https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/ronojay-sens-blog/todays-party-political-narratives-do-not-capture-the-different-shades-of-sardar-patels-politics/?fbclid=IwAR0ddA6i6B7HEaNvNESOcCpC1iMpTfyn_eHls7Ij3mvVtK322m7QOgmfKhY
Today’s party political narratives do not capture the different shades of Sardar Patel’s politics November 3, 2018, 2:00 AM IST Ronojoy Sen in Extra Cover | Edit Page, India | TOI The giant statue of Vallabhbhai Patel, built at an astronomical cost of Rs 2,900 crore ($430 million) and inaugurated by Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Wednesday, has been dubbed the Statue of Unity. Patel has a well deserved reputation for getting the 560 odd princely states in 1947 to join the Indian Union. That is the narrative that Modi has stressed in his piece on Patel, published in several media outlets, as well as in many speeches, including his monthly radio address. Unsurprisingly, the different shades of Patel’s politics, in the immediate aftermath of independence, have been brushed under the carpet in this narrative of Patel as the great unifier. There are at least three other critical aspects to Patel’s political career between 1947 and 1949. One was the tense relationship between Patel and Nehru, with Patel accepting that Nehru was the more acceptable and popular leader. In December 1947, Nehru and Patel traded letters on the handling of Kashmir and both threatened resignation. With Gandhi playing arbiter Patel, however, wrote in January 1948: “If anybody has to go, it should be myself. I have long passed the age of active service.” Later that year Patel would tell a journalist, when he and Nehru were mobbed in Bombay, “They come for Jawahar, not for me.” Following Gandhi’s death though, Patel spoke eloquently to Congress members about his relationship with Nehru: “For over a quarter of a century, both of us sat at the feet of our master and struggled together for the freedom of India. It is unthinkable today, when the Mahatma is no more, that we would quarrel.” Second, if the Patel-Nehru relationship was vexed, so on occasion was the one between Patel and Gandhi. In 1946, Gandhi had accused Patel of making “inflammatory” speeches and playing to the gallery, something that was denied by Patel. Their relations were more severely tested during Gandhi’s stand in 1947-48 that Rs 55 crore be transferred to Pakistan as its share of undivided India’s assets. Patel was vehemently against this idea and had then said, “In the decision of assets we treated Pakistan generously. But obviously we cannot tolerate even a pie being spent for making bullets to be shot at us.” But Patel had to reluctantly agree to release the money in the face of Gandhi’s fast in January 1948. Despite their disagreements, Patel in one of his last speeches in 1950 referred to himself as a loyal soldier of “Bapu’s army.” Three, Patel’s conduct both before and after Gandhi’s assassination is worth revisiting. While the Kapur Commission of Enquiry into Gandhi’s assassination found widespread police incompetence, Patel as home minister had ordered increased security for the Mahatma in the days before the killing. Patel had even requested Gandhi, following a bomb throwing incident, for permission to search people coming to either meet Gandhi or attend prayer meetings at Birla House. However, Gandhi refused Patel’s request. Later, Patel said, “After the bomb incident, there was a police officer in almost every room. I knew Mahatma Gandhi did not like it and he had several arguments with me.” Though both Patel and Nehru agreed to ban RSS in the wake of Gandhi’s assassination, they were not in agreement on the dangers posed by RSS. While Patel believed that RSS was “indulging in dangerous activities,” he disagreed with Nehru on RSS’s role in Gandhi’s assassination. He wrote to Nehru in February 1948 that it was a “fanatical wing of the Hindu Mahasabha” that had planned the conspiracy to kill Gandhi. Patel and Nehru differed too on the nature of RSS and how long it should be banned. Eventually, Patel imposed certain conditions on RSS, such as giving up violence, restricting itself to cultural activities and professing loyalty to India’s Constitution, before lifting the ban. BJP’s current attempts to appropriate Patel, a loyal Congressman to the end, has been helped by Congress’s neglect of Patel and his legacy. While the statue of Patel is a colossal waste of public funds, it at least brings some welcome attention to Patel. However, by literally putting Patel on a pedestal, BJP risks reducing him to a caricature to be only used for political gains. -- Peace Is Doable -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to greenyouth+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send an email to greenyouth@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
