You are here: IE »   Story

Loh Purush and Chhote Sardar: Two reasons why BJP can’t take Jaswant’s criticism of Patel

  • Print
  • Mail This Article
  • Comments
  • Add to favorites
  • Discount UK Shopping
    More than praising Jinnah, it’s Jaswant Singh’s criticism of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel that’s touched many a raw —and politically strained — BJP nerve.

    For, while the Congress has always tried to appropriate the legacy of the national movement, it’s through the strand in the Congress represented by India’s first Home Minister, Sardar Patel, that the BJP has tried to connect itself to the freedom movement.

    Sardar Patel was referred to as the Iron Man — for uniting the princely states. This was the imagery L K Advani tried to invoke with portrayals of him being a Loh Purush as India’s Home Minister during the NDA rule.

    Subsequently, in Patel’s home state, Chief Minister Narendra Modi has always cultivated the image of Chhote Sardar.

    Jaswant Singh’s 669-page book (Jinnah — India, Partition, Independence) refers to Patel at about six places, the theme being that Jinnah’s interpretation (false, in Jaswant Singh’s opinion) of India being two nations, was finally acceded to by both Nehru and Patel.

    Ads by Google

    The key excerpts from Jaswant Singh’s references to Patel:

    1. Page 417: Leaders like Patel accepted partition “in order to seek relief from the torments of the past many years and in the process offering many ingratuitous suggestions.” Singh quotes from a letter written by Sardar Patel to Kanti Dwarkadas on March 4, 1947: “I am not, however, taking such a gloomy view as you... before next June, the Constitution must be ready, and if the League insists on Pakistan the only alternative is the division of Punjab and Bengal.”

    Patel, in the letter, goes on to say that in his view, the British would not agree to such a division and would not help the minority secure a division and a strong centre (subsuming minority demands) would ultimately prevail.

    This letter, Jaswant Singh writes, “is a revealing letter for quite apart from how far off from the mark Patel was in respect of so many of his projections about the future, he was also for the first time, even if by implication, accepting partition on condition of a division of the Punjab and Bengal.”

    2. Page 418: Jaswant Singh goes on to suggest that the formal adoption, accepting the partition of the country by the Congress party on March 8, 1947, was done in the absence of Mahatma Gandhi and Maulana Azad who, “Nehru and Patel had known would oppose the resolution.” Singh quotes Patel explaining the resolution to Gandhi later as “that you had expressed your views against it, we learnt only from the papers.”

    There is a strong suggestion here that Nehru and Patel acted as one in changing the long-held position of the Congress, one of opposing partition to agreeing to it overnight. Jaswant Singh concludes that within a month of Mountbatten’s arrival, the Congress’s view on partition had changed.

    3. Page 489: “it is in this, a false ‘minority syndrome’ that the dry rot of partition first set in, and then unstoppably it afflicted the entire structure, the magnificent strand of an united India. The answer (cure?) Jinnah asserted, lay only in parting, and Nehru and Patel and others in the Congress also finally agreed. Thus was born Pakistan...”

    Historian have different view points- Why not Jaswant SinghBy: S. P. SINGH | 21-Aug-2009 Reply | Forward The comment made by Jaswant Singh are his own view points, which not required must go with RSS or BJP or accepted. Freedom of speech and expression must be respected and we must be ready to accept adverse comments. It is well know facts that partion can be avoided if views of Gandhiji accepted. It is the fault of Congress Leader which given opportunuty to Muslim Leagu to demand separate state. History and view points of historical person always subject matter of debate and review based on materials. The views expressed by Jaswant Singh are his owm based on his studies and not required to be accepted by all, it can be rejected outright but the action of BJP expelling him from party is unfortunate and can not appraised or saved on grounds of defence given by Arun Jaitley.The ideological differences are part of human characteristics and if all mind think in one line than creativity, thoughts, freedam of sppech will neveer come up, which is the ideological bankrupty of present BJP.
    Loh Purush and Chhote Sardar: Two reasons why BJP can’t take Jaswant’s criticism of PatelBy: PRAMOD GUPTA | 21-Aug-2009 Reply | Forward Jaswant Singh ousting from BJP is iconic , since BJP has shown the courage to manifest that Party is above individuals if it comes to statesmanship, and denigrating nationalist icon ( Sardar Patel) in sharp contrast to Congress , that bowed to Antulay’s denigation of Hemant karkare murderin 26/11 terror attack , defending vehemently Kasab, and charging saffron brigade , downed the Nation Globally , while Govt had footage, still was given MP ticket , and the Batla House ( Delhi) retracting..
    The Real Face of Sardar Patel, His Mock-up Advani and MODi are all traitorsBy: Indian Analyist | 20-Aug-2009 Reply | Forward It took 60 years for the truth to come out, now the blame of creating Pakistan shall once for all be washed away.This is the biggest lie BJP has been encashing and portraying Patel as Loh Pursh, he happened to be more of Wax than LOH(Iron), so is his follower Advani.
    Post a Comment
    Name:
    Email:
    Title:
    Maximum characters allowed     
    Comment:
    TERMS OF USE:
    The views, opinions and comments posted are your, and are not endorsed by this website. You shall be solely responsible for the comment posted here. The website reserves the right to delete, reject, or otherwise remove any views, opinions and comments posted or part thereof. You shall ensure that the comment is not inflammatory, abusive, derogatory, defamatory &/or obscene, or contain pornographic matter and/or does not constitute hate mail, or violate privacy of any person (s) or breach confidentiality or otherwise is illegal, immoral or contrary to public policy. Nor should it contain anything infringing copyright &/or intellectual property rights of any person(s).
    I agree to the terms of use.