Fri Nov 01 2013, 03:15 hrs
Subhash C. Kashyap
He was unselfconsciously Hindu and secular. Parties fighting over him should consider the whole of his views, not parts that suit them.
As the general election draws nearer, the competitive clamour to usurp Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel's legacy gets louder. It is necessary to look beyond the controversies and view the great artificer of post-Partition India in proper perspective. Before Independence, the Congress was not so much a political party as a national movement and an umbrella organisation for adherents of diverse ideologies. Among the most outstanding leaders of the freedom struggle and founding fathers of the republic, Patel belongs to the whole nation. It would be puerile and futile for any party today to claim proprietary rights or a monopoly over his legacy. If parties otherwise opposed to each other come forward to commemorate his role in building the nation, it should be a matter of joy for all.
Patel was not a romantic idealistic visionary but a down-to-earth realist. He did not like going out of the way to appease the Muslim League. Rajmohan Gandhi says: "unlike Jawaharlal, who sometimes imagined Hindu-Muslim unity when it did not exist, Vallabhbhai was frank about the reality. Also, he felt it unnecessary to give 'secular' wrapping to his utterances... Vallabhbhai never tried or claimed to represent Muslims and he found it natural to speak as a Hindu."
The mayhem unleashed in Bengal in the name of "Direct Action" was followed by massive Hindu reaction. Patel noted that it was a good lesson for the League, because he had heard that the proportion of Muslims who had died in the aftermath of the "Direct Action" was much larger. In the communal carnage in Noakhali, Hindus were forcibly converted to Islam or killed and temples were destroyed. The Hindu reaction, again, was massive. Many Muslims suffered in UP and Bihar. Speaking at the Congress Session at Meerut, Patel advised the advocates of Pakistan to follow methods of love and peace. He added that "sword will be met by the sword". With the constitution of Pakistan, he hoped, the rest of India could live in peace.
As chairman of the Advisory Committee on Fundamental Rights, Minorities, etc in the Constituent Assembly, Patel played a crucial role in discarding separate communal electorates, reservations and quotas. He said: "When Pakistan was conceded, at least it was assumed that there would be one nation in the rest of India — the 80 per cent India — and there would be no attempt to talk of two nations here also." Patel was forthright in saying that all those who believed in the two-nation theory had no place in India and should move to Pakistan. He told the Muslims pointedly: "For God's sake, understand that we have also got some sense... There will be no injustice done to you. There will be generosity towards you, but there must be reciprocity. If it is absent, then you take it from me that no soft words can conceal what is behind your words. Therefore, I plainly once again appeal to you strongly that let us forget and let us be one nation."
Patel sometimes joked that Nehru was "Congress's only nationalist Muslim". The self-proclaimed secularists of today should take note of Patel's real views and decide if they wish to own his legacy to the exclusion of all others, or if they are willing to accept him in totality. Patel was a proud Hindu, but it would be wrong to think that he was anti-Muslim, communal or anti-secular. Patel stood for equal political rights for all citizens. While their religious, linguistic or other minority rights must be respected and protected, Patel was opposed to any political rights being sought or granted on grounds of such belonging. He did not agree with B.M. Birla's suggestion that India be declared a Hindu state. The state, he said, must exist for all, and protection of minorities was also its responsibility. For him, ideology took a backseat. He said he did not believe in any caste or community, the whole of India was his village. He believed that stability was a precondition of development and it could come only when there was unity. Speaking in the Constituent Assembly on May 25, 1949, he said that "It would be in the interest of all to forget that there is anything like majority or minority in this country and remember that in India there is only one (Indian) community."
When, in 1950, Nehru wrote to Patel about their differences, Patel said: "Our secular ideals impose a responsibility on our Muslim citizens in India — a responsibility to remove the doubts and misgivings entertained by a large section of the people about their loyalty founded largely on their past association with the demand for Pakistan and the unfortunate activities of some of them." In one of his last speeches on October 7, 1950, Patel summed up his stand by saying: "Every Indian citizen, whether Hindu or Muslim, will have to behave as an Indian, and sooner they realise this the better." The nation today needs to see Patel in the correct perspective, without allowing politicians to appropriate his legacy, pandering to vote-banks.
The writer is a constitutional scholar an former secretary general of Lok Sabha
Source: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/patel-the-pragmatist/1189817/0
Subhash C. Kashyap
He was unselfconsciously Hindu and secular. Parties fighting over him should consider the whole of his views, not parts that suit them.
As the general election draws nearer, the competitive clamour to usurp Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel's legacy gets louder. It is necessary to look beyond the controversies and view the great artificer of post-Partition India in proper perspective. Before Independence, the Congress was not so much a political party as a national movement and an umbrella organisation for adherents of diverse ideologies. Among the most outstanding leaders of the freedom struggle and founding fathers of the republic, Patel belongs to the whole nation. It would be puerile and futile for any party today to claim proprietary rights or a monopoly over his legacy. If parties otherwise opposed to each other come forward to commemorate his role in building the nation, it should be a matter of joy for all.
Patel was not a romantic idealistic visionary but a down-to-earth realist. He did not like going out of the way to appease the Muslim League. Rajmohan Gandhi says: "unlike Jawaharlal, who sometimes imagined Hindu-Muslim unity when it did not exist, Vallabhbhai was frank about the reality. Also, he felt it unnecessary to give 'secular' wrapping to his utterances... Vallabhbhai never tried or claimed to represent Muslims and he found it natural to speak as a Hindu."
The mayhem unleashed in Bengal in the name of "Direct Action" was followed by massive Hindu reaction. Patel noted that it was a good lesson for the League, because he had heard that the proportion of Muslims who had died in the aftermath of the "Direct Action" was much larger. In the communal carnage in Noakhali, Hindus were forcibly converted to Islam or killed and temples were destroyed. The Hindu reaction, again, was massive. Many Muslims suffered in UP and Bihar. Speaking at the Congress Session at Meerut, Patel advised the advocates of Pakistan to follow methods of love and peace. He added that "sword will be met by the sword". With the constitution of Pakistan, he hoped, the rest of India could live in peace.
As chairman of the Advisory Committee on Fundamental Rights, Minorities, etc in the Constituent Assembly, Patel played a crucial role in discarding separate communal electorates, reservations and quotas. He said: "When Pakistan was conceded, at least it was assumed that there would be one nation in the rest of India — the 80 per cent India — and there would be no attempt to talk of two nations here also." Patel was forthright in saying that all those who believed in the two-nation theory had no place in India and should move to Pakistan. He told the Muslims pointedly: "For God's sake, understand that we have also got some sense... There will be no injustice done to you. There will be generosity towards you, but there must be reciprocity. If it is absent, then you take it from me that no soft words can conceal what is behind your words. Therefore, I plainly once again appeal to you strongly that let us forget and let us be one nation."
Patel sometimes joked that Nehru was "Congress's only nationalist Muslim". The self-proclaimed secularists of today should take note of Patel's real views and decide if they wish to own his legacy to the exclusion of all others, or if they are willing to accept him in totality. Patel was a proud Hindu, but it would be wrong to think that he was anti-Muslim, communal or anti-secular. Patel stood for equal political rights for all citizens. While their religious, linguistic or other minority rights must be respected and protected, Patel was opposed to any political rights being sought or granted on grounds of such belonging. He did not agree with B.M. Birla's suggestion that India be declared a Hindu state. The state, he said, must exist for all, and protection of minorities was also its responsibility. For him, ideology took a backseat. He said he did not believe in any caste or community, the whole of India was his village. He believed that stability was a precondition of development and it could come only when there was unity. Speaking in the Constituent Assembly on May 25, 1949, he said that "It would be in the interest of all to forget that there is anything like majority or minority in this country and remember that in India there is only one (Indian) community."
When, in 1950, Nehru wrote to Patel about their differences, Patel said: "Our secular ideals impose a responsibility on our Muslim citizens in India — a responsibility to remove the doubts and misgivings entertained by a large section of the people about their loyalty founded largely on their past association with the demand for Pakistan and the unfortunate activities of some of them." In one of his last speeches on October 7, 1950, Patel summed up his stand by saying: "Every Indian citizen, whether Hindu or Muslim, will have to behave as an Indian, and sooner they realise this the better." The nation today needs to see Patel in the correct perspective, without allowing politicians to appropriate his legacy, pandering to vote-banks.
The writer is a constitutional scholar an former secretary general of Lok Sabha
Source: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/patel-the-pragmatist/1189817/0
No comments:
Post a Comment