A G Noorani calls Sardar Patel a Communalist
Assertion: The latest cover story of Frontline is a lengthy essay by A.G. Noorani that purports to prove that Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel was a communalist based on a “documented record.”
As part of this exercise, Noorani quotes from Justice J.L. Kapur’s report that was published after conducting an investigation into Mohandas Gandhi’s assassination. Equally, the article also provides an excerpt from Page 162, Volume 1 of the report, which the article claims, contains Jayaprakash Narayan’s (JP) “criticism” of Patel as being a supporter of communal forces.
Thus, by implication, JP’s “criticism” of Patel bolsters Noorani’s assertion that Patel’s communalism was a “documented record.”
Facts
First, we need to quote the highlights of the Frontline extract of J.L. Kapur’s report.
“According to the Times of India, dated February 18, 1948, Ex. 242, Mr. Jayaprakash Narayan said that the people should not distrust the campaign that he had undertaken to draw pointed attention to the weakness of the Central administration:
‘He had nothing to benefit personally, he said, from a frank and free criticism and an over-all estimation of the events leading up to Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination. He was no believer in fate and was convinced that, if prominent Congress Ministers had not patronised and attended RSS rallies and had warned the youth of the country clearly against joining the organisation and provided other suitable outlets for their energies, Mahatma Gandhi would never have been taken away from us when we most needed him…“He criticised the government for having spokesmen of big businessmen included in the Cabinet. He wanted the communalists and communal saboteurs to be replaced by democratic minded nationalists.
“In the Bombay Chronicle of February 28, 1948, Ex. 243, is given a report of a speech of Mr. Jayaprakash Narayan at Bombay where he demanded the resignation of Dr. Shyama Prasad Mookerjee, Mr. R.K. Shanmukham Chetty, Sardar Baldev Singh and Mr. C.H. Bhabha. He blamed the Central Cabinet for encouraging communal organisations in the country which resulted in Gandhiji’s murder and demanded the banning of communal organisations.”
Based on this extract, Frontline concludes that JP was
…clearly referring to Patel’s praise for the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha on January 6, 1948, shortly before the dastardly deed on January 30, 1948.
However, things take on an entirely different light when we examine the complete text of the same Page 162 of the Report. The complete text of J.L. Kapur’s Report can be accessed here. Highlights of the missing text of Page 162–that is, omitted by Frontline–follow (emphasis added):
12C.8 Mr. Jayaprakash Narayan then said that a man of 74 [Sardar Patel] had departments of which even a man of 30 would probably find it difficult to bear the burden. He said that there was too much burden on the Home Minister but added as a suffix he was not censuring him.
Second, the Frontline extract ends at “…demanded the banning of communal organizations.” However, the text that follows is highly revealing:
He said that he did not demand that the socialists should be included in the cabinet but there were a number of nationalists who could be there and the portfolio of Information and Broadcasting should be separated from that of Home otherwise it will result in dictatorship. He said that he was not against Sardar but he wanted a man who was free from communalism to be incharge of Home Department.
But there’s more. Frontline also hides another crucial fact regarding JP. The testimony of Sardar Patel’s daughter, Maniben, recorded on the same page 162:
12C.14 Miss Maniben Patel deposed before the Commission that Mr. Jayaprakash Narayan and the Socialists were anxious to have Sardar Patel removed.
The implication is clear: that JP had political and/or ideological issues with Patel. This is common in any party where members of the same party differ with each other on certain issues. That by itself cannot make one leader a lesser human being. Thus, JP’s issue with Patel is not a fact but merely a disagreement, an opinion, which Frontline uses as proof to call Patel a communalist.
In other words, Noorani has deliberately suppressed quoting the page 162 in entirety because doing so would contravene his own charge that Patel was a communalist.
This apart, things become even clearer when we examine the documented record of Sardar Patel’s attitude towards Muslims.
Subsequent years proved the truth and soundness of what Patel had told the Muslims in January 1948 at Lucknow. Jayaprakash Narayan repeated that advice nineteen years later, in 1967, when he asked the Indian Muslims not to forget that ‘Partition had left a deep wound’ in the hearts of Hindus; and reminded them that ‘many of the Muslims and Muslim leaders who had made India their home…were passionate advocates of Pakistan’, on account of which there was still ‘so much mistrust in their heart.’ Narayan emphasised that ‘the healing of hearts and minds will not depend only upon the behaviour of the majority community.’ Narayan’s warning was, “We do not realise on what a veritable volcano of disruption we are sitting. We also tend to forget the history of our country from ancient times down to the British Conquest.” And Narayan repeated what Patel had said in 1948, “I fear that what I am saying may arouse bitter anger…. I am speaking as a friend, as one who is deeply concerned about the future of Indian Muslims, and of the future of our country as a nation.”
Patel’s advice was as ‘a friend of the Muslims.’ Patel had attempted to reach the core of the problem, and find a solution as a rational secularist: a solution based on his fundamental belief in what he had once said, “A nation forgets the lessons of history only at its peril…. It will be a folly to ignore realities. Facts will take their revenge if they are not faced squarely and well.” [Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel–India’s Iron Man, by B.Krishna, p 461]
This was the same Jayaprakash Narayan whose words Noorani and Frontline quote as proof that Patel was a communalist who hated Muslims. Equally, this was the same Sardar Patel who reached out to Indian Muslims as a friend.
Verdict
From the foregoing facts, it is clear that A.G. Noorani and Frontline have deliberately suppressed historical facts related to Patel and JP. The tone and tenor of Noorani’s piece seems to be that he has already arrived at the conclusion that Patel was a communalist and has both used facts selectively and suppressed facts to suit this conclusion.
IndiaFacts verdict: A G Noorani is an Incorrigible Liar.
Postscript: IndiaFacts is grateful to Sridhar K Swamy for his inputs in preparing this Fact Meter.
This whole article is more accurately an exercise in a nuanced dissection of A.G Noorani. Mr. Noorani cites many other instances of venomous speeches that Patel made, but your article is silent on that.
Even in that case, your argument relies on this fact that Patel said “I fear that what I am saying may arouse bitter anger…. I am speaking as a friend, as one who is deeply concerned about the future of Indian Muslims, and of the future of our country as a nation.” [1948] is totally taken out of context. There is much difference in rhetoric and unvindictive action, and Patel miserably failed to stand up to the latter.
In the book “Nation Building In India”, it is clearly outlined that :
“..this does not mean that Jayaprakash was not aware of the Muslim problem. The Muslim fear of Hindu domination of the central Indian government was genuine. Jayaprakash suggested a twofold remedy. ”
Patel was dissentious. He did not support it.
Clearly, as you disingenously wants to prove that the difference was “Political” or “ideological”. Facts show that it was anything but.
(Sidenote: The author should learn the difference between “political differences” and “ideological differences”. There is a gaping difference between the two.
Moreover – About role of RSS:
“..riots everywhere confirmed the fear that there was a deliberate and well-conceived plan behind them. Hazara and Dera Ismail Khan non-Pushtu speaking areas in NWFP dominated by Punjabis were ravaged by riots. Colin Reid of the Daily Telegraph wrote from Peshawar: “Agent provocateurs from other provinces have been stirring Muslim feelings here by displaying photographs of skulls and torn fragments of the Koran from Bihar.”
Ibid. Pg. 154.
Patel was in know of such activities. He never condemned them when as a non-partisan statesman he should have. He tried to provide them a safe shelter by ignoring and sometimes worse condoning such activities.
Only when much blood was shed, hundreds of thousands of homes burnt, guiltless lives of one community were lost, he grew apprehensive and issued a statement [where he clearly slyly remarked about RSS and its activities]
“The Union Home Minister said at Ranchi that such large-scale rioting could not have occured without prior organisation. That is quite possible. But I believe the more deepseated cause is the systematic undercover organisation, propaganda and indoctrination which .have been going on for years past and aimed to inculcate, in the youth particularly, sentiments of narrow nationalism, religious bigotry and arrogance, mutual suspicion and
hatred. It is time to find out what is happening in the country, what divisive, venomous and virulent activities are going on ostensibly under the guise of cultural or religious activities. ”
Now, in the light of above facts and reasons, it is clear that the author is an “Incorrigible fabricator” who has neither read history properly, nor relied on authentic resources for research, but rather tries to warp the whole debate in weasel words with an accusatory tone.
But I understand your prevarication.
The problem lies in mass-education system of India – where we are told that our leaders were “faultless” and “demigods”. So there is much truth when the same “incorrigible liar” (as you mala-fidely term him) A.G Noorani said in an interview that “Indian historians are dishonest and opportunistic at best”.
This venerating attitude has to change if we were to accept history as it is and learn from it.
@Arslan, I do believe that S.V.Patel was definitely anti-muslim, but ‘my idea’ of his reasons & degree of communalism is something I find ‘fluctuating’ with more new stuff I read about. Maybe he was kind of a person who thought atleast as many Muslims as the number of hindu refugees fleeing to India should go to Pakistan, since Muslim League scored greatly not just in regions of present Pakistan but also (& especially,mostly)in Indian muslim constituencies. Most Indian muslims voted for partition(ML),but most stayed back. Don’t deny that a large number wanted a Dar-ul-Islam, but only when the reality of logistics hit them they stayed back.Don’t say patriotism.Those days nationalism was by hating Brits,not by staying in same village,state or country.Even today people change states .If there was a government sponsored exchange of volunteers(who voted ML),as Patel insisted for, most would’ve moved.Though there was violence in both countries,but when we find that only 15% minorities moved from India,but 85% in reverse,then even to a communist(especially religion)like me,it seems that larger %hindus were peaceful.Say 10% & 5% were the respective communal elements.. Hindus are more casteist, Muslims are more violent,is the general perception abroad,whether its right or wrong. But that doesn’t mean hindus are non-violent or muslims non-casteist(eg,Ashraf,Ajlaf,some 3rd category,etc,),or that all hindus,muslims can be generalised.But I would like say that the most inspirational personality to me is Mr.APJ.Abdul Kalam. .Though this comment is/looks communal,I’ve only been practical.
I have across thousands of people who vouch for sardar patel. No one told me that his mother was a gujartahi muslim . Her name was Lagada. I accidentally found this when in visited the patel museum in Ahmedabad.
GPSrinivasan
Irrespective of your authority in giving a certificate to Mr. Noorani will not degrade his work and Truth that Patel was and forever for we Hyderabadis will be a RSS mole! Since he is the one who deceived Nehru, UN and Hyderabadis in particular and killed our ancestors in Lakhs! The biggest Massacre in Free India is done by Patel and you can’t remove this blot from his history (y)
Your ancestors weren’t innocent. People of the region haven’t forgotten about kasim rizvi and razakar animals. There’s a reason why that animal slithered off to pakistan after the thousands of hindus he killed with his savages. You can’t remove that blot from history. Consider yourself lucky Patel let your people stay instead of packing them off to karachi.
Noorani’s work is poor in scholarship and even poorer in honesty (as are you, even Economist said 27,000 not “lakhs”–conveniently leaving out number of hindus massacred). Noorani conveniently glosses over the crimes of the nizam and MIM (which, surprise surprise is still there today). The biggest massacres in historical free United India were in Pakistan and Bangladesh in millions)–be thankful we are more cultured than they are…
The real purpose doing research to quote the great people only to prove The great national leader
like Sardhar Patel communal. The word COMMUNAL existing still in our country is because
People like A J Noorani and hundreds of millions are still existing in India illegally inspire of nation
Created on the basis of their religion.I will go one step further to say that they should have been
Kicked up their butts to cross the newly created border . We missed it we have to think what’s next
If not everyone will be converted as M s or the map of Hindusthan will wiped off from the atlas
In left-liberal parlance “communalist” is a code-word for “nationalist”. No decent Indian who loves his motherland for the Hindu nation that she truly is will escape this designation. Sure, there are others that love their own pet “idea” of India or someone else’s “idea”, most notoriously the wholly detrimental one foisted on Hindus by their beloved chacha. Let us remember that even during the freedom struggle, nationalists were called “extremists”. That they are still referred in that manner in our text books is telling. The main enemy of India today is the radical left, which has taken over media, academia and politics, who have covered themselves in the “secular” cloak, much like the luke-warm Britain loyalists had sought to portray themselves as “moderates” during the freedom struggle. These RNI (resident non-Indian) radicals will have to be ejected from all spheres of life in India by nationalists. That is the first order of business. All the rest will fall into place.