The Man Who Saved India

 Title: The Man Who Saved India – Sardar Patel and His Idea of India

Author: Hindol Sengupta

Publisher: Penguin Viking, 2018 (First)

ISBN: 9780670089901

Pages: 437

India is a peculiar place where even reputed national leaders are sometimes weighed on the balance of contemporary factional politics. A year ago, India unveiled a grand statue of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, veteran freedom fighter and the country's first home minister on the banks of the Narmada River. A huge wave of protest rose up from the opposition ostensibly at the cost incurred for this statue which was the world's tallest at 182 metres; almost double that of the Statue of Liberty. At around Rs. 3000 crores, the statue was definitely not cheap, but considering the direct revenue in tourist footfalls and the indirect benefits of development of that backward area, that amount was nothing to cringe for a rising economic power like India. What infuriated the opposition Congress party the most was that it was the first time in independent India that a leader other than from the Nehru family was being feted thus. This was ironic, as Patel belonged to their own party, which has since become a pocket borough or private fief of the Nehru dynasty. All mention of Patel is scrupulously wiped clean from public discourse and his memory is deliberately allowed to fade without a trace. This was the state of things when Prime Minister Modi decided to resuscitate Patel’s legacy as a counterpoise to that of Nehru, whose blunders still hang heavy on the nation's shoulders. India was a conglomeration of around 560 princely states at Independence, each of which was theoretically entitled to join India or Pakistan. It was Patel and his Deputy V P Menon who painstakingly ensured accession of these states to India through a carrot and stick policy. This smooth amalgamation so astonished Soviet leader Khrushchev who remarked it ‘a wonderful feat to liquidate the princely states without liquidating the princes’. This book is the story of Sardar Patel and his inspiring political career and a miraculous stint in the administration. Hindol Sengupta is an award-winning author and has written numerous books. He is a World Economic Forum Young Global Leader and a Knight Bagehot Fellow of Columbia University.

Nehru and Patel were the tallest pillars of India's freedom movement. So it is natural that a comparison of them inevitably takes place. Sengupta makes a comprehensive study of the different facets of these two great statesmen. ‘Many claim that Nehru was a weak leader and an escape-artist. He was a smooth talker with no real ability to handle tough political situations. His oratory is considered largely gaseous and full of romantic but not very useful ideals’ - as you can see, the author does not mince words where they are essentially needed to expose the tantrums created by Nehru. Patel was exasperated by Nehru's naivety and tried to protect India's strategic interests from his enthusiastic idealism and vacillations. Another bone of contention was Nehru’s allegiance to Marxist ideals that relegated capitalism to a mere stepping stone towards fascism and considered business as inherently exploitative and reactionary. On the other side of this ideological baggage, both Gandhi and Patel had a far more accommodating and tolerant attitude to Indian businesses and businessmen. They in turn supported the Congress with funds and in kind for years. Patel was clear that having taken consistent assistance from industrialists through the freedom struggle, it was the job of the Congress to ensure that the Indian business community thrived after independence which would bring the added and much-needed benefits of jobs and wealth creation in an impoverished country. Patel always arranged the money required for running the party. Nehru enjoyed the services offered by the party’s wealthy supporters, but when the time came, ditched Indian businesses to reach out for the public sector.

This book analyses the personal equations between the trinity – Gandhi, Nehru and Patel – and tries to find the reasons behind the patriarch’s open preference to Nehru, the youngest of the three. Only six years of age separated Gandhi and Patel and so the relationship can only be termed fraternal. However, Gandhi was twenty years older than Nehru which tilted the relationship to the filial. The amazing fact was that Patel continued to support Gandhi cheerfully even when it was clear that he was being side-lined. Sengupta justifies the need of the narrative by postulating that to give Patel credit is not to diminish the unifying power of Gandhi's message or even some of the modernist vision of Nehru. It is to fill a knowledge gap in what ought to be a natural trinity. This is especially mandated when most Indians know far more about Gandhi and Nehru, but few would give equal recognition to Patel. While Nehru's ideas came from his extensive reading about communism and socialism, Patel had lived the life of the Indian poor and understood why they chose to follow Gandhi. His perspective came directly from his lived experience and not through books as did Nehru's. Nehru understood India's problems well, but his solutions were not indigenous. They were derived from ideologies he had only read about and believed to be better. Once he suggested the Indian masses read Bertrand Russell's books to clear away is religious prejudices!

The career of Patel through the turbulent decade of the 1920s is described in detail. In response to Gandhi's call for civil disobedience and boycott of British products, thousands dropped their education and professional careers to become a foot soldier of the freedom movement. But, Gandhi's espousal of the Khilafat cause eventually derailed the agitation and plunged the country into massive communal violence. The incident at Chauri Chaura provided Gandhi with an escape route. When the agitating crowd killed 22 policemen there, he unconditionally withdrew the disobedience movement condemning the violence. This came at a time when the people were expecting concessions from a capitulating government by the end of that year. The people who followed Gandhi truthfully so far found themselves stranded in the middle of nowhere. The relevance of Congress party took a beating and the Swaraj Party split away from them advocating a path more conciliatory to legislative reforms. Patel gainfully used this period to grow grassroots support for the party in Gujarat. The Satyagraha against the protection levy in Borsad and the increase of land revenue tax in Bardoli were immensely successful. The levy was only Rs. 2.70 per person and the tax hike was a moderate 30% coming after thirty years since the tax was reassessed last. Both these movements were clearly designed to keep the cadres and machinery well-oiled and exercised rather than for indemnifying pecuniary losses.

Patel initially opposed the creation of Pakistan, but gradually turned around to back the claim as the bloodbaths being organised by the Muslim League to snatch their homeland away from the Hindus were resulting in widespread murder, arson, rape and forced conversions all around. The reality of internal divisions among Muslims gave the demand for Pakistan a powerful resonance as it was a symbol of a united moral community. Patel was in direct charge of assimilating the 560-odd native states after independence. Junagadh, Hyderabad and Kashmir were the nuts hard to crack. The first two were annexed through police action and Kashmir acceded to India when Pakistani soldiers in tribal attire attacked the state. Sengupta stops here to address the moral compulsions of Patel in annexing Kashmir whose population was predominantly Muslim, but with a Hindu king. The die was cast when Jinnah reneged on his claims for a Muslim homeland and tried to coax border states into joining Pakistan. He gave a blank, signed document of accession to the king of Bikaner as a bribe to merge with Pakistan. The king was allowed to write down any conditions he deemed fit. However, both Bikaner’s population and king was Hindu. Then again, Jinnah shamelessly accepted the accession of Junagadh in Gujarat whose population was overwhelmingly Hindu, but with a Muslim ruler. The same situation prevailed in Hyderabad and Jinnah was imploring the Nizam to join him. All these three cases took away the moral high ground of Pakistani claim that only Muslim majority states should go to them. Everybody was convinced by this time that Jinnah has no more allegiance to Pakistan than a cruel desire to scuttle the unity of India. Patel was ably assisted by V P Menon in this period. The practicality of Menon’s proposition for partition appealed to the realist in Patel.

Sengupta also addresses the issue whether Patel was given justice in the Congress Party and to his legacy after his demise in 1950. He has faithfully reproduced the underlying strain of rivalry and also affection between Nehru and Patel. Many a times, Patel offered to resign from Nehru's cabinet and at other times, Nehru suggested that Patel take over the reins. The discrimination against Patel was first observed in 1929 when Gandhi requested him to make way for Nehru as Congress President. In 1946, the issue came up for joining the interim ministry. 12 of the 15 provincial Congress committees nominated Patel as the party’s president and by corollary, as the interim Prime Minister. Then again, Gandhi asked Patel to step down in favour of Nehru. In a brilliant display of enviably stoic resignation, he obeyed his mentor on both occasions with little demur.

The book is a pleasure to read. Some little known incidents are narrated by the author. The dispute over the will and bequeathment of the property of Patel’s elder brother Vitthalbhai Patel is one such issue. The will was in favour of Subhas Chandra Bose and Vitthalbhai had died in Europe while travelling with Bose. Patel challenged the will and obtained a court ruling nullifying it. This incident turned Patel and Bose bitter enemies till the end. On the whole, the book is successful in filling up some of the gaps that were clearly visible in the national discourse on the struggle for independence and the making of a united India.

The book is highly recommended.

Rating: 4 Star