Even as Sardar Patel has become a subject of frenetic discussion, his
relationship with Nehru has kindled the imagination of overwrought historians
and writers. While earnest efforts have been made to buttress the theory that
despite ideological differences Nehru and Patel remained on the most affable of
terms, the fact of the matter is quite different.
A throwback on the incidents reveals that in the 1929 Lahore session of
Congress itself, Gandhiji had made clear his proclivity for Nehru as he
bypassed Patel’s stronger credentials for the post of President. This may or
may not have been a genesis to the feud that developed between Gandhi’s two
most trusted lieutenants but the die had been cast.
When the idea of a Constituent Assembly was mooted in 1935, Nehru was
supposed to have solicited Patel’s counsel in deciding upon the members of Congress’
Working Committee to be nominated for the Assembly. A corollary to this was Nehru’s
socialist slant calling for non-acceptance of ministerial responsibilities in
the provinces, as enshrined in the Act. Such socialist ideals were anathema to Patel’s
rugged realism which called for an open stance on the acceptance of prospective
minister-ships. A compromise was hatched and Congress did take up ministerial
posts in 06 of the 11 provinces where they won in the provincial elections.
In 1946, with the formation of a provincial government at the Centre,
Nehru inherited the responsibility of office and Gandhiji was there again to
override the attempts of the Working Committee at canvassing for Patel. Whatever
may have been his claims to down-pat neutrality, Gandhiji’s fondness for Nehru
was palpable. Despite that Patel remained in his preferential upholstery too
and Gandhiji’s rationale was that both Patel and Nehru were like ‘two oxen yoked
to the governmental cart, one will need the other and both will pull together’.
Patel’s integration of the princely states was a gargantuan feat though Nehru
with his fervid diplomacy was none too upfront at his Deputy’s direct military action
to liberate Hyderabad from the Razakkars, the Nizam’s private army. Contrary-wise, when the demands
for an autonomous Pakhtoonistan came up in independent Pakistan, Patel
questioned Nehru’s impetuosity in visiting the frontier, thus playing into the
hands of the anti-Congress forces who wanted it to be kept out of the Indian
union.
Nehru’s political edifice stood on a socialist & secular plinth and
he was weary of Patel’s allegedly rightist tilt, fuelled by his courtiers who
made him believe that reactionary forces were being sheltered under Patel’s beneficent
plumes. Though Gandhiji’s assassination brought them back together, the
Nehru-Patel feud resurfaced during China’s invasion of Tibet. Nehru vacillated
on whether to support China while Patel was insistent that India recognise
Tibet’s bona-fides as an independent
buffer so as to stymie China’s attempts at establishing hegemony in SE Asia. By
1950 Congress seemed divided ideologically into 02 camps but Patel’s death in
December paved the way for Nehru to take full charge of the affairs.
Nehru and Patel did suffer from a clash of ideals, which did not make for
felicitous tidings when it came to establishing a harmonious working
relationship. Yet, their mutual respect and a reaffirmation of faith in each
other were indisputable facts and given their irrefragable stature as
individuals, both Patel and Nehru occupy a zenithal space in history as the ones
who, for a major part shaped our nation’s collective destiny.
No comments:
Post a Comment