What is wrong with BJP’s Appropriation of Sardar Patel?

It was Sardar Vallabhai Patel’s 147th birth anniversary last week. Patel worked with Mahatma Gandhi as a freedom fighter during India’s anti-colonial struggle and served as independent India’s first Deputy Prime minister and Home Minister under Jawahar Lal Nehru. 

What is Patel’s Legacy?

In Srinagar, on National Infantry Day, union home minister Rajnath Singh mentioned that what we started on August 5 2019, will end with integrating what he termed Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (POK) and Gilgit-Baltistan with the rest of India. He added that this would fulfill the dream of the National Unity of Sardar Vallabhai Patel. A couple of years back, Prime Minister Narendra Modi mentioned him in both houses of the Indian Parliament. Taking a dig at the opposition, he said that India would not have faced the issue of Jammu and Kashmir had Patel been India’s first Prime Minister. He questioned why Congress does not own him and his legacy. Signaling that the owner of his legacy is BJP, the question is, what is Patel’s legacy? Is it the same picture that BJP is painting? 

Patel Banned RSS

From building the Statue of Unity to declaring his birth anniversary as National Unity Day, the ruling party BJP embracing him today makes Patel a contested figure who openly opposed the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh’s (RSS) activities. BJP’s forerunner is RSS, its ideological parent, and Patel banned RSS right after Gandhi’s assassination. “India is a secular country and it will be nothing else. There is no doubt in my mind that the extreme section of the Hindu Mahasabha was involved in the conspiracy. The activities of the RSS constituted a clear threat to the existence of the government and the state. Our reports show that those activities, despite the ban, have not died down. Indeed as time has marched on the RSS circles are becoming more defiant and are indulging in their subversive activities in an increasing measure,” remarked Patel in a letter to Hindu Mahasabha leader Syama Prasad Mukherjee in 1948. Therefore, we must know the BJP’s ironic yearning to convey that it is the only party concerned about Sardar Patel. The BJP is an outfit which does not have the greatest freedom-fighting heritage—so going ahead and settling down for Patel, who conveniently fits all the parameters of a freedom fighter and strong mass leader and not having Gandhi or Nehru as a surname. Thus, owning a stalwart, even from the pantheon of Congress, has become obvious. 

Over the years BJP has created a sense that Congress has tried removing Patel’s name from history. The claim is ironic in that last year in February, the ruling BJP chose to rename the Motera cricket stadium in Ahmedabad, which had been given Patel’s name, to Narendra Modi Stadium.

Patel and Kashmir

The BJP’s portrayal of Patel as someone who unified erstwhile princely states seems far-fetched regarding the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to Indian dominion. Once the Partition Plan was announced, Congress and Muslim League engaged in high politics. The major Princely states aimed for relative independence instead of joining either of the newly formed dominions. VP Menon, Secretary to the Ministry of states under Vallabhai Patel, came up with the idea of acceding to Indian dominion on three subjects; foreign affairs, defence, and communication. This would give these states relative autonomy in deciding on other subjects on their own.

Most princely states joined the Indian dominion with the same sense of autonomy; however, Hyderabad, Junagarh, and Kashmir held out. The government of India, after a lot of internal deliberations, offered to hold a Plebiscite in Junagarh. The point is that the idea of a referendum was there even before the question of Kashmir popped up. In November 1947, M A Jinnah shot down the offer of holding referendums in the three princely states. Jinnah, Governor General of Pakistan, says why do not we exchange Junagarh with Kashmir? The real question is, would Patel have allowed giving Kashmir to Pakistan? In the rounds of dialogues with Pakistan, Patel offered an exchange of Hyderabad with Kashmir. So the BJP’s claim that Kashmir would have entirely been part of India falls apart. At this point, he was ready for Kashmir to become part of Pakistan. In his book Integration of Indian states, Menon mentions that “He went so far as to tell the Maharaja (king of Kashmir) that if he acceded to Pakistan, India would not take it amiss and that he had a firm assurance from Sardar Patel himself.” The aim is to prove how uncomfortable Patel was with Kashmir joining India, given the political environment at the time.

The case is convincing. Despite Prime Minister Modi’s assertions to the contrary, Patel’s behaviour, attitude, and worldview did not align with the BJP. One can claim that there is a huge possibility that the first deputy prime minister disagreed with much of what is happening in India today.