A ₹2,989-crore “Statue of Unity” of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, touted as the tallest statue in the world, was inaugurated by Prime Minister Narendra Modi...
Modi govt released ‘Incredible India’ ad on the ‘Statue of Unity’, reminding the younger generation about Patel’s contributions and how he ‘united’ India.
This confrontation looks subcontracted—escalation to re-establish Pakistan's indispensability to outside capitals while squeezing Afghanistan back under an old paradigm.
CSE, one of India’s oldest bourses, is edging towards a voluntary exit. It could never recover from market manipulation scam that caused a payment crisis at exchange back in 2001.
Fresh details of operation conducted by IAF, Army have come out in gazette notification giving citations of those who were awarded Vir Chakra for their bravery.
Education, reservations, govt jobs are meant to bring equality and dignity. That we are a long way from that is evident in the shoe thrown at the CJI and the suicide of Haryana IPS officer. The film Homebound has a lesson too.
Did Patel desire a place in history? In my opinion, he did what he thought was good for the country without any eye on posterity’s appraisal. Our interest in comparing him with Indira Gandhi or Nehru is only to validate our own inclination to see what should be done today and for future. This is true of the man who thought up the statue as well as those who join the discussion.
I think Sardar Patel’s legacy is not put in proper perspective. He might have been a “decisive” leader, but that is equated with “toughness” in a little skewed manner. (Nehru too was a decisive leader, and so was Indira Gandhi!)
India had a ‘stick’ in its hand at the time of Independence — by way of a fully functional army and air force. There was no way that princely states could stand up to India’s might. 565 sounds a big number, but there was hardly any resistance from any of them, especially when the Indian government was also dangling a ‘carrot’ in the shape of Privy Purses to Nawabs and Princes. The carrot-and-stick policy worked well. Hyderabad I think was the only state that presented any serious opposition to Sardar Patel’s, and hence Indian government’s plan to achieve a united India.
The biggest hurdle to unification was overcome in 1961 with the “liberation” of Goa which involved a battle against Portuguese forces, ten years after Sardar Patel had passed away. This operation was conducted under the leadership of Jawahar Lal Nehru. To point this out is not to lessen iron-man Sardar Patel’s contributions to an independent India.
They were all a bunch of selfless and dedicated leaders, each contributing sincerely to his allotted field of operations. Just like Sardar Patel, Maulana Azad was one of India’s earliest cabinet ministers. He was our first Education Minister from 1947 to 1958, and initiated free education for all until the age of 14. He was a strong advocate of girl education, was instrumental in establishing IITs and other important institutions like UGC, cultural academics etc. Someone can say that even Maulana Azad hasn’t been “remembered adequately” by Congress regimes.
Sardar Patel unfortunately did not live long, otherwise a clear demarcation of Kashmir could have been understood by both India and Pakistan leaving no need for a tentative line of control (LOC) which both sides keep violating every now and then. He was a down to earth man, he would have certainly worked out a tenable solution. Pushing Pakistan deeper away from the present LOC and occupying the whole of Kashmir wouldn’t have been a TENABLE SOLUTION, as some people believe. It would have only shifted the line of skirmishes away from the present LOC. Just as the rest of India had been divided, Kashmir too needed to be DIVIDED equitably to achieve permanent peace, and not OCCUPIED hungrily just because we had armed strength to do so.
This is one aspect on which people have perennially criticised Nehru, that he called for a cease fire when our forces were so near to achieving complete victory over Kashmir. Sardar Patel was apparently in favor of the latter, and this fact has increased his adulation in the hearts of many people, particularly the RSS clique. That is because they have always had hegemonic dreams to achieve some imaginary “akhand Bharat”. They would have to cross swords with our eastern neighbor which has a similar dream of “akhand China”, and every other day keeps cribbing about Arunachal Pradesh!
In my humble opinion, a JUSTLY DIVIDED Kashmir was the ONLY solution for permanent peace, and Pandit Nehru and Sardar Patel would have surely succeeded in working out a formula if only the latter had lived a little longer.
Mrs Gandhi was Durga. If she did nothing else except 1971, her place in history would be assured. It is unfair to compare her with Sardar Patel, who was her father’s valued colleague but never his equal. Most young Indians do not obsess about these historical figures in any case. The fact that so many children are stunted, girls and women are anaemic, should pain us a great deal. Spending so much money on vanity projects is not the best use of resources in a still largely poor country. The freedom movement was a solidly Congress enterprise, a historical fact and reality that cannot be changed ex post facto.
Did Patel desire a place in history? In my opinion, he did what he thought was good for the country without any eye on posterity’s appraisal. Our interest in comparing him with Indira Gandhi or Nehru is only to validate our own inclination to see what should be done today and for future. This is true of the man who thought up the statue as well as those who join the discussion.
I think Sardar Patel’s legacy is not put in proper perspective. He might have been a “decisive” leader, but that is equated with “toughness” in a little skewed manner. (Nehru too was a decisive leader, and so was Indira Gandhi!)
India had a ‘stick’ in its hand at the time of Independence — by way of a fully functional army and air force. There was no way that princely states could stand up to India’s might. 565 sounds a big number, but there was hardly any resistance from any of them, especially when the Indian government was also dangling a ‘carrot’ in the shape of Privy Purses to Nawabs and Princes. The carrot-and-stick policy worked well. Hyderabad I think was the only state that presented any serious opposition to Sardar Patel’s, and hence Indian government’s plan to achieve a united India.
The biggest hurdle to unification was overcome in 1961 with the “liberation” of Goa which involved a battle against Portuguese forces, ten years after Sardar Patel had passed away. This operation was conducted under the leadership of Jawahar Lal Nehru. To point this out is not to lessen iron-man Sardar Patel’s contributions to an independent India.
They were all a bunch of selfless and dedicated leaders, each contributing sincerely to his allotted field of operations. Just like Sardar Patel, Maulana Azad was one of India’s earliest cabinet ministers. He was our first Education Minister from 1947 to 1958, and initiated free education for all until the age of 14. He was a strong advocate of girl education, was instrumental in establishing IITs and other important institutions like UGC, cultural academics etc. Someone can say that even Maulana Azad hasn’t been “remembered adequately” by Congress regimes.
Sardar Patel unfortunately did not live long, otherwise a clear demarcation of Kashmir could have been understood by both India and Pakistan leaving no need for a tentative line of control (LOC) which both sides keep violating every now and then. He was a down to earth man, he would have certainly worked out a tenable solution. Pushing Pakistan deeper away from the present LOC and occupying the whole of Kashmir wouldn’t have been a TENABLE SOLUTION, as some people believe. It would have only shifted the line of skirmishes away from the present LOC. Just as the rest of India had been divided, Kashmir too needed to be DIVIDED equitably to achieve permanent peace, and not OCCUPIED hungrily just because we had armed strength to do so.
This is one aspect on which people have perennially criticised Nehru, that he called for a cease fire when our forces were so near to achieving complete victory over Kashmir. Sardar Patel was apparently in favor of the latter, and this fact has increased his adulation in the hearts of many people, particularly the RSS clique. That is because they have always had hegemonic dreams to achieve some imaginary “akhand Bharat”. They would have to cross swords with our eastern neighbor which has a similar dream of “akhand China”, and every other day keeps cribbing about Arunachal Pradesh!
In my humble opinion, a JUSTLY DIVIDED Kashmir was the ONLY solution for permanent peace, and Pandit Nehru and Sardar Patel would have surely succeeded in working out a formula if only the latter had lived a little longer.
Mrs Gandhi was Durga. If she did nothing else except 1971, her place in history would be assured. It is unfair to compare her with Sardar Patel, who was her father’s valued colleague but never his equal. Most young Indians do not obsess about these historical figures in any case. The fact that so many children are stunted, girls and women are anaemic, should pain us a great deal. Spending so much money on vanity projects is not the best use of resources in a still largely poor country. The freedom movement was a solidly Congress enterprise, a historical fact and reality that cannot be changed ex post facto.