One would find contradictions in the history till the misunderstandings are not resolved. For Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, the Partition of British India was inevitable since his experience in dealing with the Muslim League in the Provisional or Interim Government was troublesome and after the Great Calcutta Killings following the Direct Action Day i.e. 16 August 1946, his mind focused on how to get rid of M. A. Jinnah and his day to day tantrums.
After the lectures of Patel in Calcutta and Lucknow in the first week of January 1948, there was hue and cry about the Deputy Prime Minister being anti-Muslim. Complaints reached Mahatma Gandhi and he had to defend the Sardar. In fact whatever Patel said at both the places was “the Muslims should give up dilemma and should not worry about their interests in India”. He used to say that he was a “true friend” of Muslims and cared for their interests. He believed that the problem of the Muslims, like that of the other minorities, was complicated and required careful handling. Political agitation and communal questions should always be kept apart.
But Mualana Abul Kalam Azad, the President of Indian National Congress and first Education Minister of free India, thought Patel “was now convinced that Muslims and Hindus could not be united into one nation.” Though Maulana was opposed to the partition of India, he accused Patel of being “an even greater supporter of the two nation theory than Jinnah.” In his book “India Wins Freedom”, Azad went to extent of saying: “Jinnah may have raised the flag of partition but now the real flag bearer was Patel.” As Moin Shakir rightly states in “Vallabhbhai Patel: A Biography of his Vision and Ideas”: “Patel is a much-misunderstood man of Indian politics. His views, especially those on the question of minorities, are subjected to conflicting and contradictory assessment. Many of the misunderstandings may be removed if they are examined in a proper perspective.” Though his critics may describe him as fascist, communal and anti-Muslim, none can dispute that Patel’s secular credentials were beyond any doubt.
Even when Maulana Azad preferred to brand him as “the real flag bearer of partition”, Sardar Patel publicly declared in the second week of August 1947 that “Today the partition of India was a settled fact and yet it was an unreal fact. The partition, he hoped, however removed the poison from the body politic of India. This he was sure, would result in the seceding areas desiring to reunite with the rest of India. India was one and indivisible. One could not divide the sea or split the running waters of a river. The Muslims had their roots in India. Their sacred places and their cultural centres were located here in India. He did not know what they could do in Pakistan and it would not be long before they began to
return.”(“The Collected Works of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel” Volume XII- P. N. Chopra) One should not forget that the Constitutional rights to the Minorities including Muslims were more or less the gift of Sardar Patel since he chaired the Advisory Committee on Minorities, Fundamental Rights, etc., and presented the Reports to the Constituent Assembly. “Certain issues which had created much bitterness in the past were settled by an overwhelming majority. In discussing the reports the Sardar appealed to the House to eschew heat and bitterness, to recognize the present state of affairs in the neighbouring areas and avoid the raising of controversies which could have unfortunate reactions elsewhere. The question of safeguards and other connected questions, the Sardar said, had often seen long discusses by various committees and in fact there was nothing new in them.” This was the stand taken by Sardar Patel in August 1947.
The secular credentials of Patel were beyond doubt. He was convince that in India, there could be no serious talk of a Hindu state. In a letter to M. B. Birla, he wrote: “I do not think it will be possible to consider India as a Hindu state with Hinduism as the state religion. We must not forget that there are other minorities whose protection is our primary responsibility. The state must exist for all irrespective of caste and creed.” Moin Shakir adds: “ Patel knew that Pakistan’s anti-secular policies would have an adverse reaction on the Indian people, if not on the government, but he bore no ill-will to Pakistan. For him Pakistan meant ‘the hope of a final settlement of a brotherly dispute.’ We feel that satisfying the
obstinate demand of a brother who had been part of a joint family would bring peace to both of us and prosperity for all.”
Patel’s views on the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha throw sufficient light on his secular approach. He was critical of their philosophy and their political techniques. He never subscribed to the ideas of a Hindu Raj and a Hindu culture to be imposed by force in India. He was aware of their anti-Muslim stance and termed it as thoroughly unreasonable. He held that no Government would tolerate this. “We are not going to drive them(Muslims) away. It would be an evil day if we started that game in spite of partition and whatever happens.” Patel expected a change of outlook on the part of the Muslim community too. They should forget their past and should involve themselves in the process of nation-building.
The Sardar is not required to be defended as a man who was not anti-Muslim, but since his own colleague, Maulana Azad, accused him of his bias of being anti-Muslim, we may present certain occasions indicating his liberal mind. And as Vidya Shankar, ICS, Private secretary to Sardar,1946-50 states: “Although he (Azad) has not spared Gandhiji and Pandit Nehru, his worst venom was reserved for Sardar.” In “Sardar Patel: Select Correspondence 1945-50”, Shankar mentions at least four incidents to present the Sardar’s secular and none anti- Muslim credentials: 1. He appointed Josh Malihabadi, despite his political affiliations and the community to which he belonged, to a responsible post as Editor of the Urdu magazine “Aaj Kal” under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. 2. The first Indian Chief Commissioner of Delhi whom he appointed , was a Muslim-Khurshid Ahmad Khan. 3. He introduced the Urdu language for All India Radio broadcast. 4. When the daughter of the Nawab of Bhopal wanted to visit her husband in Pataudi during the disturbances, Sardar decided to take her himself and to arrange for the safety of the husband and wife during their stay in Pataudi. What more one should say?
Next Column: Sardar Patel and the Sikhs
(The writer is a Socio-political Historian. E-mail: [email protected] )
