After Modi’s lionisation of Sardar Patel the Indian National
Congress sat up and tried to put the latter back to where he belonged – a high
pedestal. In the latest issue of its official organ “Sandesh” it has paid
homage to him.
Modi must have been aware
that he would be courting controversy if he gave pride of place to the Late
Sardar Vallabhai Patel on the 31st October last. The 30th
death anniversary of Indira Gandhi, the Late Prime Minister and the 139th
birth anniversary of the Late “Sardar”, the first post-independence Home
Minister, coincided on that date. All these years the Centre, marginalising the
“Sardar”, had marked 31st October as “Martyrs Day” in commemoration
of Mrs. Gandhi’s tragic death at the hands of two of her security guards in
1984. This year, however, Modi decided to celebrate the birth anniversary of
the “Sardar” in a big way. Not only was it designated as the “National Unity
Day”, a “Unity Run” too was organised in acknowledgement of Patel’s role in
unifying India after the British left in 1947, amalgamating 600-odd princely
states within the Indian Union. Mrs. Gandhi’s “martyrdom” was reduced to a sort
of foot-note to the celebrations.
The inevitable happened and an unseemly controversy raised its ugly
head. The Congress accused Modi’s Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP) government of not
only marginalising Indira Gandhi but also appropriating a Congress stalwart
like Vallabhbhai Patel only to “downplay the traditional Congress heroes Nehru
and his daughter, former PM Indira Gandhi”. Congressmen voiced their anger at
the lack of plans to adequately venerate the anniversary of assassination of
the former PM. Prominent Congressman Shashi Tharoor tweeted “Disgraceful that
government is ignoring the martyrdom of our only prime minister who was killed
in office in the line of duty.” Officially though, the Congress had no
objections to the government’s plans as they too revere Patel. However, a top
Congress leader was quoted as saying “no one can overshadow the legacy of
anyone.”
The BJP had, in fact, not exactly painted itself in a corner. After
all, Narendra Modi, as Chief Minister of Gujarat, had already initiated plans
for erection of the tallest statue ever to be erected anywhere in the world
only to honour the “Sardar”. He, apparently, has enormous respect for Patel
because of the latter’s role in unification of the country. The statue is going
to be almost 600 ft tall and will be called “Statue of Unity”. On the latest
controversy, however, the BJP says, “There is no question of anyone being
pitted against anyone else”. Senior journalist, MJ Akbar, a new entrant in BJP,
said on the controversy, “...the row is quite unnecessary. It is not necessary
to forget someone to remember another...” He also said that there was a
concerted effort to portray Patel as a leader who took anti-Muslim stand. Akbar
said that Patel was against Muslim League for demanding partition and not
Muslims. It is true, Patel was vehemently against partition but he agreed to
partition only after the “Direct Action Day”, also known as the “Great Calcutta
Killings”, initiated by the then Bengal chief minister Soharawardi.
Patel and Mrs. Gandhi defy
comparison. Both were, undeniably, great patriots but they lived and worked in
different eras and circumstances. While Patel was an important figure in the
national struggle for freedom, Indira Gandhi had very little to do with it. The
simple reason was that she was much too young to participate in it. However, the legacies left behind by each
could be a basis of evaluating their respective contributions.
It will not be way off the mark if one says that if we are one big
nation today it is largely because of Sardar Patel. Had it not been for him
India would have not even been like the “moth-eaten” Pakistan that Mohammed Ali
Jinnah cribbed about after the Partition. Patel went about meticulously and
tenaciously persuading 600-odd princes soon after independence to join the
Indian Union. On India’s independence with the lapse of suzerainty over them of
the British Crown they had become free to decide either to remain independent
or to join one of the two newly-emerged countries. Besides, had it not been for
him we would have lost Kashmir as it was he who forced an indecisive Nehru to
send troops to defend the state from Pakistani-supported marauders after its
accession to India. Likewise, it was he who forced a vacillating Nehru for the
so called “Police Action” against the Nizam of Hyderabad and his “razakars” led
by Qasim Rizvi. Earlier, Patel had ensured assimilation of the princely state
of Junagadh after its Nawab and Divan fled to Pakistan. With determination,
tact and sometimes brute force Patel created a unified, monolithic India which
exists until this day. But for him this would not have been possible. It was a
gift of great significance to his beloved people who cherish it to this day as
his most constructive, valued and abiding legacy.
Indira Gandhi’s legacy stands quite a distance away, at the other
end of the spectrum. The foremost element of her rule that comes to one’s mind
is corruption and its institutionalisation under her rule. Earlier too, there
used to be corrupt politicians but those who happened to be corrupt then were
milk-sucking kids when compared to her. Daughter of a well-regarded father, she
took measures the fallout of which was copious corruption in public life. For
instance, she banned as early as in 1969 corporate contributions to political
parties. It opened the flood gates of political corruption. Over the years,
corruption has got deeply embedded in India’s political and administrative
psyche. Loot and plunder of national resources have become the norm regardless
of the party in power. The “license-permit” “Raj” that she ran was a source of
ill-gotten gains, as, indeed, foreign defence and other contracts. Every
opportunity of making money was used to further her political clout.
The other significant legacy of hers is subversion of
well-established institutions that ensured smooth functioning of our democracy.
Ruthlessly ambitious as she was, she wanted to rule without any irritants like
courts or the press or any public institution that happened to be independent
of the government. The Emergency declared by her was an example of her relentless
pursuit of power. She just bulldozed her way through subverting the
parliamentary democracy with its cabinet system, putting the entire Opposition
under arrest, amending laws with a brute majority to bend the courts and other
institutions of the government to toe her line. Her party men lost all voice
and were herded around like cattle. They even acquiesced to her dynastic
ambitions and after she was gone sucked up even to her sons and daughter
in-law. The political dynasts that later became prolific took the cue from her.
On an objective assessment, therefore, Patel’s legacy stands out as
beneficent, while that of Indira Gandhi as baleful.
Photo: From the Internet
No comments:
Post a Comment