Open Forum
New Delhi, 5 February
2016
Nehru vs Patel
CONGRESS ABHORS TRUTH
By Proloy
Bagchi
The Congress
High Command, read Sonia, has sent a show-cause notice to its Mumbai Chief
Sanjay Nirupam for publishing an unsigned article in the Party’s mouthpiece
“Congress Darshan” last November which denigrates India’s first Prime Minister
Jawaharlal Nehru and Party President Sonia Gandhi.
Worse, the
periodical underscored Sonia’s father, Stephano Maino as a fascist and that she
became Congress President within 62 days after becoming the Party’s member.
Moreover, it faulted Nehru’s Kashmir and China policies which have tied down
the country over the last 66 years and its repercussions continue to
reverberate.
True, the
article does not reveal any secret that was already known. Factually, Sonia
became a Congress member only after its rank and file persuaded her to lead the
Party as most had lost faith in its senior leaders. Recall, she had refused to
join the Party or partake in politics post Rajiv’s assassination and earlier
her mother-in-law Indira which left her with no stomach for affairs of State. However,
Partymen’s insistence compelled her to take over the reins after eight years of
her husband’s death. Many believed that sans a Gandhi member at the helm, the Party
would go nowhere. This surely is also Nehru’s legacy!
That Sonia’s
father was a soldier in fascist Benito Mussolini army and a prisoner of war in
the then-Soviet Union is also well known.
Reports of Manio swearing allegiance to the Fascist regime and then later
promoting the Soviet line were, however, not quite well known. Before he joined
the fascist army he reportedly was of modest means living in an Italian
village.
Surprisingly,
now the Maino family is said to be worth $2 billion. Indeed, that is saying
quite a lot about the family and its extension to the Indian ruling family that
was profitably used by the KGB. No wonder, the diaries of a Soviet sleuth
Mitrokhin mention the KGB’s penetration in the Prime Minister’s House.
Undeniably,
what was written in “Congress Darshan” on Nehru for which its editor was sacked
is largely true. Also, it is a fact that Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel differed with
Nehru in respect of the latter’s Kashmir and Tibet policies. While Nehru was a
romantic living in his own make-believe world wherein everything was hunky dory
and where there were no enemies, only friends and well-wishers, Sardar was a
realist and practical and knew how nations played power games. Nehru thought India had no enemies even as Pakistanis invaded Kashmir.
While Nehru
did not protest against invasion of Tibet
by China,
Patel saw clearly what was coming. His 17th November 1950 letter to
Nehru is an exceptionally clear-headed exposition of external and internal
implications of the Chinese occupation of Tibet. As Beijing
was exterminating a buffer state bringing the unfriendly neighbour close to the
Himalayas, Nehru was still singing of
“Panchsheel” and “Hindi Chini bhai bhai”.
Only the humiliating 1962 defeat knocked him back into senses. But it was too
late. The animus has continued.
Notably, Patel
successfully integrated the 562 princely States in the Indian Union as there
were rendered free after the lapse of Paramountcy --- the supremacy of the British Crown over them
--- by 15th August 1947. Keen on saving India
from balkanization, the Sardar announced that he did not recognize the right of
any State to remain independent and in isolation within India. With
strong-arm methods he broke the separatist princes’ union and by 15th
August 1947 all princely States except Junagarh, Hyderabad
and Kashmir had joined the Indian Union.
Regarding Junagadh,
Patel saw to it that conditions were created for a forcible takeover despite
the fact the Nawab had opted for Pakistan. Hyderabad was, however, a tough nut. Its
Nizam tried all the options, from remaining independent to opting for Pakistan and remaining as a dominion under the British Commonwealth. All this was not difficult to
fathom as was the opposition from within the Indian Government.
While Patel
wanted to send in the Army, Nehru would have none of it. There were reportedly
sharp exchanges between Nehru and Patel in a Cabinet meeting over sending the
Army wherein Nehru is stated to have called Patel a “total communalist”. Soon,
however, a report of rape of a British woman in Hyderabad
provoked him to take a “U” turn and the Indian Army, waiting in the wings
battle-ready by Patel, was asked to march into Nizam’s Hyderabad.
Like all
other princely States, Kashmir surprisingly
was not being handled by Patel who used to be the Home Minister. For reasons
best known to him Nehru who also had the Foreign Ministry under his charge for
no rhyme or reason kept “Kashmir” in his portfolio and made a thorough mess of
it. First, he seems to have been instrumental in having the Kashmir
accession delayed because of his close friendship with Sheik Abdullah whom he
wanted freed from the prison term he was undergoing. (Ironically, he had to put
him under arrest in 1953.)
Thus on 26th
October 1947 when the Instrument of Accession was signed Pakistan Army-backed
raiders were already in Kashmir. In the
ensuing war Nehru prevented the Indian Army from pushing the raiders back to
where they came from. Instead he, ill-advisedly, took the matter to the United Nations
and that too not under Chapter VII whereby the world body could take armed
action against the aggressors, but by invoking Chapter VI for resolution of the
dispute.
Clearly, Kashmir was a case of Pakistani aggression, not a dispute
about determination of sovereignty over the State. The so-called “dispute” has
been festering all these years like a cancer and there is no end in sight. As
if all this was not enough, Nehru later put another albatross round the
country’s neck by forcing Baba Saheb Ambedkar, despite his vehement protests,
to include Article 370 in the Constitution awarding a special status to Kashmir.
Curiously,
the Congress Party is unable to face the truths about the mistakes made by
Nehru. Despite all his good work in many other spheres, India’s first Prime Minister was a failure in
dealing with Pakistan and China. But for
him we would have been free of many of the serious problems that have been
plaguing us in respect of our relations with these two countries.
In
hindsight, Sardar Patel, perhaps, would have made a better Prime Minister. But
all these are among the many “ifs” of our post-Independence history. ------
INFA
(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)
|