardar Patel’s vision for India?

I am gradually veering around to that point of view. There is a talk of Sardar Patel’s where talk about where he wants India to be and he lists out certain criteria- unity, strength, strong cohesive center, well equipped modern army, economic contentment and stability, disciplined and responsible citizenship, firm administrative fabric. I think this entire framework fits into exactly what Mr. Modi is saying. Sardar was required when India needed decisive leadership. Sardar united India and we are again at a cross roads when India needs decisive leadership and when India’s unity which was established by Sardar is also being threatened in many ways. Today India yearns for decisive leadership and Mr. Modi fits that mould . He has been consistently calling out for all round participation in nation building. In times of national challenge this is exactly what the Sardar called for. This sense of decisiveness people are seeing in Modi.

 

Was Sardar Patel in some way partial to the Hindus? Particularly the condition of Hindus of East Bengal

Sardar kept saying one thing constantly that “I am a frank person and I say bitter truths to Hindus and Muslims. K Santanam made a very interesting observation that Sardar Patel was a much misunderstood man. He believed in protecting the rights of the Muslims as much as those of the Hindus but he could not appreciate the hesitation Pandit Nehru and the others to oppose Muslim fanaticism. the major difference between him and Nehru on the East Bengal issue was that Sardar called for a complete exchange of population like what happened on the western front. Nehru opposed it and he said that Muslims who went to West Bengal were also free to come back to west Bengal after Partition.

On the other hand by January 1950 the persecution of the minority Hindus in East Pakistan had increased and you had rows and columns of refugees coming into West Bengal . It is at that point of time that the Sardar said that if Pakistan cannot ensure the protection of the Hindu minorities in East Pakistan then they must be willing to cede land so that India could respectfully rehabilitate refugees in that piece of land. Nehru found it preposterous and some other writers today also find it preposterous saying it was communal. But if you talk to the refugees today they looked upon Sardar as their saviour. They found nothing preposterous in that. That demand in some sections is reiterated even today. Sardar had the entire cabinet in his support in this demand and Nehru was isolated and whenever Nehru found himself isolated he always resorted to the threat of resignation and in a letter to mahatma Gandhi Sardar called it ‘the ideal threat of resignation’. It is on record that Nehru’s behavior towards the refugees from east Bengal was completely different than his behaviour towards refugees from West Pakistan.

Sardar Patel played a very vital role in integrating the Indian states. Most important are Hyderabad and Jammu&Kashmir. How difficult was Operation Polo and how much support did Sardar Patel get from Nehru.

All sorts of hurdle were put before Sardar when it came to Hyderabad. Nehru was so conscious about his international image as a moral leader of the world that he just could not think that there could be a military or police action in Hyderabad. Dardar told KM Munshi who was at that time the Agent General in Hyderabad to give an ultimatum to the Nizam saying that it was enough and they has been given all options and nothing was working out. KM Munshi did that and the moment Nehru came to know of it he called for an emergency cabinet meeting where he pulled up Sardar, who was much older to him, for having given those instructions to Munshi to pass onto the Nizam. He flew into a rage. there are counter- narratives but if you read the reports of those who participated in that discussion, you will see how Sardar was anxious to solve it once and for all because as Munshi said that had he left Hyderabad as it was and given the charge to Nehru we would have had an ulcer in the belly of India.

Right till the police action there were constant road blocks by Nehru. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee supported Patel on his decision to undertake police action in Hyderabad. After the entire action Nehru called Shyama Prasad Mukherjee and told him that Pakistan might retaliate by invading west Bengal and that Calcutta might be bombed. This was the instability that our PM displayed at that time. So Patel had to do a lot of fighting and at one point when said that he had to be patient with Nehru. Once victory was achieved, V Shankar Patel’s secretary writes that, Nehru was the first one to rush to Hyderabad. Hyderabad action would have been finished much earlier had Nehru not put in road blocks.

 

What exactly was Sardar Patel’s stand on J&K and was he in favour of going to the UN? Had Nehru left it to him would we have the full integration of J&K without Article 370?

Absolutely. Had Patel had some more time things could have been reversed. He definitely did not want to go to the UN because there is this letter of Sardar Patel’s written to Henderson who was the Dep. Secretary in the Foreign Office in UK where Patel says that “I myself felt that we should have never gone to the UNO and had we taken timely action when we went to the UNO we could have settled the whole case much more satisfactorily from our point of view. he was very clear on Article 370 that there should be no special provision. In fact Patel and the entire Congress Party was thoroughly against giving Article 370 to J&K. And again those siding with Patel on this matter are called communalists. It was Nehru who was abroad at that time, appealed to Patel to see that it was passed. But Patel was very clear on it being a temporary provision.

What was Sardar’s opinion on the communist?

Communists have started becoming vocal and supportive of the legacy of Sardar Patel off late. Sardar was the leader who knew about the communist threat to the fledgling nation of India. He took the communists head on. In Hyderabad communists came together with Razakars against the Hindus. So the communists started labeling him as capitalist and fascist. The same way they call Narendra Modi a capitalist and fascist.

Sardar Patel was clear about his stand and used to say that he was friend of the poor and also the rich, kings and zamindars. He used to clearly state that because I want to become a leader for no rhyme and reason I cannot go against capitalists. Sardar had clearly stated to a foreign correspondent early on that for India communists are legacy of British and people of India will never accept them as they always supported British and got favors from British government. He had also told the correspondent that India is capable of handling the communists and that Indians know that they are basically interested in dislocating and creating disruptions. He had also said that anything foreign is never accepted in body politics of India. He went to the extent of saying that India is the only country that can withstand communism. His personal letters are a proof as to how he could perceive threat of communism for the whole of Asia. He had said that he will always try his best to uproot communalists who are trying to use terror against people of Hyderabad.

The Telangana Rebellion was a major threat and communist took advantage of J&K situation, refugee situation and internal disturbances to encourage rebellions in Hyderabad and Sardar saw through it. He was also clear about how communists had infiltrated our system and how we need to guard against them. Communists now take very high stand on the human rights and moral issues they should know they were the biggest threat to India’s democracy and biggest offenders of human rights. They were the biggest threat to India’s internal security and this is on record and they exhibited fascist mentality themselves. Communista were collaborating with the razakars who were killing innocent peasants and because of this India had to spend lots of money to protect them and to rehabilitate the poor peasants in Hyderabad. They were a burden to the fledgling Indian economy and now today they call Mr. Modi fascist and capitalists. No one is questioning communists about all these things. They are everywhere and they question and they answer themselves.

Can you please elaborate on Sardar’s views on China and Tibet and how did it vary from Nehru’s.

‘The farther we keep away the communists forces the better’ is what Sardar had told Nehru. He had foreseen the events and had asked Nehru to strengthen India in Sikkim and Tibet. Sardar always wanted to play a part in the framing of policy for China but Nehru never allowed it. Sardar had told Nehru that Hong Kong can become a base to keep communists away from Asia but Hong Kong should not be used for imperial purposes. Nehru ignored Sardar’s request to check reply from India to British PM with regards to Hong Kong.

Nehru who had closed himself to see any danger from China did not listen to Sardar when he tried to warn him against communist army of China and its intention to march towards India after gobbling Tibet. People call Sardar autocrat but he was really democrat and wanted entire cabinet to be in loop about the decision on China. He always said to go slow on China. The last letter Sardar wrote to Nehru about China was totally ignored where Sardar had clearly stated to develop defense infrastructure along the Chinese border way back in 1950. Nehru pigeon holed the draft created by Sardar how to develop infrastructure along Chinese border and the documents created by army based on it.

Nehru’s view was that communist nation will not attack a nation that sympathizes with communists. Which proved wrong and we paid heavy price for it by not developing infrastructure along the Chinese border. When Narendra Modi said that he wished Sardar had become the PM of India the entire Congress was up against him. But this was the sentiment of the people way back in 1962 also. C Rajagopalachari and Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan both had exclaimed in 1962 wishing that Sardar was alive to lead India. All nationalist patriots feel that way not just Mr. Modi.

Did Nehru actually instruct Ministers and Secretaries not to attend Sardar Patel’s funeral?

Yes it is very strange that he did it. Mr. K M Munshi and Mr. V Shankar both are proof of it. Both say that they were receiving messages from Delhi discouraging Ministers and Governors from attending funeral of Sardar. Nehru had officially issued a statement in Parliament that he and Rajaji would attend funeral of Sardar on behalf of all as he felt that Sardar being a man of action would not have liked all to leave the Parliament and attend his funeral. He had made such a request to the President also citing the protocol which the President did not adhere to. Finally when people did not listen to him he said they should attend funeral at their own expense. The problem with Nehru is that he believed that perpetuation of family will happen at the expense of exchequer but perpetuation of ideas to build nation has to happen at individual’s expense. Nehru’s strange stand about the funeral of Sardar shows how insecure he felt.

I find two points coming to my mind when it comes to calling Narendra Modi Sardar of modern India. Sardar’s biographer states that, “Patel never employed power to generate money, jewelry or property to himself or his offspring whose lives were in no way dependent on his being in office”. Patel’s daughter Maniben always used to say that Patel can never be blackmailed and that was his strength. Patel’s decisions were always in national interest and never in self-interest and that is why he had the strength to take such decisions.

When it comes to Muslims again it is the same. Sardar was of opinion that all should work towards nation’s development. While PM these days says minorities especially Muslims have first right over nation’s resources. While Mr. Modi says poor have right over nation’s resources first. This is so open for the nation to judge.

Was Nehru jealous of Sardar?

It would be giving too much to Nehru by saying that he was jealous of Sardar. He was opportunistic and would use Sardar when things would fly beyond his capacity and once in control would again sideline Sardar. When Shyama Prasad Mukherjee build a strong opposition against Nehru in Kolkata then he went to Sardar and asked him to manage the situation for him in Kolkata. Sardar went to Kolkata despite failing health. Nehru used to fly off tangent and this was a reason for causing health issues to Sardar.