Sardar Patel’s secularism and Modi - By Ghulam Muhammed

Thursday, October 31, 2013

Sardar Patel’s secularism and Modi

Sardar Patel had a dual personality as far as his critiques can make out. His strong action against Junagadh and Hyderabad states, carried out in the name of the unity and integrity of the new Nation, is more endeared by the likes of Modi and RSS, for its anti-Muslim bias. BJP possibly would have greatly admired his role as Home Minister, when he is supposed to have issued an internal order for all security agencies to wean out Muslims from their midst. The third element that could have to be to the entire satisfaction of the RSS/BJP parivar, is the kind of Congress secularism that accommodated extreme Hindutvadis like Gobind Ballah Pant and Purushottam Das Tandon. Besides, even though Sardar Patel banned RSS after the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi and jailed Golwalkar, that treatment was only temporary and both RSS and Golwalkar were let off with a mere slap on the wrist. Patel admired may qualities of RSS, among them its internal discipline and dedication to its objectives. There are reasons to believe that throughout Congress rule, all communal riots were organized by Congress with the active collaboration with RSS cadre. Now that activity should include the period that Sardar Patel remained Home Minister. A popular boast is that BJP/RSS’s first Prime Minister of India, was not Atal Behari Vajpayee, but Congress’s PV Narasimha Rao.

Congress is coy in projecting this side of Sardar Patel and just as it proclaims itself as secular, it treats all its leaders too as secular and is ready to defend them, however much that defense in porous. That sometimes appears downright ridiculous, if not fraudulent.

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai

ghulammuhammed3@gmail.com

----- ----- ----- ----- -----

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/we-need-sardar-patel-s-secularism-not-votebank-secularism-narendra-modi-439799

We need Sardar Patel's secularism, not votebank secularism: Narendra Modi

All India | Edited by Surabhi Malik | Updated: October 31, 2013

Ahmedabad:  Narendra Modi's riposte to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in their fierce Sardar Patel duel came from the site where he is building the world's tallest statue in honour of India's "iron man" today. (Modi's dream project: 10 things to know about world's tallest statue)

Addressing a farmers rally before inaugurating the statue on Sardar Vallabhai Patel's 138th birth anniversary, the Gujarat Chief Minister said, "By aligning Sardar Patel with one party you are demeaning him," referring to Dr Singh's assertion at a public function on Tuesday that Sardar was a Congressman. (PM, Narendra Modi join tug-of-war over Sardar Patel's legacy)

"I am proud and happy that I belong to a political party to which Sardar Patel was attached," Dr Singh had said, as his Congress and Mr Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party do battle over Sardar Patel's legacy.

The PM had also said, "Sardar Patel was totally secular, and believed in the unity of India," seen as a swipe at Mr Modi, who is accused by the Congress of being a "divisive leader."

Mr Modi, who is the BJP's candidate for PM and hopes to replace Dr Singh in Delhi next year, said today that he concurred with the Prime Minister that Sardar Patel was "a true secular."

But, he added, "We need Sardar Sahab's secularism, not vote-bank secularism." The Gujarat Chief Minister pointed out that the "secular Patel who united India...had no hesitation rebuilding the Somnath Temple."

The Sardar statue will be built on an island called Sadhu Bet on the river Narmada in Gujarat, the home state of both Sardar Patel and Mr Modi. Twice the size of the Statue of Liberty in the US, it is seen as a not-so-subtle bid by Mr Modi and his BJP to appropriate the legacy of Sardar Patel, who was associated with the ruling Congress.

Mr Modi has used his ambitious project to undermine his chief rivals, the Gandhi-Nehru political dynasty that heads the Congress. Sardar Patel was first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru's deputy and his Home Minister, but often at odds with him.(Modi's Patel statue project: Legacy, politics and controversy)

When he shared the stage with the PM on Tuesday, Mr Modi had said, "Every Indian regrets Sardar Patel did not become the first Prime Minister. Had he been the first Prime Minister, the country's fate and face would have been completely different."

This morning the Congress' Digvijaya Singh tweeted, "Sardar-Humility personified ! Modi-Conceit and Arrogance personified Sardar -United India Modi-Divides NDA BJP and Hindus and Minorities."

----- ----- ----- -----

http://www.livemint.com/Opinion/Hisg8JQdIPflijvUnBdlYP/The-curious-battle-for-Vallabhbhai-Patel.html

.

The curious battle for Vallabhbhai Patel

There is little resemblance between that Patel and the 182 metre one being constructed on an island in Gujarat currently

Sometime on the eve of Independence, the Congress high command was holding one of its innumerable sessions. Mohandas Gandhi was presiding. Among other things, on agenda was the issue of deciding the next leader of the party. In a casual fashion, Gandhi informed Jawaharlal Nehru that a majority of the Pradesh Congress Committees were in favour of Vallabhbhai Patel. There was a moment of silence in which Nehru did not say anything. Then, Gandhi passed a piece of paper to Patel who, without batting an eyelid, signed it. With that act, he signed away his chance of becoming Prime Minister of India, acquiescing to Nehru’s enthronement. No questions asked.

There is little resemblance between that Patel and the 182 metre one being constructed on an island in Gujarat currently. One was a historical figure; the other is a mythical being, raised for purely political purposes. Usually, appropriation of historical figures is the tactic of weak political leaders who are unsure of their standing. Contemporary India is replete with this sort of “gold dusting”. From that perspective, what is being seen in Gujarat is doubly surprising. The entire exercise is being done by a leader who by most measures should not be insecure: Narendra Modi. Perhaps there is another explanation at hand?

Turn the clock back to the period 1948-1950. By that time Gandhi, the one person who united the temperamentally very different Nehru and Patel, had passed away. With that began the steady disempowering of the Patel faction in the Congress. By 1950, the Sardar had gone and so had most of his like-minded colleagues. By 1962, the last formidable “Patelite”, Purushottam Das Tandon, too, had gone. By that time, the ascendancy of Nehru and his vision—including the disastrous infatuation with economic planning—was complete. Patel has, since then, been relegated to the pages of history.

Patel is not the only leader who has been relegated thus. Since 1970 nationalist icons such as Subhas Chandra Bose, Rajendra Prasad and Maulana Azad have been aggressively relegated by the Congress party’s leadership. And here one is not even talking of leaders like Madan Mohan Malviya who barely exist in memory. The Congress has no reason to complain about how Patel is being appropriated by Modi.

So why is he being remembered now and why by Modi, of all the people? It is true that not many citizens will be aware of the details of Patel’s career. But they do remember him for one thing: his tremendous resolve in unifying India into a nation from a mere collection of geographically adjacent states. And that memory has contemporary resonance.

In the last 10 years of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government’s run, the last word than can be associated with it is resolve. A significant number of Indians—especially those living in urban areas, who are educated and who are at the receiving end of India’s economic woes—seek a government that takes decisive measures in solving the country’s problems. Modi, the shrewd tactician that he is, knows this very well.

In a democracy, such appropriation approaches the limits of what is politically healthy. And coming at the hands of a leader like Narendra Modi, who has carefully cultivated the image of being decisive, it is doubly unjustified. It also leaves open a nagging question that if this image building exercise lacks substance. He has, in the recent past, built his credentials on development and growth; his reliance on symbols is thus questionable. But these simple explanations do not explain much except saying “not good”. The Congress party has done much to create the vacuum—historical and contemporary—that has enabled this turn of events. The agreement on part of a significant section of citizens shows that India and Indians long for something they have not seen for a decade, a decisive government. It is interesting that a historical figure should bear the burden of these expectations.

 
Is Narendra Modi only making use of a vacuum created by the Congress party? Tell us at views@livemint.com