Extract-I from Sardar Patel Book

Interesting Extract from the Book
SARDAR PATEL :
The Best PM India Never Had
Chapter-6 :
How India was Deprived of the Best First PM

Celebrating the forthcoming Birth Anniversary of Sardar Patel on 31 October 2018.

Book Availability:
Please Click Here for the Kindle Digital Edition.
Please Click Here for the Hardback Edition in India: Pustak Mahal.com
Please Click Here for the Hardback Edition in India: Amazon.
Please Click Here for the Paperback Edition Abroad (other than in India).
 
Those interested can click on the book-image on the book's Amazon page to check on the book's "Table of Contents", "Detailed Table of Contents" and initial pages.

Book Review

Chapter-6 :
How India was Deprived of the Best First PM

Race for India’s First PM: Iron Man vs. Nehru

Post 1945, with the increasing hopes of the imminence of India’s independence, all patriots looked forward to having a strong, assertive, competent, decisive, no-nonsense person as India’s first prime minister, who would bring back the lost glory of India, and turn it into a modern, prosperous nation. Iron Man Sardar Patel was the clear choice, being a cut much above the rest. And, nobody looked forward to having some undemocratic, indecisive, clueless leader to mess up a hard-won freedom after centuries.

The Congress Party had practically witnessed Patel as a great executor, organizer and leader, with his feet on the ground. Sardar had demonstrated his prowess in the various movements and assignments, including that in the Nagpur Agitation of 1923; the Borsad Satyagraha of 1923; excellent management of the Ahmedabad Municipality during 1924-27; tackling of the Ahmedabad Floods of 1927; the Bardoli Satyagraha of 1928 that earned him the title of "Sardar"; the Dandi March and the Salt Satyagraha of 1930; successful management of elections for the Congress during 1934-37; preparation, conduct and management of Haripura session of the Congress in 1938 on a massive scale; building up of the party machine; role in preparation for the Quit India Movement; and premier leadership role 1945 onwards. Patel’s achievements were far in excess of Nehru’s, and all Congress persons and the country knew it.

Sardar was far better academically, and much more intelligent than Nehru. Like Nehru, Sardar Patel too had studied in England. But, while Nehru’s father financed all his education, Sardar financed his own education in England, through his own earnings! While Nehru could manage to scrape through in only a poor lower second-division in England, Sardar Patel topped in the first division!

Professionally too, Sardar was a successful lawyer, while Nehru was a failure. Sardar had a roaring practice, and was the highest paid lawyer in Ahmedabad, before he left it all on a call by Gandhi; while Nehru was dependent upon his father for his own upkeep, and that of his family.

Wrote Balraj Krishna:

“Common talk among the members of the Indian Civil Service post-Independence used to be: ‘If the dead body of the Sardar were stuffed and placed on a chair, he could still rule.’”{BK/xi}

Based on the ground-level practical experience since 1917, it could be said with certainty in 1946 that Nehru was no match for Sardar for the critical post of the prime minister. Of course, Nehru as PM in practice confirmed beyond a shred of doubt that it should have been Sardar, and not him, who should have been the first PM of India. For details, please read the author’s other books ‘Nehru’s 97 Major Blunders’ and ‘Foundations of Misery: The Nehruvian Era 1947-64’, available on Amazon.

Critical Importance of Congress Presidential Election in 1946

Traditionally, elections for the president of the Indian National Congress (INC) used to be held yearly. With the end of the World War II, release of all leaders from jail, and hope of imminent freedom, it appeared likely that the Congress would soon be called upon to form the government. Hence, election of a Congress President, who would head the government as Prime Minister, became incumbent. Unlike all the previous occasions since the formation of the Congress in 1885, the election of the Congress President in 1946 became special and critical—because whoever became the President would also have become the first Prime Minister of India.

Legal Procedure for the Election

As per the laid down procedure in practice for many decades, only the Pradesh Congress Committees (PCCs) were the authorised bodies to elect a president. There were 15 such PCCs They were supposed to send their nomination to the Congress Working Committee (CWC). The person who received maximum nominations was elected as President. There being 15 PCCs, at least 8 PCCs had to nominate a specific individual for him or her to gain the majority to become president. In 1946, the last date of nominations for the post of the president was 29 April 1946.

Result of the Election : Sardar Won Unopposed

The Congress Working Committee (CWC) met on 29 April 1946 to consider the nominations sent by the PCCs. 12 of the 15 (80%) PCCs nominated Sardar Patel{RG/370}; and 3 PCCs out of the 15 (20%) did not nominate anyone. It therefore turned out to be a non-contest. Sardar Patel was the only choice, and an undisputed choice, with not a single opposition.

What was noteworthy was that on 20 April 1946, that is, nine days before the last date of nominations of 29 April 1946, Gandhi had indicated his preference for Nehru. Yet, not a single PCC nominated Nehru!

Hijacking of the Election by Gandhi–Nehru

Looking to the unexpected (unexpected by Gandhi) development, Gandhi prodded Kriplani to convince a few CWC members to propose Nehru’s name for the party president. Kriplani promptly and unquestioningly complied: He got a few to propose Nehru’s name. Finding this queer development, Sardar Patel enquired with Gandhi, and sought his advice. Gandhi counselled him to withdraw his name. Patel complied promptly, and didn’t raise any question. That cleared the way for Nehru. The “democratic” Nehru didn’t feel embarrassed at this blatant hijacking of the election.

Said Kripalani later: “Sardar did not like my intervention.”{RG/371} 

Years later Acharya Kripalani had told Durga Das:

“All the P.C.C.s sent in the name of Patel by a majority and one or two proposed the names of Rajen Babu in addition, but none that of Jawaharlal. I knew Gandhi wanted Jawaharlal to be President for a year, and I made a proposal myself [at Gandhi’s prodding] saying ‘some Delhi fellows want Jawaharlal’s name’. I circulated it to the members of the Working Committee to get their endorsement. I played this mischief. I am to blame. Patel never forgave me for that. He was a man of will and decision. You saw his face. It grew year by year in power and determination…”{DD/229}

Gandhi-Nehru Act : Why Improper?

Gandhi’s actions must be judged in the background of his being a “Mahatma”, and an “Apostle of Truth and Non-Violence”. As Gandhi had himself stressed, “non-violence” didn’t have a narrow interpretation as just lack of violence, but a broad interpretation where things like anger, illegal and unjust acts also came within the broad definition of violence. What Gandhi and Nehru manoeuvred was not only illegal,  immoral and unethical, but also against the interest of the nation. Here are the reasons for the same:

(1) Illegality-1: PCCs alone were authorised to elect the president. There was nothing in the Congress constitution to permit that rule to be overturned. How could Gandhi overrule what 15 PCCs had recommended? On what legal basis? Gandhi’s action was totally illegal.

(2) Illegality-2: Gandhi had resigned from the primary membership of the Congress back in 1934 to devote himself to “constructive work” (Were political work and fighting for freedom “destructive”?). Thereafter, he had never rejoined the Congress. How could a non-member of the Congress like Gandhi dictate who should be the president of the Congress, or even participate in CWC meetings?

(3) Unreasonable-1: Did Gandhi put on record his reasons for overruling the recommendations of the PCCs? No.

(4) Unreasonable-2: Did Gandhi put on record why Patel was not suitable as the president, and hence the first PM, and why Nehru was a better choice? No.

(5) Unreasonable-3: Was there a proper, detailed, and threadbare discussion in the CWC on why Patel was not suited for the post, and therefore why the recommendations of the PCCs should be ignored? No.

(6) Unreasonable-4: If CWC was not convinced of the recommendations of the PCCs, why didn’t it refer back the matter to the PCCs, and ask them to re-submit their recommendations, with detailed reasoning? The decision could have been postponed.

(7) Against National Interest-1: How could responsibility of such critical nature be assigned to a person without doubly ensuring that person’s relative suitability through fair and democratic discussions among all CWC members, and, of course, finally through voting.

(8) Against National Interest-2: National interests demanded that the choice of person was dictated not by personal biases, and diktats, but by suitability, and mutual consensus, and the reasons should have been put on record.

(9) Dictatorial & Undemocratic-1: How could an individual like Gandhi dictate who should or should not be the president, and hence the first PM? And, if that was fine for the Congress, then why the sham of elections, and votes of the PCCs?

(10) Dictatorial & Undemocratic-2: What kind of freedom “fighters” we had in the Gandhian Congress that they didn’t even assert their freedom within the CWC, or show their guts against the slavery of Gandhi, and voice their opinions? Was an individual Gandhi correct, and were the 15 PCCs wrong?

(11) Unethical-1: Leave apart the legal and other aspects, was it ethical and moral and truthful for Gandhi to do what he did? If indeed he thought he was correct, and all others were wrong, the least that was expected from him was to explain his logic and reasoning. Or, was he above all that? Do what you want—no questions asked!

(12) Unethical-2: How could a person being nominated for president, and therefore as the first Indian PM, be so devoid of integrity, fair-play and ethics as to blatantly be a party to the  illegality of  throwing the recommendations of the PCCs into a dustbin,  and allowing oneself to be nominated?

(13) Unembarrassed: Did it not embarrass Nehru that he was usurping a position undemocratically through blatantly unfair means? Did it behove a future PM?

(14) Blunder: Overall, it was a blot on the working of the CWC, and on the CWC members, and particularly Gandhi and Nehru, that they could so brazenly and irresponsibly commit such a blunder, which ultimately cost the nation heavy.

Reaction of Stalwarts on the Improper Act

Wrote Rajmohan Gandhi: “If Gandhi had his reasons for wanting Jawaharlal, the party had its for wanting Patel, whom it saw, as Kripalani would afterwards say, as ‘a great executive, organizer and leader’, with his feet on the ground. The party was conscious too of Sardar’s successful Quit India exertions, not matched by Jawaharlal.”{RG/370}

Acharya Kriplani admitted:

“I sent a paper round proposing the name of Jawaharlal… It was certain that if Jawaharlal’s name had not been proposed, the Sardar would have been elected as the President… The Sardar did not like my intervention. I have since wondered if, as the General Secretary, I should have been instrumental in proposing Jawaharlal’s name in deference to Gandhi’s wishes in the matter… But who can forecast the future? On such seemingly trivial accidents depends the fate of men and even of nations.”{Krip/248-9}

DP Mishra had commented: “When we members of the Mahakoshal PCC preferred him [Patel] to Nehru as Congress President, we had no intention of depriving Nehru of future Premiership. The younger man had already been raised to the office of Congress President thrice, and we therefore thought it just and proper that Patel, the older man, should have at least a second chance [at Presidency, and thus be the first PM].”{RG/372} {DPM/185-6}

Dr Rajendra Prasad had stated: “Gandhi has once again sacrificed his trusted lieutenant for the sake of the glamorous Nehru.”{RG/371}

In fact, without Gandhi, Nehru would have been nowhere near the top. It was Gandhi who sold him and promoted him.

Wrote Maulana Azad, who had always favoured Nehru over Patel, in his autobiography:

“...Taking all facts into consideration, it seemed to me that Jawaharlal should be the new President [of Congress in 1946—and hence PM]. Accordingly, on 26 April 1946, I issues a statement proposing his name for Presidentship... [Then] I acted according to my best judgement but the way things have shaped since then has made me to realise that this was perhaps the greatest blunder of my political life...”{Azad/162}

Maulana Azad  also confessed in his above autobiography:

“My second mistake was that when I decided not to stand myself I did not support Sardar Patel. We differed on many issues but I am convinced that if he had succeeded me as Congress President he would have seen that the Cabinet Mission Plan was successfully implemented. He would have never committed the mistake of Jawaharlal which gave Mr. Jinnah an opportunity of sabotaging the Plan. I can never forgive myself when I think that if I had not committed these mistakes, perhaps the history of the last ten years would have been different.”{Azad/162}

Wrote Kuldip Nayar: “[Humayun] Kabir [translator and editor of Maulana Azad's autobiography] believed that Azad had come to realize after seeing Nehru’s functioning that Patel should have been India’s prime minister and Nehru the president of India. Coming as it did from an inveterate opponent of Patel, it was a revelation...A year earlier, Rajagopalachari had said the same thing...”{KN}

This is what Rajaji, who had then been pro-Nehru, had to say two decades after the death of Patel in Swarajya of 27.11.1971: 

“When the independence of India was coming close upon us and Gandhiji was the silent master of our affairs, he had come to the decision that Jawaharlal, who among all the Congress leaders was the most familiar with foreign affairs [although the Nehruvian years proved Nehru had made a mess of the foreign policy and external security], should be the Prime Minister of India, although he knew Vallabhbhai would be the best administrator among them all… Undoubtedly it would have been better… if Nehru had been asked to be the Foreign Minister and Patel made the Prime Minister. I too fell into the error of believing that Jawaharlal was the more enlightened person of the two... A myth had grown about Patel that he would be harsh towards Muslims. That was a wrong notion but it was the prevailing prejudice.”{RG3/443}

Rajaji took over from Mountbatten as the Governor-General (GG) of India on 21 June 1948. When Nehru had suggested Rajaji’s name as the GG, Rajaji had, in fact, written to Nehru that he (Nehru) should himself take over as the Governor-General (GG), and make Sardar Patel the Prime Minister. However, Nehru, vide his letter of 21 May 1948 to Rajaji, had politely turned down the suggestion: “Please forgive me for the delay in answering your telegram No.26-S dated 12^th May 1948 in which you suggested that I [Nehru] might be GG [Governor General]. Any suggestion from you is worthy of thought, but I am afraid the present one is completely impracticable from various points of view…”{JNSW/Vol-6/356}

Jayaprakash Narayan(JP) stated in 1972:

“Rajaji once unburdened his heart by publicly confessing to a wrong he had done to Sardar Patel. I find myself in a similar situation: the dominant feeling within me today is one of self-reproach, because during his lifetime, I was not merely a critic, but an opponent of the Great Sardar.”{BK/243}

The same JP, a socialist, used to be in Nehru’s camp. After independence the socialists had been plotting to unseat Patel from his post as Home Minister. JP had commented : “A man of 74 [Sardar Patel] has the department of which even a man of 30 would find it difficult to bear the burden.” Mridula Sarabhai, who was close to Nehru, had launched a whisper campaign for Sardar’s resignation. It is difficult to believe that the campaigns of both JP and Mridula did not have the blessings of Nehru, both being close to him.{Mak/129}

Wrote Stanley Wolpert:

“The Sardar, as Congress’s strongman was called, was determined to stay and solve whatever problems remained, rather than running away from them. He had long viewed Nehru as a weak sister and often wondered why Gandhi thought so highly of him.”{Wolp2/377-8}

Wrote Minoo Masani in his book ‘Against the Tide’: “My own understanding is that if Sardar Patel had been Prime Minister during that time and not Nehru, India would have gone further and faster.”{MiM/195}

Prof. Michael Brecher of McGill University wrote in ‘Nehru: A Political Biography’, a sympathetic, pro-Nehru book{MB/314-5}:

“…In accordance with the time-honoured practice of rotating the Presidency, Patel was in line for the post. Fifteen years had elapsed since he presided over the Karachi session whereas Nehru had presided at Lucknow and Ferozpur in 1936 and 1937. Moreover, Patel was the overwhelming choice of the Provincial Congress Committees… Nehru’s ‘election’ was due to Gandhi’s intervention. Patel was persuaded to step down.

“One month after the election the Viceroy invited Nehru, as Congress President, to form an Interim Government. If Gandhi had not intervened, Patel would have been the first de facto Premier of India, in 1946-7. Gandhi certainly knew of the impending creation of Interim Government. One must infer, therefore, that he preferred Nehru as the first Prime Minister of free India. The Sardar was ‘robbed of the prize’ and it rankled deeply. He was then seventy-one while Nehru was fifty-six; in traditionalist Indian terms the elder statesman should have been the first primer and Patel knew that because of his advanced age another opportunity would probably not arise.

“There is striking parallel with Congress election of 1929; on both occasions Gandhi threw his weight behind Nehru at the expense of Patel.”{MB/314-5}

Gandhi’s Personal Bias & Illogical Logic

Gandhi had remarked: 

"Jawaharlal cannot be replaced today whilst the charge is being taken from the British. He, a Harrow boy, a Cambridge graduate, and a barrister, is wanted to carry on the negotiations with the Englishmen."{RG/370} {RG5/545}

But, what were the facts? Who was more competent to negotiate with the British? Nehru or Patel? Subsequent history showed that the critical negotiations and discussions with the British, and the decisions that affected the nation, were principally taken by Patel, and not Nehru—Nehru being too timid, confused, and indecisive.

Gandhi had once written of Nehru: “He [Nehru] is a friend of the English people. Indeed, he is more English than Indian in his thought and make-up. He is often more at home with Englishmen than with his own countrymen.” Gandhi had also commented about Nehru: “He is the only Englishman we have!” Less said about this remark the better—Did Gandhi think Englishmen were the only competent people?

Another reasoning attributed to Gandhi’s preference was that he felt Nehru was better known abroad and could help India play a role in the international affairs.{RG/370} But, if that were the reason, he could have been made foreign minister under Sardar. It is another matter that Nehru made a mess of the foreign policy, as obvious from the adverse results of his policies post-independence. In fact, Sardar's views were far more realistic on foreign policy matters, and he would have done a much better job of it. (Please see details on the chapter on foreign policy.)

Somebody asked Gandhi why he did so. Reportedly, Gandhi’s reason was he wanted both Nehru and Patel together to lead the nation, but while Nehru would not work under Sardar Patel, he knew that in the national interest he could persuade Sardar Patel to work under Nehru, as Sardar would not defy him.{ITV} What Gandhi said amounts to this: that Sardar Patel, even though senior and more experienced, and backed by majority, was patriotic enough to work under Nehru in the national interest, if so prodded by Gandhi; Nehru, junior, less experienced, and not backed by a single PCC, wanted only to become PM, and was not patriotic enough to work under Patel, in the national interest, even if persuaded by Gandhi!

Durga Das recounted the following:

“I asked Gandhi… He [Gandhi] readily agreed that Patel would have proved a better negotiator and organiser as Congress President, but he felt Nehru should head the Government. When I asked him how he reconciled this with his assessment of Patel’s qualities as a leader, he laughed and said: ‘Jawaharlal is the only Englishman in my camp… Jawaharlal will not take second place. He is better known abroad than Sardar and will make India play a role in international affairs. [Why not make him Foreign Minister then?] Sardar will look after the country’s affairs. They will be like two oxen yoked to the government cart. One will need the other and both will pull together.’”{DD/230}

How Nehru became Gandhi’s favourite

It is worth noting that as long as Gandhi was alive Nehru pretended to be his faithful follower (and Gandhi reciprocated by calling him his son) for he was ambitious, wise, cunning and selfish enough to realise that the route to power lay through Gandhi’s blessings. Gandhi used to say that even though Nehru used to fight with him on many issues, ultimately he used to agree with him [Gandhi]. Little did Gandhi know that it was not because Nehru agreed with him, but because Nehru knew that to continue to differ from Gandhi might cost him his position—like it had happened with Netaji Subhas Bose—and his goal of becoming the prime minister.

Nehru’s socialism was rather superficial—his posturing as a radical was a convenient ploy to win the hearts of the true radicals and the youth, even as he stuck to conservative Gandhi and Gandhism to advance his career. Gandhi had also said that after he would be no more, Nehru would speak his language. If Gandhi had watched from heaven, he would have known that Nehru had buried Gandhism along with his [Gandhi’s] death. Incidentally, this last thing was told by a Nehru loyalist, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai, himself, as quoted by Durga Das in his book: “Jawaharlal has performed the last rites not only of Gandhi but of Gandhism as well.”{DD/279}

After Gandhi was no more, Nehru practically  put into practice all such policies, norms, lifestyle and governance culture that flew in the face of Gandhism.

History of Gandhi’s Personal Bias

Advice to Azad

Looking to the once-in-a-life-time prospect of becoming India’s first PM, Maulana Azad, who had been president till 1945, was more than willing to continue as President, and threw enough hints through the media. However, Mahatma Gandhi, who desired Nehru in that position, remonstrated with Azad, even writing a letter to him on 20 April 1946 to clear the air: “Please go through the enclosed [newspaper] cutting [stating Azad’s desire for re-election]... I have not spoken to anyone of my opinion. When one or two Working Committee members asked me, I said that it would not be right for the same President to continue... If you are of the same opinion, it may be proper for you to issue a statement about the cutting and say that you have no intention to become President again... In today’s circumstances I would if asked prefer Jawaharlal. I have many reasons for this. Why go into them?”{RG/370}

Personal Weakness for Nehru

The Old Man’s weakness for the Westernized Nehru over the home-spun fellow Gujarati [Patel] was yet another aspect of “Swadeshi” Gandhi’s self-contradictory personality.

After the Gandhi-Irwin Pact of 1931, Gandhi had mentioned that the premiership of India would be “reserved for younger minds and stouter hearts”, hinting at Nehru. When Gandhi and Patel were together in Yerwada Jail in Pune in the early 1930s, Gandhi had queried Patel as to what portfolio would he prefer in the government of independent India, thereby throwing a clear hint that premiership to him was not on offer. Gandhi had also commented at the end of 1934 that he missed the association and advice of Jawaharlal [he was in jail] “who is bound to be the rightful helmsman of the organization in the near future.”

Acharya Kriplani had remarked that Gandhi’s reasons for preferring Jawaharlal “were personal rather than political”{RG2/L-3142}.

Gandhi had called Jawaharlal his “spiritual son”. How Jawaharlal managed to become the “spiritual son” of Gandhi is a mystery. Wrote MN Roy in ‘The Men I Met’: “It can reasonably be doubted if Nehru could have become the hero of Indian Nationalism except as the spiritual son of Gandhi… To purchase popularity, Nehru had to suppress his own personality…”{Roy/11}

Nominating Heir in a Democratic Setup

At the meeting of the AICC held in Wardha, Gandhi formally designated Jawaharlal Nehru as his heir on 15 January 1942. Declared Gandhi: “...Somebody suggested that Pandit Jawaharlal and I were estranged. This is baseless. Jawaharlal has been resisting me ever since he fell into my net. You cannot divide water by repeatedly striking it with a stick. It is just as difficult to divide us. I have always said that not Rajaji, nor Sardar Vallabhbhai, but Jawaharlal will be my successor. He says whatever is uppermost in his mind, but he always does what I want. When I am gone he will do what I am doing now. Then he will speak my language too... He fights with me because I am there. Whom will he fight when I am gone? And who will suffer his fighting? Ultimately, he will have to speak my language. Even if this does not happen, I would at least die with this faith...”{CWMG/Vol-81/432-33}

Rather odd for an organisation with supposedly democratic setup. Did Gandhi own the Congress that he could nominate his heir?

Déjà Vu

It was not the first time Gandhi had been unfair to Patel—twice before he had unjustly promoted Nehru over Patel for the post of Congress president, first in 1929 and then in 1937.

Jawaharlal Nehru was given a leg up on Sardar Patel in 1929, his case being even more undeserving at the time. Sardar Patel had led the Bardoli Satyagraha of 1928 whose resounding success had made him a national hero, and had earned him the title Sardar. The Bardoli Satyagraha was the first successful practical implementation of the Gandhian non-violent technique involving the rural masses on the ground. Nehru lacked such credentials. He didn’t have any significant practical achievements to his credit—he was more of a talker. Besides, Sardar Patel was much senior to Jawaharlal, and a larger number of PCCs had recommended him over Jawaharlal. Yet, Gandhi asked Patel to withdraw! Gandhi thereby tried to establish an unjust pecking order where Jawaharlal came before Patel.

Netaji Subhas Bose had subsequently written: “The general feeling in Congress circles was that the honour should go to Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel.”{RG5/322}

Jawaharlal’s father Motilal had a major role to play in Jawaharlal’s undeserved elevation. Motilal was the Congress President in 1928. He desired that his position should be taken up by his son. Subsequent to Patel’s Bardoli win, Motilal wrote to Gandhi on 11 July 1928: “I am quite clear that the hero of the hour is Vallabhbhai, and the least we can do is to offer him the crown [make him President of the Congress]. Failing him, I think that under all the circumstances Jawahar would be the best choice.”{DD/128}

Motilal actively canvassed for Jawaharlal with Gandhi, and Gandhi ultimately succumbed to the pressure, saying Sardar Patel would anyway be with him. Nepotism and “fight” for freedom went together: Nehrus from Motilal downwards ensured their family was well taken care of; and that it came first, ahead of the nation! In the long run, the nation paid heavily for Motilal’s brazen nepotism, and Gandhi’s unwise step, and indefensible indiscretion.

Wrote Durga Das:

“It was now clear that the Congress session at Lahore [in 1929] would be crucial. The provincial [Congress] committees [PCCs: the legal bodies to elect President] had recommended Gandhi and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel for the presidentship of the Congress. Gandhi, who had resumed the party’s active leadership at the previous session, was expected to welcome the nomination of the hero of Bardoli [Sardar Patel], his most dependable lieutenant. When Gandhi announced his preference for Jawaharlal, the general body of Congressmen, especially the senior leaders who felt they had been superseded, were astonished. For one thing, it was considered odd that a son should succeed his father [Motilal] to the Congress throne, and for another there was regret that Sardar Patel’s outstanding services had been overlooked. Having learnt from private inquiries  that Gandhi had succumbed to pressure from Motilal, I sought Gandhi’s version. The Mahatma pointed out that Motilal had repeated with greater emphasis the argument put forth in his letter of July 1928 that Jawaharlal represented youth and dynamism… It is certain that Gandhi’s decision marked a turning point in the history of modern India…”{DD/134}

The presidentship of the Congress in 1929-30 was particularly important for several reasons. It was implied that the person who became president was likely to be Gandhi’s successor. He was also to declare the goal of the Congress as “purn swaraj” or “complete independence”.

S Nijalingappa writes in his autobiography:

“There is still another instance of the Nehrus blatantly supporting members of their own family. This happened in 1929. That year Sardar Patel’s name was in everybody’s mind for Congress presidentship as he had succeeded most gloriously in carrying out the No-Tax Campaign in Bardoli. He was the hero of the moment—of course, his whole life was heroic. As a result of that Satyagraha he became known as ‘Sardar’. But Jawaharlal Nehru’s father Motilal Nehru went to Gandhiji and insisted that his son Jawaharlal Nehru was young and very enthusiastic and it would be desirable that he be made the Congress president that year. Gandhiji acceded to Motilal’s request… I am mentioning the incident to show how the Nehrus helped their own.”{Nij/102}

Congress presidentship used to be for one year, and rarely was anyone given two terms. However, Jawaharlal was granted a second consecutive term in 1930, thanks to Gandhi! And, Jawaharlal became president again in 1936 and 1937. In sharp contrast, Sardar Patel became Congress President only once in 1931, even though his contribution to building up the Congress organisation was the highest.

Even in 1936, Gandhi had again favoured Nehru over Sardar. Wrote Durga Das: “The selection of the President [in the AICC of August 1936] for the next annual session again assumed political significance in view of the differences between Nehru and Patel on the issue of socialism. Patel and Nehru had been proposed by Provincial Congress Committees; the former [Patel] had a majority backing. Gandhi, however, decided that Nehru be given another term and persuaded Patel to withdraw in his favour.”{DD/175}

Should Patel have surrendered to Gandhi’s whims?

What Gandhi did in 1946 should not have come as a surprise to Patel. The bias of Gandhi was clear since 1929. Sardar Patel should have factored in Gandhi’s unjust bias and favouritism, and devised his own strategy. Patel should not have given-in to Gandhi’s undemocratic whims. Not because of personal ambition, but for the sake of the nation. Sardar knew well the weaknesses of Nehru, and his unsuitability as the PM. He knew Nehru was capable of huge blunders, as he had amply demonstrated in practice. He knew that giving power and PM post to Nehru was putting the nation to grave risk.

Yet, he meekly caved-in. That was not Sardar-like. He should have shown his iron then.

Was pleasing a senile, old, undemocratic Gandhi more important, or saving the nation, and taking it forward, more important? Sardar should have been ambitious and nationalistic enough to carry out his historic duty to the nation; rather than being an obedient chela of an individual. That certainly was Sardar’s mistake that proved very costly to the nation. He should have taken the risk and fought it out in the interest of the nation. Sardar should have been more loyal to the nation than to Gandhi.

Wrote Rajmohan Gandhi in ‘Patel: A Life’:

“C.R. [Rajaji] commented on his [Patel’s] attitude: ‘Gandhiji has many blind followers who will not see anything with their own eyes but only with his. But Sardar is in a class by himself as a blind follower. His eyes are clear and bright. He can see everything but he deliberately allows his eyes to be blinkered and attempts to see only with Gandhiji’s eyes?’”{RG2/L-4222}

That Nehru was younger was certainly no reason. You can’t have young and blundering people rule the nation. Sardar should have taken the responsibility as the PM; and later, when unwell, should have passed it on to competent people like Rajaji or Dr Ambedkar.

Cost of NOT having Sardar as PM:

For details, please read the author’s other book “Nehru’s 97 Major Blunders” available on Amazon and PustakMahal.com.

* * * * *

Rajnikant Puranik
October 31, 2018
www.rkpbooks.com
rkpuranik@gmail.com