Patel's nationalism was broad-based. It had no
place for narrow parochialism of caste and creed

Fifty years after India won freedom, the myth that Sardar Patel was anti-Muslim persists. In this fascinating essay, Dr Rafiq Zakaria, the respected scholar, reveals the truth about Patel and India's Muslims.

Patel, in his reply to Nehru the same day, informed him that he had instructed Home Secretary H V R Iengar to go ahead with the appointment of Justice Bashir Ahmed, disregarding Kania's objection. He said he shared Nehru's view 'of the manner in which Chief Justice Kania had approached this question. In fact, I told him on the telephone that any rejection of Justice Bashir Ahmed at this state could reasonably be regarded as being based on communal grounds.'

However, Patel cautioned Nehru against any precipitate action against Kania, who, the Sardar admitted, 'is even liable to become petty-minded and persist in his attitude; but, that unfortunately is a trait not uncommon with some heads of the judiciary, who feel that they have to sole monopoly of upholding its independence, integrity and purity.'

Nevertheless Patel pointed out to Nehru that 'such indiscretions on the part of a man in the position of the Chief Justice of India have to be tolerated. Any other attitude would render us liable to the charge of interference with the judiciary. After all, asking Chief Justice Kania to sign does not mean that he would resign. If he does not, we merely get a rebuff because we cannot carry out our directions to its logical conclusion, namely, dismiss him. '

Consequently he requested Nehru 'to allow the breeze to pass over' which Nehru did and so ended as unfortunate development which could have had serious repercussions on the relationship between the executive and the judiciary.

Dr Rammanohar Lohia, the socialist firebrand, in his much discussed book, Guilty Men of India's Partition, wrote: 'Sardar Patel was as undoubtedly Hindu in his political motivation as Maulana Azad was Muslim.' Azad could, however, hide his feelings; he suffered rather than asserted. Patel was often, as we have seen, brutally frank; he called a spade, what he though it to be, a spade. He was transparent in his feelings to a fault. He did not care if his words hurt. But his patriotism, was beyond dispute; his nationalism was broad-based. It had no place for narrow parochialism of caste and creed.

Jayaprakash Narayan had second thoughts about him; after a lapse of twenty years, the withdrew his allegation of communal bias against him. He said his assessment of the man was wrong. Minoo Masani has given a balanced picture of the Sardar in his book Bliss was it in that Dawn. He, along with JP and other socialists were in the forefront in painting Patel as a reactionary and an obscurantist: 'Sardar Patel did not have a brilliant or scintillating mind, nor was he a man of great vision. He was not by any standards an intellectual and suffered from neither the strengths nor the weaknesses of that species. My friend Yusuf Meherally once said that the only culture about which the Sardar knew anything was agriculture! Also, the Sardar had a very harsh tongue. Gandhiji once said that his tongue is studded with thorns, but he also assured me that his bark was very much worse than his bite.

'On the other hand, the Sardar had a big heart under his rough exterior. He was very loyal to those who worked with him and under him and he was also a man of his word. He had to do many unpleasant things because, while Gandhiji laid down the line, it was for the Sardar to give effect to it.'

Excerpted from Sardar Patel and Indian Muslims, by Rafiq Zakaria, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1996, Rs 125, with the author's permission. Readers interested in buying a copy of the book may write to Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Kulapati K M Munshi Marg, Bombay 400 007.