New Delhi: My generation was young at the time of Independence. We idolised Jawaharlal Nehru and took it for granted that he would be Prime Minister when India became Independent. His “Tryst with Destiny” speech in Parliament enthused us with much hope and confidence for the future at a time when the country was mired in the holocaust of Partition. Like Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, his oration was a classic.
We were rather surprised to learn that 12 provincial Congress committees had recommended Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel for Prime Minister and only three were in favour of Nehru. The Mahatma overruled their recommendations and chose Nehru. This was not the first time that the Mahatma preferred Nehru to Patel. On both occasions, the Sardar showed total loyalty to his mentor and accepted the decision with a stiff upper lip. Patel was a trusted colleague much older than Nehru. He had earned great fame for his successful Bardoli campaign and the Mahatma gave him the title of Sardar. He relied on him for keeping the party in good shape and to manage its finances as treasurer. Patel was the strongman of the party before Independence and became the Iron Man of the nation after Independence.
In 1929, all provincial Congress committees had voted for the Mahatma, Patel and Nehru, in that order, to be the president at the 1930 Lahore Congress. The Mahatma withdrew and Patel, in the normal course, should have become the president. Motilal Nehru, the outgoing president of the Congress, approached the Mahatma saying that he wanted to see his son as president of the party in his lifetime. Out of regard for him and his sacrifice for the party, the Mahatma asked Sardar Patel to withdraw and Nehru became the Congress president.
Motilal died in 1931. Despite Nehru’s Leftist views and the Sardar being on the same page with the Mahatma, the latter chose Nehru to be Prime Minister instead of Patel. He perhaps had his reasons for doing so. With Nehru’s English upbringing, he would be in a better position to negotiate with the British. He had guided the party’s foreign policy and was well known abroad.
Although Patel was not communal, Nehru was more acceptable to the Muslim community facing the trauma of Partition and apprehensive of their future in Independent India. The Mahatma, who sacrificed his life for Hindu-Muslim unity, wrote, “I know the Sardar. His method and manner of approach is different from mine and Pandit Nehru’s. But it is a travesty of truth to describe it as anti-Muslim. The Sardar’s heart is expansive enough to accommodate all.”
For the first decade and a half, Nehru’s performance as Prime Minister was great in all respects. He built a truly democratic and secular polity. He was hailed as a great world leader, bringing much moral authority for India in the United Nations. He also laid the foundation of scientific education and industrial development in the country. Yet, in the early Sixties, Nehru’s image received a tremendous beating. Nehru viewed China through a utopian prism. His China policy proved disastrous, ending with the debacle of 1962. In 1963, a broken Nehru admitted in Parliament that “we had been living in a world of our own creation”. Nehru died the following year, ending a glorious decade and a half of a great era marred by a great tragedy at the end.
A question is now often asked as to what would have happened if Patel had been our first Prime Minister. The Sardar would not have been misled by Sheikh Abdullah to accept a conditional accession of Kashmir confined only to defence, foreign affairs and communications. Nor would he have internationalised the Kashmir problem by taking it to the United Nations. There would have been no Article 370 in our Constitution treating Kashmir on a different footing from other states.
West Pakistan non-Muslim refugees would not have been denied citizenship rights and, maybe, many more would have been allowed to settle in Jammu. Tibetan Muslim refugees who came to Srinagar in 1950 would have not got citizenship rights, as given to them by Sheikh Abdullah. Sardar Patel would have followed a robust and muscular policy in the Himalayas to ensure the security of our northern border. He would not have gone out of the way to canvas for Communist China to be admitted to the UN nor would he have declined a permanent seat in the Security Council, offered to India in place of China.
As early as June 1949, the Sardar wrote to Nehru: “We have to strengthen our position in Sikkim as well as in Tibet… they (China) will try to destroy its autonomous existence… in such circumstances, prepare from now for that eventuality.”
The Sardar’s second letter to Nehru in November 1950, four weeks before his death, was another prophetic warning, “The Chinese Government has tried to delude us by professions of peaceful intentions… Our Ambassador has been at great pains to find an explanation or justification for Chinese policy and action.” He wanted military and infrastructure strength to be developed to meet the threat from China.
In 1950, King Tribhuvan sought asylum in the Indian embassy in Kathmandu and was brought to Delhi. He wanted to get rid of Rana rule in Nepal and offered to accede to India. On moral grounds, Nehru did not agree to this. Rana rule was replaced by a democratic set-up with B.P. Koirala as Prime Minister. He had been a freedom fighter for India and had gone to jail with his Indian friends during the Quit India Movement. Had the Sardar been Prime Minister, Nepal would have become an integral part of India and our strategic position in the Himalayas would have been immensely stronger today.
Sixty-eight years have now elapsed. A discussion of what would have happened if the Sardar had been Prime Minister can only be of academic interest. However, this is necessary so that we draw appropriate lessons for the future. This will also help the current and future generations to appreciate the genius and achievements of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, looking up to him as a role model.
The writer, a retired lieutenant-general, was Vice-Chief of Army Staff and has served as governor of Assam and Jammu and Kashmir
