Sardar Patel had many critics. Jayaprakash Narayan even blamed him for Gandhi assassination

Sardar Patel had many critics, but many of those detractors eventually came to appreciate his qualities, shedding their previous reservations.

File photo of Gandhi and Patel

Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel’s no-nonsense approach and sharp tongue earned him plenty of critics, especially among Socialists and Communists, whose ideologies he vocally opposed. Many leaders, both within and outside Congress, clashed with him. However, some of those detractors eventually came to appreciate his qualities, shedding their previous reservations and acknowledging their misjudgements about Patel’s life and work.

One such prominent leader was Jayaprakash Narayan, a socialist who was 27 years younger than Patel. Beyond the usual ideological disagreements, Narayan went so far as to accuse Patel of “negligence and worse”, for the assassination of Gandhi. He suggested that as home minister, Patel “could not escape the responsibility for this assassination”. In his book India Wins Freedom, Maulana Azad, a known Patel-detractor inside Congress, praised Narayan’s “courage” for raising this issue and noted that Narayan demanded an explanation from Patel as to why no special measures had been taken. In Rajmohan Gandhi’s biography of Patel, he wrote that Narayan demanded Patel’s resignation and a new home minister. Narayan wrote, “A man of 74 has departments of which even a man of 30 would find difficult to bear the burden.”

Despite some differences Patel had with Gandhi in their later years, Gandhi always held an unparalleled place in his life. Patel suffered a heart attack barely a month after Gandhi’s assassination. The insinuation by Narayan and other socialists had hurt him the most. However, Narayan lived long enough to reassess his stance. Over two decades after Patel’s death, Narayan wrote a lengthy piece expressing regret for many of his earlier views on Patel.

“The dominant feeling within me today is one of self-reproach, because during his lifetime I was not merely a critic but an opponent of the Great Sardar,” wrote Narayan,“…we Congress Socialists…considered the Sardar a reactionary who was and would remain a defender and supporter of capitalism. The Sardar’s reason for displeasure with us was that as a Marxist I criticised Gandhiji’s views and opposed them although I must say that even then I respected him to the point of reverence…”

Narayan greatly credited Patel for the successful integration of princely states. He also criticised Nehru for mishandling the Kashmir issue and the threat from China, noting that Patel had warned Nehru about the importance of maintaining Tibet as a buffer state and the potential threat from China.

“So long as the reins of the country were in the iron hands of the Sardar, the progressives—the Socialist and Communists as also the Leftists in the Congress—all complained that Sardar Patel made it impossible for Jawaharlal Nehru to change the economic and social structure of the country. This I learnt from some responsible Ministers. But with the passing away of the Sardar, Nehru had 13 to 14 years to prove himself. But, apart from some verbal changes in the professed aims of the Congress, little progress was made towards Socialism as is plain for everybody to see,” Narayan wrote.

Narayan’s compliments may partly stem from his disillusionment with Nehru. Even so, they reflect a genuine appreciation of Sardar Patel’s qualities and achievements, which he could not appreciate during the leader’s lifetime.

Nehru-Patel binary

Kamlashankar Pandya, a Gujarati socialist, is another person whose view of Patel changed drastically over time. “When I was discussing Sardar’s appraisal after returning from his cremation at Grant Road station with a fellow socialist worker, I found that the bitterness among socialists was very much there. He was talking about the blind worship of Nehru,” he wrote in his autobiography, Veran Jivan.

Pandya himself was a harsh critic of Patel during his lifetime. He admitted, “I spent 15-20 years of my life shouting ‘Nehru Zindabad’. I dedicated my life to establishing Nehru vis-a-vis Gandhi-Sardar.” However, in his later years, Pandya grew bitter and disillusioned. “I didn’t fully agree with Sardar. We had personal clashes, which could have been milder if not for my harsh nature. I regret that… Sardar never had personal ambitions, whereas Nehru did everything for his own ambitions. So what if Sardar wasn’t a socialist? He had a humanitarian vision, while Nehru’s vision was power for his so-called socialism and more power for the sake of power…” Pandya’s appreciation of Sardar was, in many ways, a result of his passionate criticism of Nehru, which was not necessarily objective.

C Rajagopalachari was a prominent contemporary of Gandhi-Nehru-Patel, who drifted away from Congress and formed Swatantra Party in 1959. He admitted in a piece he wrote for Swarajya, the Swatantra Party weekly, in 1971 that he was mistaken in believing Nehru would be a better Prime Minister. He thought Nehru was more of an intellectual than Patel. He noted that there were rumours that Patel would be ruthless towards Muslims, which were unfounded but widespread. Patel was experienced and judicious, unwavering in his fairness. (Sardar Shatabdi Smarak Granth, 1974, Page 219-220)

Umashankar Joshi, a renowned poet, writer, and editor, had a different perspective. Though he had criticised Patel as a student and was more influenced by socialism, he paid a rich tribute to Patel in the monthly magazine Sanskriti that he edited. In his obituary piece, Joshi highlighted Patel’s single-minded dedication and noted that while many might have disagreed with Patel and he may have courted unpopularity, nothing could deter him from his duty. Joshi avoided the easy political comparison between Nehru and Sardar, appreciating both and emphasising Sardar’s qualities without diminishing Nehru’s. Joshi, a nominated Rajya Sabha MP, remarked that Nehru and Patel complemented each other in their efforts for India. In the November 1974 edition of Sanskriti, he lamented the absence of a leader like Patel during the clash between Indira Gandhi and Jayprakash Narayan over corruption and the election system—a lament that will remain relevant in any regime.

Urvish Kothari is a columnist and writer based in Ahmedabad. He tweets @urvish2020. Views are personal.

(Edited by Theres Sudeep)