Skip to main content

Narendra Modi and Sardar Patel



If Mr Narendra Modi’s admiration for Sardar Patel is born of a genuine understanding of the latter, his Statue of Unity project merits the nation’s approval. 

Modi has decided to spend an estimated sum of Rs 2500 crore to erect Patel’s statue in the Narmada.  Cynics and Modi’s critics will thumb their noses at the expenditure incurred at a time when a large number of people in Modi’s state are labouring under the burden of day-to-day subsistence. But Shahjahan would not have built the Taj Mahal had he applied this kind of logic to his historical aspirations.  India would have missed one of the world’s wonders.  Modi is the contemporary Shahjahan giving us the world’s tallest statue.

Is Modi merely a modern day Shahjahan trying to engrave his name indelibly in the annuls of history?  Or is he playing yet another political game to add a new avatar to the already overcrowded pantheon of the Sangh Parivar? 

Does Modi know what the Sardar really was, how diametrically opposed his views were to those of Modi?

People like Modi have tried off and on to portray Sardar Patel as a champion of Hindutva.  Modi’s recent remark that Patel would have made a better PM than Nehru is not without substance.  Nehru was a Romantic “with child-like innocence,” as Patel described him in his letter to D P Mishra on July 29, 1946.  Patel was a very pragmatic man who never hesitated to call a spade a spade.  In fact, Patel’s pragmatism coupled with his ruthless frankness was a tremendous asset to Nehru in the traumatic days that followed India’s Independence.  It was that ruthlessness which brought Liaquat Ali Khan rushing to Delhi in April 1950 leading to the Nehru-Liaquat Pact.  Patel might have made a better PM.  But such conjectures don’t take us anywhere really.

Patel was never a Hindu communalist.  On the contrary, peaceful coexistence of all communities was as close to his heart as it was to Gandhi’s.  Under pressure from many lobbies to declare India a Hindu state since Pakistan had become a Muslim state, Patel told B M Birla who had strongly advocated such a step, “I do not think it will be possible to consider India as a Hindu state with Hinduism as a state religion.  We must not forget that there are other minorities whose protection is our primary responsibility.” (P N Chopra, The Sardar of India).  Patel asked the senior civil and police officers to protect the Muslims in case of any communal riot.  

True, Patel did not like Jinnah whom he viewed as a mere power-seeker.  He was deeply anguished by the “gullibility” of the Muslims who put their trust in the crafty Jinnah rather than in the visionary Mahatma.  He dared to question Gandhi whether there were any Muslims who would listen to him.  He did not mince words when he warned the Muslim nationalists, “I want to tell you frankly that mere declarations of loyalty to the Indian Union will not help you.... You must give practical proof of your declarations.  I ask you why you did not unequivocally denounce Pakistan for attacking Indian territory with the connivance of Frontier tribesmen?  Is it not your duty to condemn all acts of aggression against India?” (quoted from The Statesman, Dec 28, 1947 in Sardar Patel and Indian Muslims, Rafiq Zakaria)

When Pakistan drove out Hindus in large numbers especially from East Bengal, Patel thundered, “We would have no alternative left except to send out Muslims in equal numbers.”(Rafiq Zakaria)

Such utterances of the Sardar are quoted by certain members of the Sangh Parivar as evidence for his Hindutva legacy.  But as Mahatma Gandhi said, “The Sardar had a bluntness of speech which sometimes unintentionally hurt.  Though his heart was expansive enough to accommodate all.” (Gandhi, Communal Unity)

Patel’s was a magnanimous heart which loved the country and all its people.  He does deserve a Statue of Unity.  But he certainly does not deserve to be metamorphosed into a symbol of any factional ideology. 

If Mr Narendra Modi has a proper understanding of what Sardar Patel stood for, we should salute his new venture.  Some conversions are welcome.




Comments

  1. Sir,

    1. Is the Sangh Parivar's pantheon really overcrowded(especially when the yardstick in India is set by the Congress party)? I think the Parivar is rather searching for some latch to hook on to.
    2. What caught the RSS's fancy in the early 50s was the feud between Rajendra Prasad and Nehru over the former's advocacy of the rebuilding of Somnath Temple with state funds. This became quintessentially a debate between being communal or being secular. Patel's reaction was awaited. And when he made his stand clear(which was to side with Prasad), the RSS hailed him as a champion of Hinduism. In fact, it is worthy to note that India was not a secular country(on paper) til the early 50s, the change began in a series of constitutional amendments starting with amendment of article 290 in 1956. Some say that had Patel's lived that long he would have never allowed the bills to be introduced in the parliament and India wouldn't have become a secular nation today.
    3. Do you really think Modi can change? People have made him a cult figure for what he is. And he is too smart to overcook his dinner.

    - Sid

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sid, the behaviour of certain Muslims in India did affect Patel seriously. There were times when he seemed to have doubted the very loyalty of Muslims. Yet at heart he was not parochial. I don't think he would have objected to secularism.

      Modi is a good showman, I know that. He knows how to take the masses with him. He can never be a leader with any vision.

      Delete
  2. "Sardar would have better PM". I agree with this statement 100%. I think with him at the helm Pakistan would not been this problematic toady. He would have blunted them long back.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's quite right, Rajesh. Patel had a ruthlessly forthright and practical way of approaching problems. But I think we should not denigrate Nehru's vision which was based on understanding, cooperation and inclusiveness. Nehru was a dreamer; that's why I used the term 'Romantic' for him. Unlike Gandhi Nehru was slightly naive. Yet Nehru was great in his own way. I'm ready to go to the extent of saying that Nehru's fault lay in the petty-mindedness of the ineluctable mediocrity of the human species.

      Patel understood that mediocrity and dealt with it at that level. And politicians should do precisely that. So I do agree with you that Patel would have made much difference to history had he become the PM.

      Delete
  3. Good post. With this statue initiative and the statements he is making that Sardar was a pro-Hindutva leader etc, he is questioning the very integrity of a leader like Sardar Patel. I wonder why Patel's family didn't respond to this at least. If he was a strong Hindutva person and a man of integrity, he should have resigned from Congress when India took the secular path and joined Jansangh. Now Modi says he is pro-Hindutva, is he saying that Sardar was power-savy and didn't have the guts to get out of Congress? If so it's the highest insult one can do to a national hero. Luckily for Modi, he doesn't live in an educated, mature society where people question him on such things, but in a quasi-democratic India.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I remember how the BJP had tried to rewrite history when it came to power by meddling with CBSE textbooks. Modi is doing something similar now. As you said, it is gross injustice to a man who towered above parochial thinking. Yes, Patel had some misgivings about Muslims, but that didn't make him pro-Hindutva.

      Delete
  4. Modi disappoints me time and again. Why can't our leaders move forward on their own merit? Why do we have to fall back on the past to validate every move? Are our masses that gullible? They underestimate us grossly and will pay the price. But sadly that won't get any of us anywhere.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. History is a crutch for people who can't manage their present on their own.

      Aren't the masses gullible especially where religion is involved?

      Delete
  5. I think it is frivolous on our part to go through a character sketch of 'SARDAR' He unified India with a iron hand and at that particular time communalism or pseudocommunalism as practiced today was not known. I am sound pro NaMo but India today needs a iron hand at the helm. Not somebody who thinks poverty is relative term or measures it with Jupiters velocity. We need some hard hitting policy decisions and I would rather push for NaMo given the startling dearth of statesman/politicians at the centre

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. People's character can't be divorced from what they say and do, can it? Ultimately the character will overtake politics and short-term policies. Then we shouldn't have to regret. I wouldn't like a man with blinkered vision to be my PM. People like NaMo can prove to be a severe liability to a nation like India which has a tremendous variety of all types: religious, cultural, ethnic, linguistic and even racial. But if Modi's Unity Statue is a symbol of his own inner transformation, I'm willing to keep my fingers crossed.

      Delete
  6. Modern day Shahjahan :) Good one. It would be a very big project and could generate lot of employment. But I fear like original Shahjahan, would the the modern Shahjahan also cut both the hands of the architect after the project !!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Adventures of Toto as a comic strip

  'The Adventures of Toto' is an amusing story by Ruskin Bond. It is prescribed as a lesson in CBSE's English course for class 9. Maggie asked her students to do a project on some of the lessons and Femi George's work is what I would like to present here. Femi converted the story into a beautiful comic strip. Her work will speak for itself and let me present it below.  Femi George Student of Carmel Public School, Vazhakulam, Kerala Similar post: The Little Girl

The Second Crucifixion

  ‘The Second Crucifixion’ is the title of the last chapter of Dominique Lapierre and Larry Collins’s magnum opus Freedom at Midnight . The sub-heading is: ‘New Delhi, 30 January 1948’. Seventy-three years ago, on that day, a great soul was shot dead by a man who was driven by the darkness of hatred. Gandhi has just completed his usual prayer session. He had recited a prayer from the Gita:                         For certain is death for the born                         and certain is birth for the dead;                         Therefore over the inevitable                         Thou shalt not grieve . At that time Narayan Apte and Vishnu Karkare were moving to Retiring Room Number 6 at the Old Delhi railway station. They walked like thieves not wishing to be noticed by anyone. The early morning’s winter fog of Delhi gave them the required wrap. They found Nathuram Godse already awake in the retiring room. The three of them sat together and finalised the plot against Gand

The Final Farewell

Book Review “ Death ends life, not a relationship ,” as Mitch Albom put it. That is why, we have so many rituals associated with death. Minakshi Dewan’s book, The Final Farewell [HarperCollins, 2023], is a well-researched book about those rituals. The book starts with an elaborate description of the Sikh rituals associated with death and cremation, before moving on to Islam, Zoroastrianism, Christianity, and finally Hinduism. After that, it’s all about the various traditions and related details of Hindu final rites. A few chapters are dedicated to the problems of widows in India, gender discrimination in the last rites, and the problem of unclaimed dead bodies. There is a chapter titled ‘Grieving Widows in Hindi Cinema’ too. Death and its rituals form an unusual theme for a book. Frankly, I don’t find the topic stimulating in any way. Obviously, I didn’t buy this book. It came to me as quite many other books do – for reasons of their own. I read the book finally, having shelv

Vultures and Religion

When vultures become extinct, why should a religion face a threat? “When the vultures died off, they stopped eating the bodies of Zoroastrians…” I was amused as I went on reading the book The Final Farewell by Minakshi Dewan. The book is about how the dead are dealt with by people of different religious persuasions. Dead people are quite useless, unless you love euphemism. Or, as they say, dead people tell no tales. In the end, we are all just stories made by people like the religious woman who wrote the epitaph for her atheist husband: “Here lies an atheist, all dressed up and no place to go.” Zoroastrianism is a religion which converts death into a sordid tale by throwing the corpses of its believers to vultures. Death makes one impure, according to that religion. Well, I always thought, and still do, that life makes one impure. I have the support of Lord Buddha on that. Life is dukkha , said the Enlightened. That is, suffering, dissatisfaction and unease. Death is liberation

Cats and Love

No less a psychologist than Freud said that the “time spent with cats is never wasted.” I find time to spend with cats precisely for that reason. They are not easy to love, particularly if they are the country variety which are not quite tameable, and mine are those. What makes my love affair with my cats special is precisely their unwillingness to befriend me. They’d rather be in their own company. “In ancient time, cats were worshipped as gods; they have not forgotten this,” Terry Pratchett says. My cats haven’t, I’m sure. Pratchett knew what he was speaking about because he loved cats which appear frequently in his works. Pratchett’s cats love independence, very unlike dogs. Dogs come when you call them; cats take a message and get back to you as and when they please. I don’t have dogs. But my brother’s dogs visit us – Maggie and me – every evening. We give them something to eat and they love that. They spend time with us after eating. My cats just go away without even a look af