Events & Issues
New Delhi, 10
November 2014
National
Unity Day
PATEL
& INDIRA – INCOMPARABLE
By Proloy
Bagchi
After Prime Minister 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 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 Indira’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. Indira’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 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, 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 the 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 Indira 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.---INFA
(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)
|