by B Krishna
Viceroy Lord Wavell to Under Secretary of State Arthur Henderson:
“Vallabhbhai Patel, India’s Bismarck, the man of iron from Gujarat . . .”
*
Viceroy Lord Mountbatten to Sardar Patel:
“You have for years been the ‘strong man’ of India . . . I do not believe there is one man in the country who would stand up to you when you make up your mind.”
*
J. R. D. Tata on the Gandhi-Nehru-Patel Troika:
“While I usually came back from meeting Gandhiji elated and inspired but always a bit sceptical, and from talks with Jawaharlal fired with emotional zeal but often confused and unconvinced, meetings with Vallabhbhai were a joy from which I returned with renewed confidence in the future of our country. I have often thought that if fate had decreed that he, instead of Jawaharlal, would be the younger of the two, India would have followed a very different path and would be in better economic shape than it is today.”
To my brother
Yuvraj Krishan
(ever supportive & inspiring -
his great admiration for Sardar)
CONTENTS
Introduction
1.WHAT WAS VALLABHBHAI?
Early Years
PART I: DIRECT ROLE
2.FREEDOM FIGHTER
Backbone of Gandhi’s Satyagrahas
3.PARTY BOSS
Overcoming Challenges to Congress Unity
4.ADMINISTRATIVE UNIFIER
Formation of Indian Administrative Service
5.PARTITION
Averting Balkanisation of India
6.CREATOR OF ONE INDIA
Unification and Consolidation of States
Eastern States
Greater Rajasthan
Travancore
Jodhpur
Kathiawar
Bhopal
Junagadh
Hyderabad
7.DEMOLISHER OF PRINCELY ORDER
Patel vs. Wellesley
PART II: SUPPORTIVE ROLE
8.KASHMIR, TIBET AND NEPAL
Mature and Farsighted Advice
PART III: APPENDICES
9.A CHURCHILLIAN PLAN
Partition of India
10.WAS KASHMIR SOLD TO GULAB SINGH?
Exploding the Myth
11.PLEBISCITE IN KASHMIR
Mountbatten’s Offer to Jinnah
12.COMMUNAL REPRESENTATION
Patel’s views in the Constituent Assembly
13.COULD INDIA HAVE SAVED TIBET?
Patel’s Historic Letter to Nehru
Nehru’s Note on China and Tibet
14.A BUNCH OF UNPUBLISHED LETTERS
Sir Hugh Garrett
Field Marshal Sir Claude Auchinleck
Air Marshal Sir Thomas Elmhirst
General Sir Roy Bucher
Sir G. S. Bozman
Andrew Mellor
C. W. E. U’ren
K. B. Lall
N. Senapati
K. P. S. Menon
Shavax A. Lal
K. M. Munshi
Frank Anthony
Lieutenant General L. P. Sen
Humayun Kabir
C. D. Deshmukh
Lord Mountbatten
Lord Mountbatten’s archivist
15.THE MAN WHO DARED CHURCHILL
But Won his Admiration
Notes
Bibliography
Index
Acknowledgements
About the Book
About the Author
Copyright
INTRODUCTION
Patel, along with Gandhi and Nehru, was a leading member of the triumvirate which conducted the last phase of India’s freedom struggle. He was the “saviour” and the “builder”. Non-violently, he demolished the princely order Lord Wellesley had created; and in January 1946, he had nearly buried Pakistan in Karachi. Post-independence, Patel was the creator of New India just as Surendranath Banerjea was the father of political consciousness to the newly educated class of Indians in the 19th century; and Gandhi, the father of mass awakening pre-independence.
(a) Saviour: Patel saved India from the machinations of the ruling British, and thereby did not allow large Hindu majority areas to fall into the hands of Jinnah. In 1946, in an undivided India, the Cabinet Mission was giving away to Jinnah a Pakistan comprising the whole of Punjab and Bengal, besides Hindu Assam, as fully autonomous parts of Groups B and C. Gandhi favoured the plan since it preserved India’s unity. In his “paternal pride” as Congress president, Azad seemed totally committed, confident of securing Congress acceptance. He thought that it would not only keep India united, but also safeguard Muslim interests. Nehru, however, voiced his opposition to grouping, as it related to the NWFP and Assam. He even suggested that there was “a big probability” that “there will be no grouping”. Patel was more blunt than others in telling Wavell that the mission’s “proposed solution was ‘worse than Pakistan’, and he could not recommend it to Congress”.1
India’s partition, as conceived by Churchill in 1945 as Britain’s prime minister, was implied in Attlee’s policy statement of 20 February 1947. It clearly meant the creation of Pakistan in one form or other, but in a divided India. Under it, too, Jinnah was to get the whole of Punjab, Bengal, and Assam. Patel immediately countered it with a policy statement on behalf of the Congress, demanding a division of Punjab—and of Bengal by implication—thereby saving Assam for India. Assam was predominantly Hindu, whereas in Bengal the Hindus were 49% as against 51% Muslims.
(b) Builder: Attlee’s statement of 20 February categorically stated transference of power to the princely states, simultaneously with India and Pakistan, thus making the princes completely independent on 15 August. This would have led to the creation of a “Third Dominion”, comprising confederations of princely states, and thereby throwing open possibilities of some of the states going over to Pakistan, in “association”, if not “accession”. This book discusses some of the conspiracies hatched in that direction, which Patel scotched with rare boldness, backed by his towering personality that exuded unquestioning friendliness towards the princes. The states involved were major ones like Travancore, Hyderabad, Junagadh, Jamnagar, and Jodhpur, and some Central Indian states. Through his diplomatic manoeuvres, Patel secured “accession” of all states prior to 15 August, before they could be made independent on par with India and Pakistan, thereby gaining equal status. The exceptions were those of Junagadh and Hyderabad—Kashmir too, but it was under Nehru’s charge.
On the ashes of a defunct empire, Patel created a New India—strong, united, put in a steel-frame. That frame was the Indian Administrative Service, which kept a subcontinent bound together as a single unit despite disparities of politics and economy. As saviour and builder, Patel played decisive roles that took India to new pinnacles of success and glory after centuries.
Yet, the saviour and builder of New India was accused of responsibility for the partition of India; and the assassination of Gandhi. Patel never asked for India’s partition. He and other Congress leaders were opposed to it. It was thrust upon them by the British through Attlee’s policy statement of 20 February. He merely served India’s interests by making partition conditional upon division of Punjab and Bengal. He could not have left the Punjabi and Bengali Hindus, as well as the Sikhs, to the cruel mercies of the Muslim League after the genocide of August 1946 in Kolkata. He also looked beyond, in gaining a free hand in the integration of over 560 States.
About Gandhi’s assassination, General Roy Bucher, the British commander-in-chief of the Indian Army, wrote to the author in his letter of 24 July 1969: “From my knowledge, I am quite sure that Maulana Azad’s charge that Sardar Patel was responsible for the murder o
f the Mahatma was absolutely unfounded. At our meeting in Dehra Dun, the Sardar told me that those who persuaded the Mahatma to suggest that monies (Rs. 55 crore) held in India should be despatched to Pakistan were responsible for the tragedy, and that after the monies had been sent off, the Mahatma was moved up to be the first to be assassinated on the books of a very well-known Hindu revolutionary society. I distinctly remember the Sardar saying: ‘You know quite well that for Gandhiji to express a wish was almost an order’.” It was on Gandhi’s insistence that security had been withdrawn.
Gandhi commanded every Hindu’s veneration, Godse being no exception. He had bowed to him in reverence thrice before firing the shots. Gandhi had exhausted the patience of even Nehru and Patel over two of his impossible demands. First, asking Mountbatten, at his meeting on 1 April 1947, “to dismiss the present Cabinet [interim government] and call on Jinnah to appoint an all-Muslim administration.”2 This would have killed Patel’s dream of creating a unified India. He had publicly stated in 1939: “The red and yellow colours on India’s map [representing provinces and states] have to be made one. Unless that is done, we cannot have swaraj.”3 In Nehru’s case, Jinnah would have denied him the chance of becoming independent India’s first prime minister—a historic opportunity Nehru could not have missed under any circumstance.
Gandhi’s second demand was even more difficult. Addressing the All-India Congress Committee on 15 November 1947, he demanded that all Muslims who had fled India were “to be called back and restored to peaceful possession and enjoyment of all that they had had, but been forced to abandon while running away”.4 It would have amounted to making Hindu and Sikh refugees from Punjab and the NWFP vacate the Muslim houses they had occupied by restoring the same to the Muslims who were living in refugee camps the government had set up. It would have been a cruel double tragedy for the Punjabi refugees to suffer so soon after the Punjab genocide.
A year before Patel’s demise, M. N. Roy, once a comrade of Lenin in Soviet Russia and a Communist of international fame, wrote: “What will happen to India when the master-builder will go, sooner or later, the way of all mortals? . . . Nationalist India was fortunate to have Sardar Patel to guide her destiny for a generation. But her misfortune is that there will be none to take his place when he is no more . . . when the future is bleak, one naturally turns to the past, and Sardar Patel can be proud of his past.”5 He was India’s “Iron Man”, who proved to be his country’s “saviour and builder”. Today’s India is what he created and left behind.
Some of Sardar Patel’s major achievements:
1. Patel was the backbone of Gandhi’s satyagrahas. During the Dandi March in 1930, he played the role of John the Baptist to Gandhi as a forerunner who “baptised” people en route. In a speech as Wasna, on his way to Dandi, Gandhi admitted: “I could succeed in Kheda [in 1918] on account of Vallabhbhai, and it is on account of him that I am here today.”
2. In the Bardoli satyagraha in 1928, Patel played the role of a Lenin. The British-owned and edited Times of India wrote that Patel had “instituted there a Bolshevik regime in which he plays the role of Lenin”.
3. As chairman of the Congress Parliamentary Board, Patel played the role of a strict boss in the conduct of the provincial elections in 1937. In that capacity he declared: “When the Congress roller is in action, all pebbles and stones will be levelled.” He did not spare senior leaders like K. F. Nariman and N. B. Khare; not even the indomitable Subhash Chandra Bose. He was an uncompromising disciplinarian. That was a major contribution to the party’s unity and strength.
4. Without Patel’s support Lord Wavell could not have formed the interim government in August 1946, nor could Lord Mountbatten, in 1947, have implemented transfer of power smoothly and within the time-frame. In return, Patel got for India half of Punjab and half of Bengal and the whole of Assam. Patel also got termination of paramountcy, which enabled him to achieve integration of over 560 princely states. That was his master-stroke, which demolished Churchill’s imperial strategy. What was that strategy? An account is given in the chapterA Churchillian Plan: Partition of India.
5. Briefly discussed is what would have been India’s position in Kashmir, Tibet and Nepal had Patel’s proposals been implemented. Kashmir had been taken away from Patel’s charge by Nehru under Sheikh Abdullah’s pressure, while Tibet and Nepal were foreign territories directly under Nehru’s charge.
6. Philip Mason (ICS) has written in the Dictionary of National Biography: “Patel has been compared to Bismarck but the parallel cannot be carried far. Patel was courageous, honest and realistic, but far from cynical.”
7. On his demise on 15 December 1950, the Manchester Guardian (now Guardian) wrote: “Without Patel, Gandhi’s ideas would have had less practical influence and Nehru’s idealism less scope.”
181, Mehr Naz
Balraj Krishna
Cuffe Parade
Mumbai-400 005
1
WHAT WAS VALLABHBHAI?
Early Years
What was Vallabhbhai?” asked Rajagopalachari, and he himself answered: “What inspiration, courage, confidence and force incarnate Vallabhbhai was . . . We will not see the likes of him again.”1 Nehru called him “the Builder and Consolidator of New India . . . a Great Captain of our forces in the struggle for freedom . . . a tower of strength which revived wavering hearts.”2 Gandhi found in him a colleague “most trustworthy, staunch and brave”.3 Vinoba Bhave called him “the accurate bowman of Gandhi’s struggle, his disciple and his GOC. He knew no retreat”.4
Patel’s international acclaim was equally eloquent. The London Times wrote of him on his demise: “Little known outside his own country, ‘Sardarji’ neither sought nor won the international reputation achieved by Mr. Gandhi and Mr. Nehru. Yet, he made up with them the triumvirate that gave shape to the India of today.”5 The Manchester Guardian’s tribute was more specific: “Without Patel, Gandhi’s ideas would have had less practical influence, and Nehru’s idealism less scope. Patel was not only the organiser of the fight for freedom, but also the architect of the new State when the fight was over. The same man is seldom successful both as rebel and statesman. Patel was the exception.”6
Vallabhbhai Zaverbhai Patel was born on 31 October 1875 at Nadiad in the Kheda district of Gujarat. He was the fourth son of Zaverbhai Galabhai Patel, a petty landowner from Karamsad, a small village about five miles from Anand.
Patel’s origins were humble. His parents were of average means and had no formal education. However, both his parents influenced him greatly and moulded his character. Patel’s mother, Ladbai, was a gentle person and an expert housekeeper. It is from her that he imbibed a spirit of service, and a taste for cleanliness and orderliness that he observed throughout his life. She often narrated stories from the epics, Ramayana and Mahabharata, to her children. These stories instilled in Patel’s mind an irresistible desire to fight injustice.
His father, Zaverbhai Patel, belonged to a class of cultivators known for their simple character, industrious habits, and straightforward dealings. He was a firm and determined man, also deeply religious, a believer in the Swaminarayan cult. Vallabhbhai had inherited much of his father’s fierce pride and commanding personality. Zaverbhai was himself a rebel, who travelled all the way from Gujarat to Central India in 1857 to join the Rani of Jhansi in India’s first war of independence. After the war, Zaverbhai was taken prisoner by Malharrao Holkar. One day Holkar was playing chess within sight of his prisoner. Whenever he made a wrong move, Zaverbhai corrected him. Malharrao was so pleased that he not only returned to Zaverbhai his freedom but the two struck up a friendship. In almost similar manner, in 1947, when India had gained independence, the princes, small and big, became his son’s close and admiring friends. He was the sole arbiter of their destiny. He magnanimously gave them handsome privy purses, historic palaces, extensive properties, and large personal wealth, besides honourable status as citizens of the new India.
And, like his father, Pat
el had abiding friendships with many princes—Hindu and Muslim alike, including the Nizam of Hyderabad and the Nawab of Bhopal. Of such relationships, the Maharaja of Gwalior (Scindia) expressed the feelings of many of his brother princes when he stated: “Here is the man whom I once hated. Here is the man of whom I was later afraid. Here is the man whom I admire and love.”7 The Maharaja had confessed to General S. P. P. Thorat: “If we Princes have to have our throats cut again, we will undoubtedly choose the Sardar and V. P. [Menon] to do it.”8
Both were gentle and persuasive, but firm and determined. Patel could be equally reprimanding. It so happened with the Maharaja of Indore, a camp-follower of the Nawab of Bhopal, the pro-Pakistani chancellor of the Chamber of Princes. With the latter’s resignation, Indore was left forlorn. He visited Patel for a patch-up by explaining his position. Sternly Patel told him, “You are a liar.”9 A crestfallen Maharaja returned to Indore and sent by post, duly signed, the Instrument of Accession.
Patel inherited his spirit of a rebel from his father. As a schoolboy, his tender age and his rustic village upbringing could not stem the upsurge of his rebellious spirit to fight injustice. He successfully fought many a battle through boycott and strike on behalf of his victimised schoolmates. He was unusually bold, courageous, outspoken, and daring—more concerned with the cause than with the punishment. He humbled the pride of many, proving himself a born fighter and superb organiser. Such exceptional qualities of leadership were recognised not only by his schoolmates, but also by his teachers. His eventful school life pointed to the man Patel was ultimately going to be—a relentless, unyielding freedom fighter.
Patel’s student leadership had many episodes of heroism. He never knew retreat, always emerging victorious. He was just 18, and a sixth standard student at Nadiad, when he led his school on strike. A haughty teacher turned a fellow-student out of class for his failure to bring fine-money imposed on him the previous day. Patel considered it sheer injustice to hurt the pride of a small boy. And it equally hurt Patel’s independent, robust mind. The teacher could have waited for another day or two. But, in his high-handedness, he didn’t. Patel, on his part, could not tolerate such injustice. At his call, the class staged a walk-out. And his ultimate victory was when he led the entire school on strike—and even organised picketing! On the third day, the headmaster lost his nerve and reached an honourable settlement, with an assurance that no excessive and unjust punishment would be meted out in future.
