The tussle between the Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party over Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel has had one significant fallout: It has compelled the ruling party at the Centre to publicly own up the Iron Man. For decades since independence and through its rule at the Centre, the Congress had steadfastly refused to accord Sardar Patel a status on par with Jawaharlal Nehru. Independent India's first Minister for Home Affairs was a stalwart whose contribution the party, at best, couldn't ignore, though its leaders tried their utmost. At worst, he was for the Congress a troublesome force that exposed Nehru's warts.
The reason why the Congress is on an overdrive to claim Sardar Patel's legacy after sidelining him for decades is because BJP's prime ministerial candidate Narendra Modi has raked up the issue in the run-up to the Assembly and the lok Sabha elections. At a function in Ahmedabad recently, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said he was proud to belong to a party (the Congress) with which Sardar Patel was associated. It is one of the few things he can be proud of politically. The question is: Would Sardar Patel have been proud of the Congress to which Singh belongsIJ Also, would the Iron Man have been proud of this Prime MinisterIJ The resounding answer is in the negative.
It was not enough for Singh to seize upon Sardar Patel's political affiliation. He went a step ahead to rile the BJP and Modi in particular by stating that the national icon was ‘secular'. Of course, Sardar Patel was secular, but how many Congress leaders have hailed the ‘secular Patel' in recent yearsIJ They have always and consciously projected Nehru as the ultimate face of secularism. While they remembered Sardar Patel on occasions, for 365 days a year they chanted the Nehru mantra. Congressmen have regarded the former Home Minister with an element of suspicion for his ‘Hindu' leanings. Contemporary books on the freedom struggle tell us of instances where Sardar Patel differed sharply with his Prime Minister on a host of fundamental matters — most significantly on methods to tackle the communal divide.
It's amusing that certain Congress leaders are quoting Sardar Patel's decision to ban the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh in the aftermath of Mahatma Gandhi's assassination, as an instance of his secularism. They fail to add that he also subsequently lifted the ban. So, did that make him any less secularIJ Moreover, as commentator S Gurumurthy has pointed out in a recent article, “Patel had warned ‘those in power in the Congress' against efforts ‘to crush' the patriotic RSS”. The Congress is being selective in its desperation to counter Modi.
That the party is avoiding reference to Sardar Patel's defining secular actions is evident from a recent article that noted constitutional expert Subhash Kashyap wrote for a national daily. He said that Sardar Patel had warned the advocates of Pakistan (obviously belonging to a particular community) in the country that their efforts would be strongly countered. “Sword will be met by sword”, Kashyap quoted him as saying. Is there one Congress leader who has the courage to speak this language against the Islamist terror outfits such as the Indian Mujahideen or against Pakistan which has been violating the ceasefire agreement along the line of Control and killing Indian soldiersIJ The Congress-led UPA regime has been, on the other hand, bowing to and bending before Islamabad. The Prime Minister, the Defence Minister, the External Affairs Ministers, and the rest, are relentlessly pursuing a Pakistan policy that Sardar Patel would have been ashamed of.
And, it's not just the Congress but other secularists too that have been weak-kneed in denouncing terrorist outfits. Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar, who even takes note of how Modi wipes the sweat off his brow and finds every action of the BJP leader Hitler-like and fascist (does he not know, knowledgeable that he is about history, how unhistorical the word is in the Indian contestIJ), is tongue-tied when it comes to the Indian Mujahideen. Would Sardar Patel have behaved similarlyIJ
Among the most authoritative books available on Sardar Patel is the biography, Patel: A life, by Rajmohan Gandhi. It's a must-read for those who wish to understand the Iron Man and his invaluable legacy to the nation. Gandhi's narrative does not match the image of a ‘fundamentalist' that many leaders, including privately of the Congress, hold. Sardar Patel was both an unapologetic Hindu and secular. His idea of secularism, though, was far removed from the Nehruvian brand that the Congress preaches and practises. It's here that Congress leaders experience discomfiture today, because Modi is increasingly being viewed by many to represent Sardar Patel's definition of secularism: ‘Empowerment to all and appeasement of none'.
The Congress fears that the incessant attention on Sardar Patel will take the sheen off Nehru. After all, the latter is the first and the most illustrious member of the dynasty that controls the Congress. Undermining Nehru, even if by default, would strike at the very root of the first family. Therefore, even the slightest attempt at a comparison between Nehru and Sardar Patel, in the advance knowledge that the former Prime Minister will emerge looking weak, is vehemently resisted. What else can explain the ferocious outburst by the Congress after Modi opined that the nation's fate would have been different (and vastly better) had Sardar Patel become independent India's first Prime MinisterIJ Counter-factual history is not blasphemy. Besides, millions of Indians will share Modi's view here. The Congress should have been happy that ‘its leader' (don't forget the Prime Minister's appropriation) is being talked of in high terms. That it is not, is entirely and only because such praise impinges on Nehru's carefully-crafted image.
In his article, Kashyap also quoted Sardar Patel's following words to the Constituent Assembly in May 1949, to demonstrate how the latter viewed the communal conundrum. “It would be in the interest of all to forget that there is anything like majority or minority in this country…” But the Congress hasn't forgotten, sadly. Through brazenly communal sops and attempts to tinker with the Constitution by promising things like quota for the minorities in employment on the basis of their religion, the Congress today is doing everything that Sardar Patel abhorred.
If the Congress is indeed proud of Sardar Patel and wants to respect his legacy, it has to demonstrate it through action that goes beyond Modi-bashing. It will have to give up its politics of appeasement and social division. But that is like asking the leopard to change its spots.