Articles
Patel, Nehru and Modi (Rebuttal of a Muslim Secularist’s Slander)
Patel, Nehru and Modi
(Rebuttal of a Muslim Secularist’s Slander)
By
Dr T.H.Chowdary
Chairman : Pragna Bharati, Andhra Pradesh
Director : Center for Telecom Management & Studies
Fellow: Tata Consultancy Services
Former: Information Technology Advisor: Government of Andhra Pradesh
Chairman & Managing Director, Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd
Advisor: Satyam Computer Services
Plot No. 8, P&T Colony, Karkhana (Secunderabad), Hyderabad- 500 009.
Phone : +91 (40) 6667-1191 (Off) & 2784-3121 (Res)
Fax : +91 (40) 6667-1111 M: 98 490 6 7359
E-Mail: hanuman.chowdary@tcs.com
Website: www.drthchowdary.net
A Pragna Bharathi Publication
February 2014
Foreword
As the general elections to the 16th Lok Sabha are coming soon ( April/May 2014) communal “secularists”, prospectors for minorities’ votes and congenital enemies of India and Hindus are depicting Sardar Vallabhai Patel, Narendra Modi and Hindutva as communal an d Nehru as secular. In the league of these anti-India, anti-Hindu essayists, journalists and politicians is Sri A G Noorani, a very industrious, prolific, Muslim Indian, “secular” essayist, author, journalist and advocate. He wrote a very vicious article under the title, “Patel, Nehru and Modi” in the fortnightly journal, Front Line (13Dec 2013), one of the journals that comes from the misleadingly named Hindu group of newspapers.
2. Many are engaged in belittling Sardar Patel if not outright denouncing him and in exalting Nehru and his Dynasty. Patel is depicted as a Hindu communalist and Nehru as a shining secular, socialist . History is being recast just as in the communist countries where some past persons are unpersoned and those who are now in power are exalted.
3. Modi is being demonised. Those who continuously accuse him of post-Godhra riots in Ahmedabad never talk of the Muslim League’s government sponsored slaughter of Hindus in Calcutta during the Direct Action of the Muslim League 16 Aug 1946 and afterwards; and the 1984 slaughter of Sikhs by organised gangs of Congress - men under the very nose of the shining, secularist Nehru Dynast Rajiv Gandhi the Prime Minister then and the hundreds of communal riots that took place for days on end in cities and states ruled by the secular Congress Party.
4. This paper is in two parts. The first part deals with the communal forces that were responsible for instilling Pakistaniat among India’s Muslims, the partition of India and the creation of Pakistan and the communal holocaust riots. Without this background, it will be very difficult to understand the true portrayal of Patel, Nehru and Narendra Modi. The second part of the paper takes up point, the by point accusations and allegations of Noorani ( and his likes the “secular” brigade) and refutes them in the light of authentic facts. An Annexure and Notes supplement the two parts.
5. Information given in this paper are from the books: “The Transfer of Power in India” by V P Menon; The Holocaust of Indian Partition” by Madhav Godbole ; “Pakistan or the Partition of India” by B R Ambedkar; “Nehru” by Stanley Wolpert; “Freedom At Midnight” by Dominique Lapierre & Larry Collins; “Understanding Partition” by Yuvraj Krishan; “Sardar Vallabha Patel by B Krishna; “Pilgrimage to Freedom” by K M Munshi; “The Shades of Swords by M.J.Akbar; “Government from Inside” by N V Gadgil and “India Wins Freedom” by Maulana Abul Kalam Azad.
Patel, Nehru and Modi
(Rebuttal of a Muslim Secularist’s Slander)
Dr T.H.Chowdary*
Part-I : Historic Background to Communalism and Partition of India:
Sri A G Noorani, a prolific Muslim Indian “secular” essayist, author, journalist and advocate wrote an article, “Patel, Nehru and Modi” in Frontline (13 Dec 2013). It is very vicious and slanderous spitting communalism. Whatever is faithfully attributed to Sardar Patel as quoted in that article could be seen to be absolutely justified not only then but even after more than 60 years of Independence and partition of India and creation of the Islamic state of Pakistan (and Bangladesh). Sri Noorani has not referred to any aspect of history leading to the creation of Pakistan. Without a reference to that history, it would appear as though there were two states of India and Pakistan and the Muslims in India had been and are the victims of Hindu communalism as implemented by Sardar Patel. This is totally misleading, false and criminal suppression of facts unbecoming of an honest journalist. First, let us therefore recall the history relevant to the Muslim problem in the Indian sub-continent.
2. 90% of the Muslims of India are descendents of converts from Hinduism. Conversion took place largely by the violence and tyranny of invading Islamist conquerors ranging from Mohammed Bin Qasim (AD 712), Md. Ghazni (1024) Md Ghori ( 1202) and Babur (1526) . Just about 10% could be the descendants of the blue blooded Arab and Central Asian Mongols and others. The struggle for the total conquest of India by Muslim invaders and those pressed in to their service by conversion lasted over 700 years (Aurangzeb died in 1707; was not able to subdue the rising Hindu Maratha power). Even then the whole of India never came under Muslim rule. Elsewhere in the world, like in Central Asia, North Africa, Middle East, Persia and Spain in Europe, within 50 years of conquest by the Islamist invaders all the people were converted from Christianity, Zorastrianism or some indigenous faiths to Islam. Not so in India. This failure which rankles in the minds of Islamists and some of them say that this non-conversion of the whole of India to Islam is one of the unfinished agendas of Islam itself. A contrast between Christian European Spain and India is also in order. Spain was conquered by the Islamist Moors in 8th century (711AD) . Most of the Churches were pulled down and converted into Mosques. More than 90% of the people were converted to Islam. After about 700 years of their conquest, the Muslim rulers of Spain were expelled by the joint re-conquest of Spain by the Christians powers of France and Germany etc. Almost all the mosques were pulled down and the Churches were restored in those very places as before the Islamic conquest. The people were given a choice to revert to Christianity or to follow the Muslim invaders to the lands from which they came. 90% of people reconverted to Christianity and the rest left the country. Spain has therefore no Muslim problem. This did not happen in India even when the Muslim conquerors were worsted by the Vijayanagara Kings and the Marathas and finally by the Sikhs. The former Muslim classes as well as the converted, Muslims had come to be accepted by Hindus, as people of India. This generosity of the Hindus has ultimately worked to their detriment. During the 700 years of Muslim rule here and there in the country, unlike in other lands conquered by Islam, not even the so called untouchables and low caste Hindus were all converted to Islam. 75% of the people remained in the faith Sanatan Dharma of their fathers. This is another historic fact which rankles the Islamists .
3. The British conquest of India reduced the former ruling class of Muslims to submission to a non-Muslim power, that is the British. Under the British rule, Muslims and Hindus were subjects alike, equal in status as the ruled. After the First War of Independence in 1857, the British first thought that the war was motivated and led by Muslims from whom power had slipped away. Very soon, under the leadership of Sir Sayyed Ahmed Khan (b.17/10/1817 d. 27/3/1898) Muslims were instructed and led to be allies of the British as they were Christians, the People of the Book (Prophet Mohammed and Koran, the Book acknowledge the Prophets of the Old Testament of the Bible. Jews and Christians are called Ahle Kitab, People of the Book and are allowed some freedom in return for payment of zezia, poll tax. Hindus are not Ahle Kitab; they are kafirs).
4. The Indian National Congress (INC) was founded in 1885 at the instance of a British gentleman Sir Alan Octavian Hume (b.6/6/1829 d. 31/7/1912 ) in order to secure more and more representation for Indians in the government. Western education and ideas of democracy and reform of Hinduism (to expel the excrescences that kept into it in the previous 1000 years of foreign domination) have begun to influence Indians. Ideas of independence and self governance were agitating India’s educated. The British were democrats at home, in England. Their rulers here in India realised that one day they will have to quit. There would be democracy. Representation of Indians in institutions of governance like Municipalities was begun by the British. That was the time when Sir Sayyed Ahmed realised that if ever India became independent, there would be democracy and democracy means majority rule. He equated the rule of the political majorly to Hindu rule. His thinking could not be otherwise because in Islam there is no separation between state and religion. In the Sanatan Dharma, commonly known as, Hinduism, the state never had a religion. The only time when there was state religion was when Ashoka ruled the country . Buddhism then was the state religion. But it was short lived. Hindu kings never ever imposed Sanatan Dharma on the people. Indeed the state was to protect the freedom of belief, faith and practice of all people.
5. Sir Sayyed Ahmed was the first Muslim intellectual and influential person who incited and instructed India’s Muslims to think that they are a separate people having nothing in common with Hindus . In his 1888 March 16, Meerut speech he declared that, “...Bengalis (the leading lights of the INC) have made a most unfair ad unwarrantable interference in my nation. In whose hands shall the administration and empire of India rest? Now suppose that the English community and the army were to leave India...Is it possible that under these circumstances two nations – the Mohammedans and the Hindus – could sit on the same throne and remain equal in power? Most certainly not. It is necessary that one of them should conquer the other. To hope that both could remain equal is to desire the impossible and the inconceivable”. He further said that if in a conflict with Hindus the Muslims can’t hold their own, “then our Mussalman brothers, the Pathans would come out as a swarm of locusts from the mountain valleys and make rivers of blood to flow......until one nation has conquered the other obedient peace cannot reign in the land. ....Oh, my brother Musalmans, I again remind you that you have ruled nations, and have for centuries held different countries in your grasp. For 700 fears in India you had imperial sway.” Sir Syed Ahmed Khan went on to found the Aligarh Muslim college, which evolved into the Aligarh Muslim University, (AMU) with great British patronage. The All India Muslim League’s later leaders (1930s onwards) have all been nurtured at the AMU).
6. His idea of Muslims being separate and that they should not have any common cause with Hindus against the British was taken up by other Muslim intellectuals. In 1906 Muslim League was founded in Dhaka ( Bangladesh ) under the leadership of the Aga Khan. A Muslim delegation met with the Viceroy and Governor General in Simla; asked for and got separate electorate (as and for Muslims ) and thereafter even weighted representation for them. 33.1/3% representation for 24% Muslim population of India in the Central Legislative Assembly in Delhi.
7. Sir Md. Iqbal in his 1930 presidential address in Allahabad to the Muslims League’s conference reiterated what Sir Sayyed Ahmed said in a differ language. His speech contained the first ideas of a separate Islamic state for the Muslims of India. Here is an excerpt from his speech. “The Muslim demand for the creation of Muslim India is therefore perfectly justified. The resolution of the All Parties Muslim Conference at Delhi is to my mind wholly inspired by this noble ideal...I would like to see the Punjab, North –West Frontier province Sind and Baluchistan amalgamated into a single state....the formation of a consolidated North West Indian Muslim state appears to me to be the final destiny of the Muslims at least of North-West India). India is the greatest Muslim country in the world. The life of Islam as a cultural force in this living country very largely depends on its centralisation in a specified territory……the Muslim demand is actuated by a desire for free development which is practically impossible under the type of unitary (i.e central, government for whole of India - Author) contemplated by the nationalist Hindu politicians (Gandhi, Nehru, Rajendra Prasad, Vallabhai Patel etc. – Author) with a view to secure permanent communal dominance in the whole of India”. It may be recalled that Sir Md. Iqbal’s notion that India is the greatest Muslim country was sought to be recognised by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi when in 1969 she sent a government’s delegation ( of Muslims) led by Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, her Cabinet minister, to the founding meeting of the Organisation of Islamic Conference - OIC in Rabat. A secular state requesting to join the group of Islamic States ! The OIC refused to entertain India’s request, holding that India is not an Islamic ( enough) country.
In its 1940 March conference in Lahore, the Muslim League adopted the definitive resolution for partition of India and creation of the Islamic state of Pakistan as home-land for Moslems of the Indian subcontinent. The two nation theory was stridently declared by Mohammed Ali Jinnah. Here is an excerpt from Mohammed Ali Jinnah’s March 1940 Lahore speech“…It is extremely difficult to appreciate why our Hindu friends fail to understand the real nature of Islam and Hinduism. They are not religions in the strict sense of the word, but are, in fact, different and distinct social orders and it is a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality, and this misconception of one Indian nation has gone far beyond the limits and is the cause of most of our troubles and will lead India to destruction if we fail to revise our notions in time. The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, and literature. They neither intermarry, (only Hindu girls marry Moslems, but they have to convert to Islam – Ed) nor interdine together and, indeed they belong to two different civilizations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspects on life and of life are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Mussalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, different heroes and different episodes. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other and, likewise, their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built up for the Government of such a state…….
This ideology, Pakistaniat so gripped the Moslem mind that in the 1945/46 general election to the central Legislative Assembly (Parliament) and Provincial Legislative Council, every seat reserved for Muslims (except in tiny North West Frontier Province) was won by the Muslim League and so called nationalist Moslems of Congress were all ignominiously defeated by the Pakistaniat Muslim League’s candidates.
8. Until 1940 when the demand for Pakistan was stridently and irrevocably put forward, Muslims in India were representing that they were a minority and were seeking protection, special rights and privileges in India when it would be free. But since then, they asserted to be a nation different from non-Muslims of India. The Muslim League never participated in any freedom struggle launched by the INC but whatever concessions the Congress was able to obtain for India for self –rule, were being enjoyed with added privileges by the Muslims without any agitations or jail - going. That Muslims are not Indians but a separate nation went on gripping the minds of Muslims progressively from the Khilafat movement of 1919 onwards. The Khilfat movement was launched by no Muslims anywhere in the world except by Muslim Indians under the leadership of Maulanas Ahmed Ali and Showkat Ali. Gandhiji committed the secular INC to the Muslims’ communal agitation for the Caliph in Turkey . In the aftermath of the first World War, imperial Turkey was dispossessed of all its conquests in the Arab and West Asian lands, North Africa as well as some provinces in Christian European Greece, the Balkans, Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania. Due to an internal revolution, in Turkey, the Caliph was deposed and the Caliphate was abolished. As a result, the Khilafat movement in India collapsed. But it had a tragic result in that Muslims infamed by consciousness of their religion pounced upon Hindus in Kerala. Those Muslims known as Moplahs waged war on Hindus, raped their women, burnt homes and forcibly converted tens of thousands of people to Islam. The British had to use the army to suppress the Moplah rebellion and restore order. That the Muslims had been aroused and that they started feeling absolutely separate from Hindus and looked down upon them as Kafirs was brought out poignantly and shockingly when Maulana Md. Ali, the brother of Mahatma Gandhi in the Khilafat movement at a meeting in Ajmeer said, “However pure Mr. Gandhi’s character may be, he must appear to be from the point of view of religion, inferior to any Musalman even though he be without character”.
When the shocked nation asked him whether he really said this, Maulana Mohammed Ali had no compunction in reiterating it in a public meeting in Amina Baug, Lucknow speaking in the following words,. “Yes, according to my religion and creed, I do hold a adulterous and a fallen Mussalman to be better than Mr. Gandhi” (9) .
9. When the second World War (1939) started the INC did not co-operate with the British war effort in India. On the contrary, it launched the Quit India movement in 1942. Md. Ali Jinnah and the League called upon Muslims to join the (Britain’s) Indian Army in large numbers. The result was that by the end of the second World War Indian Army was overwhelmingly Muslim!. The Quit India movement was suppressed in a few weeks time.
In order to get the cooperation of Indians for the British war effort - the British cabinet sent the Sir Stafford Cripps Mission (1942). It held meetings with the Congress and the Muslim League. There was no agreement between the two parties for any scheme for progress towards Independence. Md Ali Jinnah was bent upon partition of India and creation of Pakistan . After the war ended, the British found it was impossible to hold India. The desertion of more than 40,000 soldiers to the Indian National Army (INA) led by Subhas Chandra Bose, the Indian Navy’s mutiny in Bombay and the Indian Airforce revolt in Jabalpur and increasing communal riots in the country and the near collapse of Great Britain’s economy left no alternative to the British other than giving up the imperial rule in India. It sent the Cabinet mission in 1946. This Mission too found irreconcilable differences between the Congress and Muslim League. In order to compel the Congress to give up its opposition to the partition of India and creation of the Muslim state of Pakistan and to force Britain also to divide the country, the Muslim League launched Direct Action from the 16 Aug 1946 . Bengal (undivided then) was ruled by the Muslim League Ministry headed by H S. Suhravardy. He declared 16 Aug a holiday. All the officers in-charge of Police Stations in Calcutta were filled by Muslims . Under the direct supervision of the Muslim League’s premier, 10,000 Hindus were slaughtered in Calcutta, on the first day itself and in 72 Hrs, more than 26,000 people were slaughtered. That triggered reaction in Bihar. It was the turn of Muslims to be killed by Hindus. Then Noakhali in East Bengal saw Muslims burning Hindus’ homes, killing them, raping and abducting their women and so on. In retaliation, Bihar’s, Hindus pounced upon their Moslem neighbours. West Punjab, Sindh and North West Frontier Province and Baluchistan saw Muslims killing Hindus & Sikhs . The Direct Action was the beginning of the civil war. Hindus & Sikhs were at the receiving end in the beginning but soon the communal conflagration would consume those who began the riots. Great Britain’s Prime Minister, Atlee announced in Feb 1947 that Britain would withdraw from India by Aug 1948 and hand over power to whosoever was in possession of wherever.
10. Vice Roy and Governor General, Wawell was replaced by Lord Louis Mountbatten. He came to India in March 1947. He conferred with leaders of the Muslim League and Congress and came to the conclusion that nothing short of partition and creation of Pakistan would solve the Muslim problem In India. By that time the communal riots were aflame in the whole of north India. Law and order were crumbling . The first Indian leader to be told about partition by Mountbatten was Sardar Patel. Patel had come to the conclusion that united India was not possible and there was no alternative to partition for India to become Independent. Once Mountbatten got Sardar Patel’s consent, it was easy for him to get Nehru’s agreement. When these two agreed for the partition of India, the Muslim League was of course, too happy to have the partition and Pakistan. The Congress leaders’ decision was to be ratified by the All India Congress Committee (AICC). It met in Delhi on the 9th of June 1947. The Working Committee’s decision for accepting partition was vehemently opposed by socialists and some Congressmen like Abul Kalam Azad, and Purushottam Das Tandon. Gandhiji was requested to come and address the AICC. With folded hands, he pleaded for acceptance of partition. When the socialists reminded him of his resolve that India would be divided only on his dead body and why he would not undertake a fast unto 0death, he pleaded his inability to undertake any fast (After Aug 1947, he twice fasted unto death to compel the Government of India to release Rs. 55 crores to Pakistan which was then at war with India in Kashmir, and again to compel Hindu and Sikh refugees from Pakistan to vacate the mosques and other properties of Muslims who left for Pakistan and not to harm any Muslim). He pleaded with the AICC piteously to accept partition and left the meeting. The partition resolution was accepted with 157 for and 29 against and 32 remaining neutral.
11. Since the country was being partitioned solely on the basis of religion as demanded by the Muslim League, the Congress and other small parties insisted that Punjab and Bengal Provinces should also be divided on the basis of religion. That is how East Punjab with Hindu -Sikh majority and West Bengal with Hindu majority were excluded from the Islamic state of Pakistan. On the 14 Aug 1947, Pakistan came into being without borders being defined. On the 15 Aug India became independent. The award of the Boundary Commission presided over by Sir Cecil Radcliffe was announced on 17 Aug 1947. Even before this, Hindus and Sikhs were set upon by murderous Muslim League gangs in west Pakistan. Their houses were burnt, looted, women were raped, abducted and forcibly converted. Tens of thousands of Hindus and Sikh were trekking into India. Similarly on the eastern side, Hindus from east Bengal which would be East Pakistan were pouring into West Bengal. Some Muslims, mainly from East Punjab, Delhi and Western UP left for Pakistan. There was very little exodus of Muslims from other parts of India to Pakistan. Over 90% of Muslims in what is post -1947 India, who rioted and voted for partition and Pakistan stayed put in India. This is the reason for the continuance of the Muslim problem in India and its attainment and exceeding the pre-1947 intensity because of the furious growth in their population and political parties pandering to their demands for votes. This was the situation that partitioned independent India and Pakistan inherited in the middle of Aug 1947.
12. Soon after the Muslim League’s Lahore resolution (1940) for the partition of India and creation of the Islamic state of Pakistan, Dr B R Ambedkar examined this issue in a masterly way in his book, “Pakistan or the Partition of India “ . After a review of the history of Muslim invasions and their rule in India, he concluded that the partition was inevitable; it would be less harmful for India than a very weak federal India which would include Muslim majority areas and that the final settlement of the Muslim problem in India would be the exchange of minority populations between the two countries. He cited the precedent of the exchange of minority Christian and Muslim populations between Muslim Turkey and its Christian provinces in Europe after the first World War under the auspices of the League of Nations. Pakistan had 19% Hindus & Sikhs before partition. It reduced them to about 1.5% by violent expulsion. East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) reduced its Hindu Buddhist population from 33% to 7% and is still squeezing them out. That is how these Muslim states solved the minority problem. In contrast, the Muslims of India who were the rioters and voters for Partition and Pakistan did not all go to the state of their creation but stayed on here and have multiplied from 10% in 1951 to variously between 16% and 25% (latter figures as per claims of some Muslim leaders and perhaps include the 20-30 mln Bangladeshi Muslim infiltrators who are sheltered here and are becoming voters). The Pakistan mentality that is, that Muslims are not Indians but that they are a different nation opposed to Hindus grew dramatically after the 1940 Lahore resolution. In the 1937 elections the Muslims League won 106 seats out of 485 reserved for Muslims in the provincial state legislatures. Most of the rest were won by Muslim independents. But after the 1940 Pakistan resolution, in the 1945-46 elections, the Muslim League won 425 seats of the 485 reserved for Muslims in the state legislature’s and all of them in the Central Legislative Assembly in Delhi. Only 1.7% of the Muslim electorate voted for Congress’s so called nationalist Muslims who did not agitate for division of the country and creation of Pakistan. They decisively rejected Congress secular, “composite culture, non-communal socialist leaders’ Gandhi, Nehru, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and company.
All this history is necessary to know and to understand Nehru-Patel differences in the handling of the refugee problem, communal riots India’s police action in Nizam’s Hyderabad’ Kashmir and the resurgence of Muslim separatism to its pre-1947 levels because, Nehru’s Congress has become home for all Muslim Leaguers, who stayed on in India. ( A later para says details this )
13. This history preceding 1947 shows how the separateness of Muslims and their assertion that they are not a minority but a separate nation went into their psyche, very often encouraged and abetted by British rulers so that their rule in India could last for the longest period. Sri Noorani’s article is absolutely silent about this vicious two-nation theory, the total support of all Muslims in India for the creation of Pakistan and ethnic cleansing of Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist minorities from Pakistan. While the Muslims in India, the creators of Pakistan proliferated and are now back to square one demanding reservations, creation of separate Muslim majority districts and privileges and rights not available to the majority people i.e Hindus, Hindus who are resisting this separatism are called non-secular, Hindutva communalists and fascists.
Part-II Noorani’s Slanders
14. Patel as communalist: Sri Noorani has, in the most slanderous way painted Sardar Patel as a Hindu communalist and Nehru as a shining secularist. Let us see some of the allegations and accusations against the Sardar and plaudits for Pandit Nehru.
14.1 Sardar Patel as Home Minister and Dy. Prime Minister was seriously and primarily concerned with the safe return of Hindu-Sikh families from Pakistan and their care as refugees, and destitutes in Delhi and elsewhere, while Nehru and Gandhi and Maulana Azad were concerned only with the prevention of Muslim exodus from India and the protection of them and their properties, notwithstanding the f act that these were the very people who rioted and voted and took “Direct Action” against Hindus to divide India and create Pakistan. While the country was duty-bound to receive an d rehabilitate the expelled, shattered Hindu-Sikhs from Pakistan, Nehru and Maulana Azad were exerting not only to prevent Muslims’ exodus to their home-land, Pakistan but were exerting to facilitate the return of Muslims from Pakistan! So, Nehru was secular because he cared for Muslims at the cost of Hindu and Sikhs and Sardar Patel was Hindu communalist because he gave priority for the safety and succour of Hindu-Sikhs who had to flee Pakistan.
14.2 “Sardar Patel invited the RSS & Hindu Mahasabhaites to join the Congress”. Very few of them however joined the Congress. They remained separate and have helped the emergence of the Jana Sangh and BJP later. Jawaharlal Nehru, the great secularist invited the Muslim Leaguers and admitted them into the Congress party and legislative bodies like the Constituent Assembly and provincial legislatures and ministries. They participated in the Constituent Assembly (1947-50) while boycotting it until the partition of India. In 1948, the “nationalist” Muslims and the newly admitted ex-Muslim Leaguers led by Mualana Azad had favoured retaining reservations for Muslims. At a later stage, they even urged reservations with weightage. Two leaders, Abdul Qaiyum Ansari and Maulana Aizur Rahman wanted a provision inserted in the Constitution to the effect that Muslim Kazis should be appointed to administer Sharia laws and a Muslim minister placed in charge of waqfs . This was going back on the equality before law established in the country for over a century and a half under the British rule itself and which would be a fundamental provision in the Constitution of the Indian Republic. Fortunately, under guidance from Sardar Patel, Begum Aizaz Rasool who was a Muslim Leaguer formerly but after Independence chose to stay in India and changed her mind, severely criticised the nationalist Muslims asking for reservations and Sharia law etc. Christian and Parsi and Sikh minority members of the Constituent Assembly denounced religion -based reservations and asserted that they would have nothing of them. Good sense prevailed and the “nationalist” Muslims gave up their demands (Sardar Patel used to say that there was only one nationalist Muslim in Congress and that he was Jawaharlal Nehru). A list of some of the prominent Muslim League leaders inducted by Nehru into Congress and the positions given to them by Nehru’s Congress is at Annex#1. Some of the Muslim league worthies not only became MLAs and MPs but even minsters in Congress governments soon after partition. If Nehru’s invitation (and admission into Congress) the two-nation theory, partitionist Muslim League members is not communal, how can Sardar Patel’s invitation to the RSS & Hindu Maha Sabha people to join the Congress be communal?
In 1962, Nehru’s bloated bladder of socialism and non-alignment and world fame was pricked and totally deflated by the humiliating defeat inflicted on India by Nehru’s, Panch Sheel friend communist China. Then the socialist, “secular” Nehru invited the RSS to parade on the Republic day in Jan 1963! Obviously, he realised that the RSS is patriotic and nationalist and not treacherous to this country as Muslim Leaguers were (and are). Nehru’s daughter , Indira Gandhi as the Prime Minister out -did the “secular “ Nehru in 1969 by sending her Cabinet colleague, Frakhruddin Ali Ahmed to Rabat (Morocco) seeking secular India’s membership in the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) . Obviously, fraternisation and identification with Islam and Muslims is what is meant by “secularism” in the Nehruvian thought and Dynasty.
14.3 Sardar Patel did not protect Mahatma Gandhi from assassination:
14.3.1 Sri Noorani faults Ssardar Patel saying that as Home Minister, he failed to protect the life of Mahatma Gandhi and also for not inquiring into the conspiracy even when there was prior knowledge of it. This is the slander that RSS- baiters, communists and “secularists” have been repeating. Could anybody save the lives of Abraham Lincoln, Archduke Ferdinand ( of Austria), Lord Louis Mountbatten, John F.Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi, Liaquat Ali Khan, Benazir Bhutto, and so on? Each one of these had tremendous protection and yet they were assassinated. In fact, in the case of Kennedy and some others, the conspirators could not even be traced and brought to trial.
14.3.2 It is laughable that Noorani seems to be lamenting Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination. The Quaid-e-Azam, Md. Ali Jinnah ‘s comment on Gandhiji’s death was, “a great Hindu died”. Actually, this diminution of Gandhiji by Jinnah is nothing compared to the shameless denunciation of Gandhi as a Hindu by his Khilafat brother, Maulana Md.Ali. After the failure of the Khilafat movement. Speaking in Ajmeer in 1924, the Maulana said, “However pure Mr. Gandhi’s character may be, he must appear to be from the point of view of religion, inferior to any Musalman even though he be without character”. The statement created a great stir. When later questioned whether he indeed said so, the Maulana, repeated this in Amina Baug, Lucknow. “Yes, according to my religion and creed, I do hold an adulterous and a fallen Mussalman to be better than Mr.Gandhi”. (Muslim Leagues Qaid-e-Azam, Mohammed Ali Jinnah never used the honorific Mahatma; to him the Mahatma was always a mere Mr. Gandhi.)
14.3.3 Neither secular Nehru nor nationalist Muslim, Maulana Abul Kalam had the guts to denounce Maulana Mohammed Ali. Muslims had scant respect for Gandhiji before Aug 1947. It is only afterwards that those Muslims and Muslim Leaguers who did not go to Pakistan, the state of their creation started praising Gandhiji not because they believed him to be great but because he undertook a fast unto death to compel the Government of India to part with Rs. 55 cr for Pakistan which was waging war against India in Kashmir and because he again undertook one more fast to get all the mosques and Muslims’ places vacated by the Hindu and Sikh refugees coming from Pakistan and taking shelter there. Gandhiji could not mitigate the misery of the Hindus and Sikhs that were being expelled from west & east Pakistan but was extremely concerned for the safety and shelter and succour of the Muslims who repudiated and reviled the living Gandhi and rioted and voted for the partition of India. Nehru was even more solicitous of Muslim Leagues Moslems.
14.4 Noorani’s quotes some foreigners about the Sardar:
14.4.1 Noorani quotes Sir Archibald Nye ,Wavell, Christopher Jaffrelot and such foreigners commenting adversely about Sardar Patel. None of these sympathised with India’s struggle for freedom. Some of them were British rulers and others are simple European imperialism’s apologists and stooges. The tributes that Mountbatten and others paid to Sardar Patel are never mentioned by Noorani. Here are some:
14.4.2 Lord Louis Mountbatten reported to the Secretary of the State for India in London: “on the subject of states, Nehru and Gandhi are pathological. He was relieved that unsentimental Vallab Bhai Patel had been made head of the Department of States rather than mere emotional Nehru”.
14.4.3 Alan Campbell – Johnson who was a press attaché to Lord Mountbatten portrayed the personality of Sardar Patel as , “ dressed in his dhothi, Patel conjures up the vision of a Roman emperor in his Toga. There are in fact, Roman qualities about this man - administrative talent, capacity to take and sustain strong decisions and a certain serenity which invariably accompanies real strength of character. Inspite of his pre-occupations Patel had showed grasp of India’s strategic position in the world at large.
14.4.4 Sir Archibald Nye, Governor of Madras and after Mountbatten’s departure, UK’s High Commissioner in New Delhi told Alan Campbell on 4 Feb 1948 that “he was very impressed with Patel who was a real leader in the military sense”.
14.4.5 Philip Ziegler who was diplomat, publisher and full time writer profiling Sardar Patel wrote, “ Sardar Patel was the Tammany Hall Boss of the Congress Party, tough, unscrupulous knowing a pragmatist concerned with the realities of power, indifferent to abstract theorising. Nehru and he viewed each other with suspicion and some distaste, most of the time however remembering that they were indispensible to each other......Once Patel had been convinced that certain course was logically necessary, he would pursue it with indifference to the ideological objections that might be raised by others ( like Nehru). The one man had regarded as a real statesmen with both feet firmly on the ground and the man of honour whose word was his bound”.
14.4.6 H V Hudson a historian, Constitutional Adviser to Viceroy Lord Linlithgow and former Editor of the Sunday Times (London) summed up the first impression of Mountbatten about Nehru.”it was not long before he (Mountbatten) recognised that Nehru had always seemed to need a stronger figure to give him confidence , a wiser or more self assured man whose judgment would guide or confirm his own ; in the early days it was his father, Motilal Nehru ; for most of his life it was Mahatma Gandhi; in the Cabinet and in Congress politics these crucial days, it was Sardar Patel.
14.4.7 Even the arch ill-wisher of Congress and India, Sir Winston Churchill apologetically acknowledged the Sardar’s greatness. When Winston Churchill had the audacity as late as in June 1948 to make the derogatory remarks that the government of India had been handed over to “men of straw”. Nehru, the Prime Minister dared not to cross words with Churchill. But Patel called Churchill “an unashamed imperialist at a time when imperialism was on its last legs”. From his sick bed in Dehra Dun, Patel warned, “ I should like to tell his Majesty’s Government that if they wish India to maintain friendly relations with Great Britain they must see that India is in no way subjected to malicious and venomous attacks of this kind...”. Churchill was shaken. He conveyed to Patel through Anthony Eden, that “he had nothing but admiration for the way the new Dominion had settled... ...particularly those involving relations with the Indian states...the Sardar should not confine himself within the limits of India but the world was entitled to see and hear more of him . (pages 490 &491, B.Krishna)
14.4.8 The former Communist leader and a great intellectual M N Roy had said about Patel that, “had Kashmir remained with Patel , the solution would have been reached soon after partition”. He called Patel as the master builder .
14.4.9 When Sardar Patel handed over his resignation (Jan 1948) from the Nehru Cabinet to Gandhiji because of Nehru’s partisan (in blatant favour of Muslims ) handling of the communal riots in Delhi, “Mountbatten thought that Patel’s exit would spell disaster and a possible split in the Congress Party which may lead to civil strife. Mountbatten saw Gandhiji and told him that without Patel, the government would not run, arguing “ Patel has his feet on the ground, while Nehru has his in the clouds” (P.450, B.Krishna’s book Sardar Vallabhai Patel: India’s Iron Man ). On Mountbatten’s persuasion, Gandhiji called Patel for a meeting with him and got the letter of resignation withdrawn and wrenched a promise from Patel that he would look upon Nehru as his leader. Patel kept this promise, no matter how Nehru was behaving with him or in matters of governance.
14.4.10 These are given not because Sardar needs them but to show that Noorani is selective. (The British rulers favoured Muslims ; they nurtured their communal separatism and pitted them against Congress . Privately, they could not hide their respect for the Sardar’s abilities, clarity, decisiveness and leadership).
15. What vision and picture of India could, Patel as Prime Minister present?:
15.1 Noorani wonders what vision and what picture of India could Sardar Patel have presented to the world at large if he were the Prime Minister. He says that Jawaharlal Nehru has presented glorious picture of India. That what Nehru presented was without substance of power and that it was a bloated bladder which was ultimately pricked, and deflated was proved when communist China invaded India in 1962 and inflicted a humiliating defeat, with Nehru “nationalising” his blunders by saying that the country was betrayed. It was he not the country which was betrayed. Opposition parties had ben denouncing g Nehru fo r his misplaced love communist China. Sardar Patel and Gen. Cariappa warned Nehru about China. But he arrogantly ignored them. Not one single country in the seventy and odd group of “non-aligned” nations of which Nehru was the self -proclaimed leader, found fault with China. None issued as much as a statement even that India was right or that China has committed aggression.
15.2 At the Bandung (Indonesia) conference of April 1955 Nehru was strutting as a great international leader. He presumed to be senior ( or superior) to Chou-en-lai, Prime Minister of communist China. He patronisingly introduced Chou-en-Lai to the conference much to the disgust of Chou and surprise of other leaders. Chou- en- Lai never forgave Nehru for his presumptuous primacy.
15.3 Sir John Kotelawala, Prime Minister of Sri Lanka spoke critically about Red China at the Bandung Conference. Nehru was angry; he asked Sri Kotelawala as to why he did not show, his speech to him (Nehru) before delivering it. Sri Lanka’s Prime Minister shot back: “Did you show your speech to me? “ Nehru felt slighted and withdrew into a shell !
15.4 The USA offered to put India as a permanent Member in the Security Council of the UNO, instead of Nationalist i.e Kuo Min Tang China, which was driven away by communists. It installed itself in Taiwan. Nehru pompously refused the offer, insisting that Communist China should be recognised and given the permanent veto-wielding seat in the Security Council, before India could be considered (This admiration for and espousal of China’s interest, in preference to India’s is one trait of Nehru’s nationalism) . Nehru’s object of admiration, (communist China has turned out to be our implacable foe as foreseen by Sardar Patel. It is blocking our pathetic efforts for a permanent seat in the UNO’s, Security Council.
15.5 The legendary President Kennedy invited Nehru to the USA. He and his wife personally received him at the Airport and took him to their house at New Port. “But Kennedy found Nehru so unresponsive in their talks - which for the most part turned out to be Kennedy’s monologues; he latter rated his summit with Nehru as “ the worst State visit” he had ever experienced. Nehru’s reluctance to open up in Washington proved most frustrating to his young host, who also found infuriating Nehru’s focus on his wife and his inability to keep his hand from touching her. Galbraith US Ambassador to India wrote of Kennedy’s longest meeting with Nehru: “Nehru simply did not respond; question after question he answered with mono -syllables or sentence or two .. the President found it very discouraging. Nehru’s wisest advise to Kennedy was ignored, however, for he tried to make it clear that the US should not send soldiers to Vietnam. (page 480 - Stanley Wolpert – Nehru)”.
15.6 Nehru took immense pleasure in criticising the western powers and thereby incurring the hostility of the USA and its allies. While Nehru condemned the armed intervention of UK, France and Israel against Egypt in 1956, he just kept quiet about the USSR’s armed intervention in Hungary and later, in Czechoslovakia. His anti-westernism and pro-communism was bequeathed to his daughter, Indira Gandhi . This Nehruvian lady condemned American intervention in Vietnam but said nothing about USSR’s intervention in and occupation of Afghanistan. Both the USA and Soviet Russia had to ignominiously retreat from their foreign adventures.
15.7 Prime Minister Nehru strutting on the world stage as great advocate of peace and peaceful resolution of disputes and as a world statesman came to an end with the humiliating destruction of the ill equipped Indian armies inducted into NEFA under the command of his kinsman, Gen. B M Kaul, by the Chinese armies in Oct-Nov1962. The man who in and out of season used to denounce the US and the West for their armaments had to humiliatingly solicit and accept American arms. After the dismissal of V K Krishna Menon, Nehru’s socialist chum and conscience keeper, as the Defense Minister . The “US flew military equipment and high altitude gear of every variety into Calcutta from Nov3 on around the clock until enough US supplies to arm and clothe no less than 10 Indian mountain divisions had reached India”. (P 486 – Stanley Wolpert, Nehru)
Nehru’s reputation in and outside India totally collapsed. Noorani does not refer to this dismal vision presented by Nehru about himself, India and the world. It was a make- believe without substance .
16. Hindu Nationalism:
Noorani trashes the phrase “Hindu nationalists” ascribable to Narendra Modi, Sardar Patel, Rajendra Prasad, Purushottam Das Tandon, K.M.Munshi and Dwaraka Prasad Misra. There is a class of Muslims called “Nationalist Muslims” like Abul Kalam Azad, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai , Asaf Ali etc., Muslim intellectuals in India now describe themselves as Muslim Indians, not as Indian Muslims. Sayyed Sahabudin, a former MP ( Lok Sabha) and Editor & Publisher of a journal, “Muslim India” is one such luminary. Muslim Indians profess to be secularists and loyalists to India. Can’t there be Hindu Indians and Hindu nationalists as secular as Muslim Indians and nationalist Muslims? Christian Democratic Parties rule Germany and Italy. Are they communal? If Christian Democratic Parties are legitimate, why cannot Hindu Democratic Parties like the BJP or Shiva Sena be legitimate and right?
17. Composite Culture and Pluralism:
Noorani talks of India’s composite culture and pluralism and that Sardar Patel was against both. It appears that a composite culture was forged by Muslims and Hindus together in this country. But what are now Pakistan and Bangladesh were also parts of India for hundreds of years, even while ruled by Muslims. Why is there no composite culture in Pakistan & Bangladesh; Why should “composite culture” exist only in India and not in Pakistan and Bangladesh? Obviously in the view of this “composite culturewallahs, and “secularists” Hindus must respect and give special privileges and rights to Muslims, but Muslims need not reciprocate either in India or in the country that they fought for and carved out as Islamic states.
18. Patel, a communalist!:
18.1 Noorani says that while Patel and Rajendra Prasad etc., are communal, Rajaji was not communal and that because he was not Hindu communal, he was not acceptable to Sardar Patel and other Congress men as the President of India. However, the fact is totally different.
Rajaji did not agree with the Congress resolution that its ministries should resign in 1939 consequent upon England declaring that India was at war with the Axis powers without consulting Indian opinion. Rajaji had even a resolution passed by the Madras Congress Legislature party of which he was the leader and the Premier of Madras Province against the central Congress Party’s resolution. He quit the Congress. In 1944 when all Congress leaders were still in jail, Rajaji worked upon a plan for the partition of India with certain conditions. He claimed to have Gandhiji’s approval for it. He proposed that plan to Md.Ali Jinnah. After the Congress men were released in 1945, there was furore in the Congress party that Rajaji played into the hands of Md. Ali Jinnah in his (Jinnah’s) plan for the partition of India and creation of Pakistan. Therefore the entire Congress party was not well disposed to Rajaji although he was readmitted into the Congress party. That was the reason why Dr.Rajendra Prasad with an impeccable record of participating in every civil disobedience movement and constructive programs of Gandhiji , was preferred overwhelmingly by the Congress -men as President of India.
18.2 Noorani falsely and wrongly attributes the non-selection of Rajaji as the President of India due to his being secular and Rajendra Parasad being communal. Rajendra Prasad did oppose Muslims’ demand for partition and that is why according to Noorani and “secularists”, he is communal. Historian, Alex Von Tun Zelmann in her book, “Indian Summer-The Secret History of the End of an Empire” written in the year 2007, wrote (P322), “ Three days after the announcement of Rajagopalachari as the next Governor general, Nehru wrote to him (Rajaji) a sad letter that ‘our politics have lost all real character or moral basis and we function as opportunists”. Rajaji sent back a telegram...” I feel you (Nehru) should be the Governor General instead of me and let Sardar Patel be the Prime Minister” . ( quote in the article, Understanding and Decoding Sardar by P C Dogra, former DG Police , Punjab, in the Indian Foundation Journal, Jan 2014). It is obvious that Rajaji did not consider Patel was a communalist. Noorani and Nehruvians consider everyone who does not pander to Muslims’ Islamism and Pakistaniat, a Hindu communalist.
18.3 Communal Riots – Hindu-Sikh Refugees in Delhi :
The Muslims who did not go to Pakistan still dared to precipitate communal riots in Delhi in September and December 1947. Azad was all the while asking the government to protect Muslims and never showed concern for the plight of millions of Sikhs and Hindus driven out of West and East Pakistan and now living as destitutes in the open in Delhi & elsewhere. He was pressing the government to prevent the exodus of Muslims from India and facilitate the return of those Muslims who left for Pakistan while millions of Hindus and Sikhs were being expelled from both wings of Pakistan. He was even inciting Nehru to bring back the Muslims who had gone to Pakistan and give them back their houses, whereas the houses and properties of Hindus & Sikhs expelled from Pakistan were irrevocably appropriated by Muslims in those countries. Sardar Patel had to suffer this Maulana and Nehru’s concern only for Muslims and nothing at all for Hindus in agony.
18.4 Patel and Nehru on the plight of Hindus in East Pakistan:
18.4.1 Noorani accuses Sardar Patel of Communalism because he was caring more for the rehabilitation of the Hindu-Sikh refugees streaming into India from west Pakistan rather than preventing the migration of Muslims in India to Pakistan. Lakhs of Hindus were being forced out of east Pakistan towards the end of 1949 and beginning of 1950. Calcutta and West Bengal were flooded with Hindu refugees, many of whom saw rape, loot abduction and burning of their properties . Dr. B..C.Roy the Chief Minister of West Bengal and two Bengali ministers in Nehru’s cabinet were sore distressed that India was not caring for the plight of Hindus of East Pakistan. Tempers in the Parliament and in West Bengal rose high but Nehru would not move. Sardar Patel went to Calcutta and made a speech declaring that if Hindus in East Pakistan are not given protection and if the flood of their exodus continues, he would liberate certain districts of East Pakistan and resettle all Hindus of East Pakistan in that safe and secure territory. That made Liaquat Ali Khan, the Prime Minister of Pakistan run to Nehru in April 1950. Nehru Liaquat Ali Khan Pact secured some temporary respite for Hindus of east Pakistan .
18.4.2 Why did not Nehru, the secularist have any feeling for the tormented Hindu minority in East Pakistan? Did Abul Kalam Azad or any other “secularist” say one word against Pakistan’s ethnic cleansing of Hindus? None of them did raise a little finger neither then (nor now when 400,000 Hindu Pandits have been ethnically cleansed from the Kashmir Valley by the Muslim majority there sheltering Pakistan -inducted jihadis. Noorani was in Pakistan in Jan 2014, in a conference on Kashmir problem. There he asserted that self-determination is a birth right for Kashmiris. But he never said that Jammu/Ladakh’s Hindus and Buddhists have a birth right to decide on having a state of their own. For men of his ilk, Hindus wanting to separate from Muslims is communalism but Muslims wanting to secede from India, is secularism.
19. Patel’s Pro-capitalism:
19.1 Noorani says that Sardar Patel was pro-capitalist. The entire INC during all its struggles and non- co-operation movements and for its elections, was mostly financed by Ghanshaym Das Birla and Ramakrishna Bajaj and some other industrialists. This is a well known fact. While Nehru, especially after his visit to communist Russia went on professing socialism. Gandhiji and every other Congressman in India never agreed with the communist theory of socialism and anti-capitalism. In fact, Gandhiji and Sardar Patel were for justice to the labour as well as to the capitalists. The Ahmedabad textiles strike (Aug 1917 to Jan 1918 ) was settled by Gandhiji as the arbitrator. Patel & Gandhiji requested capitalists that they always deal fairly with labour . They believed that poverty could not be eliminated by robbing the rich or eliminating the capitalists.
19.2 Sardar Patel in fact, gave a wonderful lesson to socialist Jayaprakash Narayan. At one AICC meeting, Jayaprakash Narayan and his socialists made denunciatory speeches about the wealth of Tata, Birla, Dalmia and other capitalists. He wanted the Congress to commit itself to the confiscation of the wealth of all the rich capitalists and its distribution among the poor of India. Sardar Patel was sitting in the audience. At the end of the speech, Patel signaled Dr.Jayaprakash to come near him. He took out a four Annas (25 paise) coin and gave it to Dr.Jayaprakash Narayan. The latter wondered and asked why he was giving this coin. Patel said, "you made a brilliant speech . I never knew that poverty could be abolished so easily. I reckoned the wealth of each of these rich capitalists and totaled it and divided it by 35 cr, the people of India. Each one would get 4 Annas (25 paise) . Here is your share. I am sure now your poverty will be abolished". Jayaprakash blushed. He was crest -fallen and sank silently into a seat.
19.3 Sardar Patel a friend of capitalists? Sardar Patel had to say this on his so called pro -capitalist leanings .” I have been accused of being a friend of Rajas, capitalist and Zamindars . But I claim to be a friend of labour and the poor. Since I followed Gandhiji, I resolved not to own property and have none. But I cannot succumb to the prevalent fashions to pose as a leader or attempt to gain leadership by abusing Princes and Capitalists as Nehru and the Congress socialists often did.
19.4 Sardar Patel was a stalwart of simple living and high thinking. The Sardar was recuperating in the Circuit House in Dehra Dun after a massive heart attack. Mahavir Thyagi , a Congress leader from U.P called upon him. He saw “Mani Behn, Sardar’s daughter wearing a khadi sari with a big patch covering a torn portion . He remarked, “Mani Behn, you are the daughter of the man who has within an year established a far flung empire . Not so was Rama or Krishna or Ashoka or Akbar or the British . As the daughter of one who is the Sardar of big Rajas and Maharajas, do not you feel ashamed wearing such a saree? If you happen to go round my town, people will take you for a beggar and offer you some money”. The Sardar burst into laughter and humoursly remarked” : the bazaar is full of people . By the evening, she would be able to collect a huge sum of money”.
19.5 The Indian communists following the instructions of the Communist International and Stalin, infiltrated into the Congress Socialist Party and through it, into the Congress itself. During the 1942 Quit India Movement, they openly sabotaged the movement and helped the British in putting the agitators, mainly socialists in Jail. After the Congress -men were released in 1945, a committee consisting of Jawaharlal Nehru, Gobind Ballbh Pant and Patel inquired into the activities of the Communists and came to the conclusion that they were infiltrators and saboteurs of the freedom movement. Eight of them who were in the AICC were expelled from the Congress. Nehru was party to this decision.
19.6 After a few years, the socialists led by Jayaprakash Narayan and Rammanohar Lohia also went out of the Congress. While Jayaprakash Narayan was indirectly denouncing Patel and directly praising Nehru, Rammanohar Lohia , an equally avowed socialist used to denounce Nehru and praise Patel! He had no doubt about the patriotism and capacity of Sardar Patel to govern. Rammanohar Lohia understood Nehru’s “secularism” as favouring of Muslims, although Rammanohar Lohia was never against Muslims. Actually, Nehruvian “secularism” showed itself as pro-Muslim and anti-Hindu. In fact, in one discussion when Jawaharlal Nehru was saying that Patel was pro-Hindu; Rajaji asked Nehru, “is it a crime to be pro-Hindu?”
19.7 Noticing the anti-India sabotaging activities of the Indian communists who had gained control of the All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC) in 1927 which in fact was founded by Congress -men, in 1920 . It was presided over by the great Congress leader, Lala Lajpat Rai and was attended by among others, Motilal Nehru, Md. Ali Jinnah and Mrs. Annie Besant. The Congress party decided that they should form a truly patriotic and nationalist trade union which would not have its ideal as anti-capitalism but purely justice to and fair treatment for labour and nationalism. The INTUC was founded by Congress in May 1947 to wean away labour from communists who were subordinating every union they gained control of, to Soviet Russia’s direction. INTUCs first session was presided over by Sardar Patel himself. It is fashionable with communists and Nehruvian “secularists” and of course, Muslim Leaguers to say that Sardar Patel was pro-capitalist while Nehru was pro-labour. In fact, the communists denounced Mahatma Gandhi even as pro-capitalist. The First World Congress of the Communist International held in Moscow, in April 1919 declared: “Gandhism is more and more becoming an ideology directed against mass revolution. It must be strongly combated by communists”. The Fifth Congress held in 1924 called upon Indian Communists to bring the trade union movement under their influence...and purge it of all alien elements ( like Gandhism, arbitrated settlement of disputes). ( CPI was founded in 1925; it functioned outside Congress till 1935 when they were instructed to infiltrate into Congress – P 468 B Krishna). The infiltration into Congress was achieved from 1935 through a Trojan Horse, the Congress Socialist Party (CSP) led by Jaya Prakash Narayan ( The CSP expelled the Communists in 1940).
19.8 Sardar Patel was comfortable with both capitalists /industrialists and labour. He did not try to gain cheap popularity by denouncing capitalism, capitalists, the rich and princes as Nehru and socialists ( and of course, communists) were doing. At the 1937 Congress, Nehru wanted to inject “ socialism” as Congress’ ideology. The Congress (Gandhiji including) disapproved and decisively rejected his attempt. He could inject the jargon “socialistic pattern of society” into Congress in the Avadi session in 1955. His daughter, Indira Gandhi, as Prime Minister , injected ‘socialist, secular” words into the preamble of the Constitution during her Emergency Rule ( 1975-’77) when communist leaders like Mohan Kumar Mangalam, H.R. Gokhale, K.D Malaviya etc., became Congress-men (successful infiltration and subversion) to egg Indira Gandhi to nationalise some more banks and coal-mines. That Sardar Patel was neither an ideologue nor a slave to the capitalists who were at his beck and call, was eloquently brought out by an editorial in London Times (16.12.1950) on the Sardar’s demise. It wrote, “In all his dealings with big business his personal integrity was not questioned. He was the master, not the servant of those who provided the Congress with its funds. Because he knew their strength---weakness he could shape men to his purpose. That purpose was Indian freedom”.
20. Nehruvian “Secularism” & “Socialism”:
20.1 Nehru is supposed to be “secular”. But it was Jawaharlal Nehru himself who in 1956, moved the bill for the secular government of India subsidising the Muslims’ religious pilgrimage Haj to Makka, in Saudi Arabia. In 2011-’12, this tax on Hindus to subsidise Muslims’ Haj amounted to about Rs.900 crores! The Congress government ( controlled by Christian Sonia Gandhi) is, through its A.P State Christian Minority Finance Corporation giving, Rs. 200,000 for construction of one church in every village. ! Those who object to this; are called Hindu communalists by the likes of Noorani! So, Hindus are paying for Muslims’ pilgrimage. Now it is getting extended to Christians in states where Christian Chief Ministers of the Congress brand are getting into power. For eg: the late Y.S.Rajasekhara Reddy, a Christian as Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh introduced subsidies for the state’s Christians to go to Jerusalem and that is called “secularism”. At the same time, Hindus have to buy tickets not only for their travel but even to see their God, Lord Venkateswara or some other Gods and Goddesess in temples all of which are, unlike Churches and Mosques, managed and administered by the “secular “ government. So, Indian secularism, in fact means anti-Hinduism and pro-Muslims & Christians and this is why Noorani denounces Sardar Patel as a Hindu communalist.
20.2 The forced torrential exodus of Hindus from East Pakistan in 1949-’50 made Sardar Patel to threaten Pakistan that India would liberate East Bengal districts adjacent to West Bengal to create a safety zone for Hindus. That brought Pak Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan in April 1950 to Nehru. They drafted what was called “Nehru-Liaquat Ali Khan Pact”. Liaquat demanded and secular Nehru agreed to provide reservations for Muslims in government services! When it came for ratification in the Cabinet, N V Gadgil objected to this communal provision. Nehru flew into a rage and said, as Prime Minister he could do whatever he wanted. Sardar Patel (Dy. P.M) adjourned the meeting. Nehru sent a cabinet minister Gopalaswami Iyengar to Sardar Patel to get the latter around. Next day, a new draft from which all poisonous, Muslim-appeasing clauses, were removed ( obviously by Sardar Patel) was placed before the Cabinet and it was approved ( without Nehru’s demur! This incident is one more missile in the ‘secular” brigade’s ( Noorani included) to characterise Patel as communal and Nehru as secular. (Government from Inside by N V Gadgil )
20.3 Nehru’s Socialism: That Nehru’s socialism of which he talked about so many times, in so many fora was just froth and populist jargon (as Sardar Patel believed)was evident from his resignation from the Working Committee of the Congress of which Subhash Chandra Bose was the President in 1939 (Tripuri Congress). Subhas Chandra Bose won defeating Pattabhi Sitaramaiah who was backed by Gandhiji and the entire old guard Congress leaders like Rajendra Prasad, Vallabh Bhai Patel and others. Bose formed the working Committee including them as well as Nehru. Gandhi took Bose’s victory as an insult and defeat to him. At his instance all the stalwarts resigned. Strangely Jawaharlal Nehru, the socialist and a Comrade of Bose also resigned. Subhash Chandra Bose wrote a stinging letter to socialist Nehru . Here are excerpts : (p-252 & 253 –Stanley Wolpert)
“Ever since I came out of internment in 1937, “I have looked upon you as politically an elder brother and leader and have often sought your advice. When you came back from Europe last year, I went to Allahabad to ask you what lead you would give us... you put me off by saying that you would consult Gandhiji and then let me know. When we met at Wardha after you had seen Gandhiji, you did not tell me anything...Twelve members resigned. They wrote a straight forward letter...But your statement-how shall I describe it? I shall ...simply say that it was unworthy of you...When a crisis comes, you often do not succeed in making up your mind...you appear as if you are riding two horses...I may tell you that since the Presidential election, you have done more to lower me in the estimation of the public than all the twelve ex-members of the Working Committee put together. Of course if I am such a villain, it is...your duty to expose me... But perhaps it will strike you that the devil who has been re-elected President in spite of the opposition of the biggest leaders including yourself...must have some saving grace.
“...I fail to understand what policy you have with regard to our internal politics...Now, what is your foreign policy, pray? Frothy sentiments an d pious platitudes... For some time past I have been urging on everybody...that we must utilise the international situation to India’s advantage...but I could make no impression on you or on Mahatmaji, though a large section of the Indian public approved of my stand....Another accusation you made...was that I adopted an entirely passive attitude in the Working Committee...Would it be wrong to say that usually you monopolised most of the time of the Working Committee?...To be brutally frank, you sometimes behaved in the Working Committee as a spoilt child and often lost your temper...What results did you achieve? You would generally hold forth for hours together and then succumb at the end. Sardar Patel...had a clever technique for dealing with you...let you talk and talk and ...ultimately finish up by asking you to draft their resolution. Once you were allowed to draft the resolution, you would feel happy...rarely have I found you sticking to your point till the last.... As a doctrinaire politician you have decided once for all that a Coalition Ministry is a Rightist move...What is the use of your sitting in Allahabad and uttering words of wisdom which have no relation to reality?...regarding Bengal, I am afraid you know practically nothing. During two years of your Presidentship you never cared to tour the province...We should have....a Coalition Ministry...I should now invite you to clarify your policy. I should also like to know what you are- Socialist or Leftist or centrist or Rightist or Gandhist or something else?
Nehru knew Gandhiji was his God-father, and that he alone could make him President of Congress or Prime Minister. His “socialism” was to gain popular applause and his conduct was to get power and keep it.
That Nehru could be verbose, indecisive and seemingly philosophical can be known from the following words of his : “....newspapers say that I have resigned from the Working Committee. This is not quite correct and yet it is correct enough (Nehru’s usual vagueness, indeciveness) .... The reason that impelled me to act as a I did differed in many ways from those that moved my colleagues..... I felt an overwhelming desire to be out of committees and to function as a I wanted to, without let or hindrance”. This diabolic attitude of Jawaharlal Nehru in relation to Subhash Chandra Bose the acknowledged leftist and socialist who dared to defy even Gandhi, made Nehru’s closest comrades and the Left move away from Nehru – Jayaprakash Narayan, Achyut Patwardhan, Ram Manohar Lohia and other leading socialists who would never again truly trust Nehru. Subhash Chandra Bose poignantly asked, “ who was he? how could he continue forever to ride two horses or more than two, Left Center Right? Or was he something else.
20.4 Nehru was not one who would hesitate to take credit for what others did. He took credit for the Police action in Hyderabad while he stooped to call Sardar Patel a communalist for insisting upon the police action. At the INA trials in Delhi in 1945 Nehru donned his advocate’s dress and appeared as a lawyer in defense of Netaji Bose’s INA Army officers . He who deserted Bose just to be on the right side of Mahatma Gandhi, his protector and patron , now wanted to be seen as a comrade in arms of Subhash Chandra Bose and his INA men.
21. Patel and Hyderabad; Nehru and Kashmir
21.1 Noorani alleges that Sardar Patel was against the composite culture of Hyderabad, that he was against Muslims and therefore he did not want to solve the Hyderabad accession in a peaceful way as Nehru and Mountbatten desired.
It is a fact that Nehru was obstructing the contemplated police action for as long as he could and even went to the extent of calling Sardar Patel a communalist. However, the rejection of the Mountbatten’s “settlement” plan (June 1948) by the Nizam, unchecked atrocities of the Razakars whose latest act of raping of Nuns in Secunderabad was brought to the notice of Nehru by Governor General Rajaji made Nehru reluctantly agree to the Police Action that is, military operation in Hyderabad.
21.2 Contrast Nehru’s obstruction and reluctance and opposition to the military action in Hyderabad to his instant decision to send the Indian armed forces into Kashmir no sooner than the accession document was got signed by the ruler, Sri Hari Singh. It was clear that Pakistan was behind the raiders who came up to the outskirts Srinagar and that Pakistan might intervene militarily unlike in the case of Hyderabad and that Pakistan would raise the issue in the United Nations. Despite all this, Nehru was raring for military action in J&K. India’s High Commissioner to Pakistan Sriprakasa was telling Mountbatten that for the sake of peace all round the best thing India could do was to hand over Kashmir to Pakistan..............Nehru said, “ we will not leave Kashmir to its fate”. Nehru believed that the fate of Kashmir was tight to the fate of the Nehru family, their inter twined destiny .... the fact is that Kashmir is of the most vital significance to India.....there lies the rub ...... we have to see this through to end...Kashmir is going to be a drain on our resources but it is going to be a greater drain on Pakistan ...” (page 423 Stanely Wolpert) Mountbatten tried to persuade Nehru to be more conciliatory regarding Kashmir. (just as he wanted Patel to be conciliatory to Hyderabad). Knowing how betrayed Jinnah felt and how angry Liaqat and his cabinet were at the speed with which India’s army had responded to the Maharaja’s accession which no Pakistani leader considered legal”. (P 424 Stanely Wolpert)
21.3 Can’t Mr.Noorani see that Nehru was no less involved or intent upon taking military action in Kashmir as Sardar Patel was in regard to Hyderabad? Did Nehru want to undo the composite culture of Kashmir and Kashmiriat, as Patel was alleged to be intent upon eliminating “composite culture” and Muslim rule in Hyderabad?
21.4 Noorani accuses Sardar Patel of being “very rude, unfair and unforgiving to the Nizam. But what would he say about Nehru who insisted upon abdication by Hari Singh who acceded to India while the Nizam who waged war against India, was allowed to be not only the Nawab but elevated as Raja Pramukh of Hyderabad? Who was more generous, Sardar Patel to the Nizam or Nehru to Maharaja Hari Singh?
22. Somnath Temple Reconstruction :
22.1 Noorani faults Sardar Patel for taking up the re-construction of Somnath temple at Dwaraka in the erstwhile Junagadh state of Saurashtra. Somnadh temple was the most sacred, even more sacred than those in Varanasi and Ayodhya, for centuries for Hindus in western and northern and central India. This was looted and destroyed five times by Muslim invaders like Md. Ghazni and rulers like Aurangzeb and reconstructed four times. The Nawab of Junagadh, a Muslim acceded to Pakistan in 1947 whereas its population was 85% Hindu. The Hindus rose in revolt. The Nawab fled and his officer invited Government of India to take over and restore law & order. A plebiscite was held. The state acceded to India. Sardar Patel and K.M.Munshi visited the place. Sardar Patel, the Deputy Prime Minister declared that the Somnath temple would be reconstructed. Gandhiji said that the money for reconstruction should not be from the Government of India’s budgets but contributed by people. Contributions came from all over India. It was built as a matter of national honour and to fulfil the undying aspirations of the people of this country overwhelmingly, Hindus and now independent.
22.2 The reconstruction and restoration work was undertaken by a committee presided over by Sardar Patel and after his demise, by K.M.Munshi. After Sardar Patel’s death Nehru became bold enough to say that Munshi was a Hindu revivalist, Nehru did not like Munshi to passionately complete that work. Munshi’s reply to Nehru is a classic one where he said that he was prepared to get out of the Cabinet but as an Indian and as a nationalist, he would deem it an honour to restore and reconstruct the Somnath Temple. The mosque was removed from there and constructed at a little distance away. When the temple, was to be inaugurated Munshiji requested President, Rajendra Prasad to do so but told him that before he gave his consent, he should reckon that Nehru would object to his doing so. Rajendra Prasad, as President of India said that not only would he be associating with the restoration of the temple as famous as Somnath but would also associate with the restoration of any mosque or Church or any place of God. Rajednra Prasad did go and inaugurate. Nehru ordered the President’s speech to be blanked out over All India Radio. That is his secularism!
23. Nehruvian Muslim mindset:
23.1 The legacy of Nehru’s pro-Muslim mindset was picked up by Indira Gandhi who sent her Cabinet colleague, Fakruddin Ali Ahmed to the founding conference of the Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC) at Rabbat (Morocco) in 1969 seeking secular India’s admission into the Islamist nations organisation. This is Nehruvian secularism. The OIC refused to admit India as it is neither an Islamic state nor is it under Muslim rule!
23.2 Is it not a shame that while the names of the English -men are removed from the streets which were named after them , the names of other foreign rulers and looters and anti-Hindus like Aurangzeb, Lodi, Tughlak and others are still intact in Delhi, the capital of India? Self-respecting countries discarded the names which imperialists and colonisers gave to them and restored their original names: Ghana for Gold Coast; Zimbabwe for Rhodesia, Malagasi for Mozambique; Myanmar for Burma; Sri Lanka for Ceylon; other self-respecting nations discarded the non-indigenous spellings for their cities and countries and gave phonetic spelling of their language. eg: Beijing for Peking, Guangzhou for Canton; St. Petersburg for Leningrad; Volgograd for Stalingrad; Yangon for Rangoon etc;
23.3 Were not the Afghans ( Sultans) and Moghals (Babur) who invaded and ruled India foreigners, like the British who came for trade and conquered, ruled and looted? Are not names like Allahabad, Tuglakabad, Nizamabad, Mahabubnagar, Aurangabad, Ferozepur, Farukhabad, Murshidabad alien and obliterative of native names? Raise this question, you will be called an enemy of Muslims, communal and Hindu fascist. It is “ composite culture”, “secularism”, pluralism” to commemorate those like Aurangzeb who imposed zezia tax on Hindus to have mosques over destroyed temple sites? Just recall what the great historian philosophers ( not “eminent” historians of the JNU) said about the Muslim conquests and their vandalism:
"The Mohamedan conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precarious thing, whose delicate complex of order and liberty, culture and peace may at any time be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within"
- Will Durant: Story of Civilization
Aurangzeb: Kashi and Mathura:“Aurangazeb’s purpose in building these mosques ( Kashi and Mathura) was the same intentionally offensive political purpose that moved the Russians to build their Cathedral in the city center at Warsaw. I must say that Aurangazeb was a veritable genius for picking out provocative sites. Aurangez and Phillip –II of Spain are a pair. They are incarnations of the gloomy fanatical vein in Christian, Muslim and Jewish family of religions………Perhaps the Poles were really kinder in destroying the Russians’ self discrediting monuments in Warsaw than you (Indians) have been in sparing Aurangazebs’s mosques.
– Arnold Toynbee,
The world famous historian and philosopher in his
Azad Memorial Lecture at Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Mumbai -1963
24. Integration of Princes’ & Nawabs’ “States”:
24.1 Noorani says that credit for integrating India’s 560 Princely States does not belong to Sardar Patel but to Mountbatten! This is absolute lie. When Mountbatten sought Sardar Patel’s agreement for his proposal to partition and dominion status for India and Pakistan and their Membership of the Commonwealth, Sardar Patel accepted it with the condition that “in two months time power should be transferred and an Act should be passed by (British) Parliament in that time and it must be guaranteed that the British government would not interfere with the question of the Indian states. Patel said, “ We will deal with that question. Leave it to us. You take no sides. Let Paramountcy be dead”.
24.2 During the British rule, The Political Department under the Vice Roy used to deal with the Princes. It was replaced by the new States Department and entrusted to Sardar Patel. Mountbatten wrote, “ I am glad to say that Nehru has not been put in charge of the new States Department, which would have wrecked everything. Patel who is essentially a realist and very sensible, is going to take it over. He told the Princes at his last conference with them on 25 July 1947, “ In India, the States Department is under the admirable guidance of Sardar Vallabhai Patel.......”
24.3 The conversation between Mountbatten and Patel that Noorani referred – (565 apples etc..) was when Mountain offered the States Department to Patel. Patel said, “ I am prepared to accept your offer provided you give me a full basket of 565 apples” i.e states. That it was Patel who primarily could get the princess to accede to India and not Mountbatten is borne out by among others, the Jodhpur episode. That Maharajah was lured by Jinnah to accede to Pakistan . Mountbatten admitted “I could not get the Maharaja to agree” to accede to India. He then had him taken by V P Menon to Patel. Patel handled the Maharaja with love, respect and finally hints of his people’s movement. “The Maharajah felt unnerved.....got up from his seat and told Patel, “ Well Sir, I have decided to go back to Mountbatten and sign the instrument of accession right now” .
24.4 The Nawab of Bhopal, as Chairman of the Chamber of Princes was cleverly and conspiratorially trying to execute Churchill’s scheme of forging a third country, Princestan comprising of as many princely/ Nawabi states as possible to form part of it. That was Jinnah’s wish too. Sardar Patel would not allow it. In this task Mountbatten played a complementary role to Patel in all states but Hyderabad, Junagarh, Travancore and Kashmir. Travancore was got round by Sardar; the people of Junagarh, rose in revolt and undid the Muslim Nawab’s accession to Pakistan. Nehru, took away Kashmir’s affair form Patel and his Department of States. His infatuation with Shaikh Abdullah and the evil influence of Mrs. Edwina Mountbatten in concert with Mountbatten, pre-empted India’s victory in Kashmir. Nehru sought UN’s intervention, against Patel’s remonstrances. The unsolvable, costly, debilitating Kashmir problem is Nehru’s legacy to India.
24.5 While Mountbatten was associated with Patel in securing the accession of some Princely states, their regrouping and merger of some into the provinces and integration of all of them with the rest of India is the work entirely and solely of Sardar Patel; neither Mountbatten nor Nehru had a role ( except ceremonial)
24.6 Mountbatten tried to frighten Sardar Patel by saying that these Maharajas and Nawabs have army divisions, armed police and guards and weapons and therefore they could all together wage war. Sardar Patel dismissed that non-sense. Sardar Patel and the Congress fought the British who had armies and a navy and airforce positioned in India and they dared and defied the mighty British not for one year but for decades. For such people to be afraid of the Chota Rajas & Maharajas, uniformed persons with some weapons is unthinkable. There are Praja Mandals - the State Peoples Conferences. Every one of them would have mounted a movement to force their ruler to accede to India. This is what happened in Juanagadh where the Muslim ruler acceded to Pakistan but had to flee the state because of the peoples movement.
24.7 In his letter dt.14 June 1948 to his, mother Mountbatten wrote: “I must stress the importance of Patel in the agreements so far reached. He has rough exterior and uncompromising manner . His achievements tend to remain below the surface but he was probably the first of the Congress High Command to realise that the 20th Feb statement ( of Prime Minister Atlee) implied Partition. If a political settlement by June 1948 or before , was to be achieved. Having absorbed that vital implication, he has never wavered and has stood firm against inner voices ( of Gandhi) and neutral indecisions ( of Nehru) that have sometimes afflicted his colleagues. Patel’s realism has also been a big factor in the acceptance of the Dominion Status formula”. (P-293/94 B Krishna)
“Sardar Patel did integrate what is now India into one -nation state, a feat which could not be accomplished either by Ashoka or Samudra Gupta or Akbar or the Kings and the Queens of England”.
24.8 Sardar Patel‘s action in getting the Princes to heel was appreciated by no less a person than Nikita Khrushchev of the Soviet Union. He said, “You Indians are an amazing people. How on earth did you manage to liquidate the princely rule without liquidating the Princes”.
25. Police Action on Hyderabad:
25.1 Mountbatten wanted to give a special dispensation to the Nizam, Britain’s most Faithful Ally short of independence and sovereignty. Mountbatten, in league with Nehru did not insist upon Nizam’s accession to India like the 500 and odd princes and Nawabs. They would be satisfied with an alliance (not accession) based on a treaty! Sardar Patel tolerated Mountbatten’s intervention fully knowing, that the Nizam would never put his signature to any agreement/or treaty. He was seeking advice from Jinnah who told him to die like a martyr, fighting India. Patel was waiting for Mountbatten’s departure in June 1948. Early in June 1948, when Sardar Patel was sick and lay in bed in Dehradun, Mountbatten flew to Dehradun with Nehru, Rajendra Prasad and Baldev Singh with a plan for alliance between to Nizam and India. The terms of the “plan” or settlement were heavily weighted in favour of Hyderabad. Mountainbatten recorded, “Soon after arrival, I gave the paper to Patel to read. He grunted, “Impertinence – I will never initial it. I then dropped the subject”. After lunch when Mountbatten came to take leave Sardar became quite emotional and spoke of the debt India owed me . “How can we prove to you our love an d gratitude? Whatever you ask for, if your wish is in my power, it will be granted. I hardened my heart, for I too was affected and replied. If you are sincere, sign this document. “Sardarji was visibly taken aback. “Does agreement with Hyderabad mean so much to you”, he asked in a low voice. “yes...”. Patel initialled the draft. The others although astonished, accepted this and I flew to Delhi very elated at my success..... then an astonishing thing happened. The Nizam and his advisers rejected their own draft. Laiq Ali the Nizam’s Prime Minister said, ‘we will fight to the last man”.
25.2 The British Commander-in- Chief of the Indian army General Bucher wanted to frighten Sardar Patel to desist from taking military action against the Nizam by saying that, Nizam’s air force was ready to bomb Bombay & Ahmadabad. Sardar Patel dismissed that great General by taunting him, “ were not England and London bombed by the Germans day & night? Did the British surrender”.
25.3 Mountbatten left India on 27 June ’48 and with him his “plan”. Nizam was led to confront India, with a one-lakh Moslem rowdy force, Razakars, led by Kasim Razvi, in support of his army. Despite Nehru’s fears, reluctance and even opposition till the last moment, and the British Commander-in-Chief’s advice not to take military action, Patel sent the Indian army into Hyderabad. Sardar Patel solved Hyderabad problem within five days ( Sept 13 to 17, 1948). Nehru’s handling of Kashmir has presented India with the interminable ( since 1947) problem, four wars with Pakistan , expulsion of Hindus from Kashmir, more than 40,000 lives lost, more than Rs. 2lakhs crores given as “packages”, to the corrupt local parties, a number of army divisions tied down there and China’s army in Pak-occupied Kashmir.
25.4 Sardar Patel’s Hyderabad operation drew congratulations and praise and approval from such diverse persons as Akbar Hydari; Ali Zaheer India’s Ambassador in Iran, even the butcher of Calcutta’s Hindus and rabid Muslim Leaguer H S Suhrawardy. Mountbatten from England wired to Nehru (!)”...how relieved I am that the action you were eventually driven to take did not result in large-scale communal troubles ( Rajzvi threatened that one crore Hindus would be butchered in Nizam state and crores of Muslims will rise in revolt in India, if the Indian forces entered Hyderabad) (page 416, B.Krishna)
26. Demonising Narendra Modi :
26.1 Noorani and “secular” warriors in India don’t ever have the decency to mention that the communal riots in Gujarat in 2002 were triggered by the burning of scores of Hindu Karsevaks returning from Ayodhya, in two rail bogies at Godhra, by Moslem goondas. If any reference is at all made to this incineration of Hindus, a doubt is expressed as to the identity of the perpetrators ! Leaving this aside, Narendra Modi is accused of complicity because he was the Chief Minister of Gujarat at that time. Was not Rajiv Gandhi, the Prime Minister and was he not in Delhi when in November/December 1984, 4000 Sikhs were slaughtered by mobs led by Congress leaders?
26.2 Do the “secularists”, Muslim Indians ever accuse Rajiv Gandhi and rulers from his Dynasty, of communalism, holocaust etc? No; Sikhs and Hindus can be slaughtered by Moslems, but the killers pass off as “secularists”. For forcing partition of India and creation of Pakistan, the Muslim League Chief Minister Bengal supervised the slaughter of 10,000 Hindus on one single day, heralding the murderous “Direct Action” 16 Aug 1946 in Calcutta. As Minister in charge of Law and Order, Suhrawardy arranged the transfer of Hindu police officers from all key post in Calcutta. On 16 August 1946, twenty two police stations out of 24 in Calcutta were in charge of Muslim officials and the remaining two were in charge of Anglo-Indians” ( P34, Madhav Godbole). Suhrawardy installed himself in the police HQ and watched the assault of armed goondas on as yet unearned an d non-resisting Hindus.
26.3 Does any “secularist” write about it any time, much less repeat the story as frequently as about Modi? Numerous many communal riots took place and many Muslims and Hindus were killed when “secular” Congressmen were Chief Ministers in Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh , Maharashtra, West Bengal, Assam, UP, Bihar....? Are held responsible for killing Moslems and smeared as communal, Hindutva-vadis? Are these Congress Chief Ministers from Shaikh Abdullah Dynasty called communalists and Islamists as it was during their rule that 400,000 Hindus were squeezed ie., ethnically cleansed out of the Moslem majority Kashmir Valley and these have been living as refugees in Jammu and around for the last two decades?
26.4 Most importantly, while in the period of UPA rule since 2004, 5,921 communal riots occurred in India, not one occurred in Gujarat under Modi since 2002! Are Noorani and “secularists” blind , deaf and dumb to these facts? No, they see in Modi, a resurgent, confident, self-respecting, nationalist who is not apologetic to be a Hindu; who is as proud to be a Hindu as Muslims are proud to be Moslems! The “seculars” and Muslim Indians demonise Hindus for being nationalist and patriotic and proud of their cultural and scientific and philosophical inheritance. They invent the fiction of “composite” culture in India, but never ever explain why that “composite” culture is not there in Pakistan of their creation; why Islamism is OK in Pakistan but Hinduism is not OK in India; why and how Muslims multiply in India (from 10% in 1951 to 15 to 20% now) and why Hindus are decimated in Pakistan from 19% to 1.5% and in Bangladesh from 33% to 7%.
27. Azad not Liking Patel:
27.1 Noorani faults the Sardar for his not liking Abul Kalam Azad. Azad’s opposition to the partition of India was not because of his intense Indian nationalism but because he felt that Muslims in Hindustan would be much less powerful than if Pakistan was not created. In fact, without the knowledge of Gandhji, Nehru and Patel he told the Governor General and the Cabinet Mission (1946) that the latter’s three-tier grouping of States each with its own Constitution etc., in a federal India would be acceptable to Congress. It would have meant the whole of Assam, whole of Bengal and whole of Punjab going under Muslim rule and a very weak central government with Muslim veto . Nehru’s outburst that the proposed Constituent Assembly could do whatever decides, made Jinnah reject the Cabinet Mission’s plan and so its demise ultimately undid the Cabinet Mission’s plan.
27.2 Azad was also the originator of the “hostage concept “ that is, the Hindus in five Muslim majority provinces would be hostage to ensure the proper behaviour of Hindu majority provinces towards their Muslim minority. This is what he explained to the Muslim League conference over which he presided in 1928 in Calcutta.
27.3 While Sardar Patel, the Home Ministry and the Delhi Administration were fully engaged in sheltering and providing relief to the millions of Hindus and Sikhs who had to flee Pakistan’s genocide, Abul Kalam Azad ( and Nehru) was getting worked up to prevent, by government protection, of League Muslims’ emigration to Pakistan, the State of their creation! Azad was urging Nehru to bring back Muslims who migrated to Pakistan, even as Pakistan was forcing out Hindus and Sikhs. In independent India’s first cabinet Nehru, Azad, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai and John Mathai were the Moslem party; all the rest were the Indian party on issues concerning Pakistan and refugee affairs. As said elsewhere, Azad had no following among Muslims, he was a Muslim leader of Hindus in the Congress, courtesy Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi .
27.4 It was under Azad’s direction that Muslims (many of them former Muslim League leaders) in the Constituent Assembly demanded the continuance of separate electorate and weighted representation and reservations for Muslims as during the British rule. It was Sardar Patel’s deft handling of some Moslem MPs like Begum Aizaz Rasool that led to the removal in India’s constitution of communal representation, which was one of the main reasons for separatism of Muslims. Further, Azad filled up India’s Education Ministry which he headed for eight years with former Muslim League and communist and Hindu-hostile “secularists”. The loot and atrocities of Muslim invaders and rulers, the destructions of temples, sale of children and captive soldiers in slave bazaars, women forced into harems, were all negated in the history books that were got prepared under the direction of his minions in the Ministry. He in fact, expunged all patriotic and nationalist interpretation of the country’s past in Indian history texts.
27.5 Azad did admit the superiority of Sardar Patel over Jawaharlal Nehru when he observed ( in his posthumously published biography) that “he committed a mistake in proposing Nehru as Congress President to succeed him in 1946 and that he should have proposed Sardar Patel instead. He wrote, “ on 26 April 1946, I issued a statement, proposing his (Nehru’s) name for the presidentship... I acted according to my best judgement but the way things have shaped since then has made me realise that this (Nehru as Congress President in 1946) was perhaps the greatest blunder in my political life...”
“My second mistake was that......I did not support Sardar Patel. We differed on many occasions but I am convinced that if he ( Patel and not Nehru) had succeeded me... he would have never committed the mistake of Jawaharlal....”.
(P.162, India Wins Freedom by Maulana Abul Kalam Azad) ( Actually the fact was that a single Pradesh Congress committee proposed Nehru’s name; all but one proposed Sardar Patel’s name and one proposed Kripalani’s name. Mahatma Gandhi advised ( ordered) Patel to withdraw in favour of Nehru, the third time Patel had to withdraw in favour of Nehru. The Congress President would be the Prime Minister; Nehru would never agree to serve as Deputy to Sardar Patel. If Patel became Prime Minister, Nehru would rather quit and split the Congress ( in which party he was no match to the Sardar) and that would be disastrous for India, coming just before Independence when unity in Congress was the need. Gandhiji ordered his Hanuman-like devotee, Sardar Patel to play second fiddle to Nehru, which he did earlier and would do it again in 1947).
27.6 That Azad was repudiated by the Muslims themselves and that he was only a show boy of the Congress was admitted by him in his address to a large gathering of Muslims in Delhi’s Jama Masjid in 1948. In that speech Azad regretted that his co-religionists had ignored his advice. He said: "I hailed you, you cut off my tongue. I picked up my pen, you severed my hand. I wanted to move forward, you cut my legs. I tried to turn over, and you injured me in the back. When the bitter political games of the last seven years were at their peak, I tried to wake you up at every danger signal... I warned you that the two-nation theory was the death-knell to a meaningful and dignified life, forsake it. To all this you turned a deaf ear. And now you have discovered that the anchors of your faith have set you adrift. The debacle of Indian Muslims is the result of the colossal blunders committed by the Muslim League’s misguided leadership." (Syed Saiyidin Hameed’s translation of Maulana Abul Kalam Azad’s talk in Urdu in 1948.)
28. Sri Noorani is one of the consistent slanderers of Hindu nationalists. His “scholarship” is devoted to “drain inspection”, a task which Mahatma Gandhi ascribed to Katherine Mayo for her book, “Mother India”. Noorani’s latest work, “Destruction of Hyderabad” is one more slanderous tome coming from his Pakistaniat. How can one explain the fact that Hindu women like Teesta Setalvad and Suhasini Ali who are married to Moslems, are the fiercest and tireless “secular” warriors against Hindu nationalists?
Notes:
1. Pakistaniat:
1.1 Dr B.R.Ambedkar wrote the masterly treatise “ Pakistan or The Partition of India” in 1946 wherein his conclusions were: Muslims and non-Muslim Hindus cannot be one nation( also asserted by Sir Sayyed Ahmed, Sir Mohammed Iqbal and Mohammed Ali Jinnah); partition is inevitable and will be good for Hindus (including Sikhs and other non-Muslims) and the Muslim problem in India can be settled once for all only by total exchange of minority populations between Pakistan and Hindustan ( Muslim League’s and Jinnah’s name for India) as was done between Turkey on the one hand and Greece, Bulgaria and other east European Christians Vilayats ( provinces) of the Turkish empire, on the other hand, after the first World War.
1.2 In the Introduction to his book, he wrote; “My position in this behalf is definite, if not singular. I do not think the demand for Pakistan is the result of mere political distemper, which will pass away with the efflux of time. As I read the situation, it seems to me that it is a charesteristic in the biological sense of the term which the Muslim body politic has developed in the manner as an organism develops a characteristic. Whether it will survive or not in the process of natural selection (Darwinian!), must depend upon the forces that may become operative in the struggle for existence between Hindus and Musalmans!”.
1.3 The biological characteristic that Muslims have developed between 1919 and 1947 and which persists in Muslim Indians even after 1947 is what I call Pakistaniat (like Kashmiriat). Post -1947, Pakistaniat not only survived but grew vigorous because the minority movement and exchange were mostly one -way ( Hindus – Sikhs out from Pakistan and Bangladesh ) . Under the garb of Nehruvian “ secularism” Islamiat has been promoted by building Moslems as vote banks; through instruments like minority commissions, minority Welfare Ministries, minority engineering, medical etc., colleges; minority financial corporations in the state sector, carving out minority i.e Moslem majority districts, Muslim First (not SC or ST) development projects; subsidies for Haj pilgrimage, Urdu Ghars and Universities, shadi khanas; secular States paying Maulvis and Muezzins; financing Muslim religious schools (Madrasas), restoration of reservations for Muslims ( calling some of them as backward castes, as among Hindus ) etc., Opposition to Pakistaniat is called Hindu communalism, Hindu fascism, Hindutva and nowadays, Modi-tva !
2. Handling Princely States:
2.1 In his report dated 27 June 1947, Mountbatten noted, that, “ on the subject of princely states, Nehru and Gandhi are pathological.... I am glad to say that Nehru has not been put in charge of the new states Department which would have wrecked everything. Patel who is essentially a realist and very sensible is going to take it over....By this means, I think we shall avoid a really bad break with the states....(P 260 Godbole)
2.2 Nehru was intensely wanting to go to Kashmir towards the end of July ’47, to deal with Maharaja Hari Singh Mountbatten feared, Nehru would be arrested as in 1946. After a great deal of persuasion by Mountbatten, Nehru relented. In his personal report 15, dt. 01-08-47 Mountbatten wrote, “ I have reason to believe that earlier when Patel had tried to reason with Nehru, Nehru had broken down and wept explaining that Kashmir meant more to him than anything else.... (P 261, Godbole)
2.3 Both Nehru and Shaikh Abdullah thought that Kashmir was their fiefdom; Nehru did not allow Patel and his States Department, to deal with Kashmir; he kept it to himself with disastrous results, India continues to bleed in men and money and reputation and internal and external threats to our security.
3. Nehru gloats over the success of the Police Action on Hyderabad:
Nehru obstructed the Police Action, rather violently, calling at one time that Patel was communal . He would cite adverse reaction of Middle East’s Muslim countries and world opinion against India, if military action was taken. But Patel prevailed and the Nizam was brought to his senses. Now, Nehru wants to take the credit. On 21 September 1948 he wrote to the Chief Ministers, “what has happened in Hyderabad has created a situation which should lead to stabilisation of the communal situation in India, or rather to a progressive elimination of the communal sentiment”. He wrote again on 4.10.’48”. I have a feeling that India has turned the corner, more specially since these Hyderabad operations we are on the upgrade now...” (P 415-16, B Krishna). The man had to be overcome to undertake the Hyderabad operation Now he takes the credit. He didn’t have the decency to acknowledge Patel’s deed.
4. Nationalist Muslims:
4.1 “Nationalist” Muslims in Congress were non- entities in the Muslim community. None got elected by the separate Muslim electorate in the 1946 General Elections to the Central Legislative Assembly. The veteran Acharya J.B.Kripalani was the Congress President in 1947, succeeding Nehru (1946). He stated, “The nationalist Muslim leaders had little influence over their co-religionists. They were Congress leaders!... rarely were purely Muslim meetings addressed by the nationalist Muslim leaders ! No nationalist Muslim leader ever went to the riot-affected areas whether in Calcutta, Noakhali, the Punjab or the Frontier. They could have told the Muslims that what they had done was un-Islamic and against the best interests of the country and their community”. ( P 452 Godbole)
4.2 Why would they do so? At the end of the Khilafat movement in 1921, the Moslem Moplahs in Kerala fell upon Hindus - looted and burnt their homes, raped and abducted Hindu women, forcibly converted Hindus and killed many who resisted. Maulana Mohammed Ali, co-leader along with Gandhi of the Muslims’ Khilafat movement did not condemn this jihad; on the contrary, he even said that Mahatma Gandhi was worse than and inferior to a Moslem, robber, adulterer or murderer! Gandhiji said that the god-fearing Moslem Moplahs merely did what they believed was according to their religion!
5: “Secular” Nehru: Hindu-Moslem Riots:
5.1 Muslim League’s Direct Action ( to force partition of India and create Pakistan) was launched on 16-08-1946 in Calcutta, when about 10,000 Hindus were slaughtered under direct supervision of the ruling League Chief Minister, H S Suhrawardy. In the subsequent days, Calcutta’s Hindus (who were four times Moslems in the city) started Killing Moslems.
5.2 Then in east Bengal, where Muslims outnumbered Hindus two to one, began looting burning, raping, abducting, forcibly converting Hindus in Noakhali and Tippera Districts. Hindu refugees poured into Bihar an d Calcutta.
5.3 Bihar (Hindu: Moslem ratio 85:15) was under Congress rule. Its Hindus started retaliatory strikes on Muslims in October- November 1946. In Delhi was the Interim government of Congress and Muslim League men in the Vice Roy’s Executive Council Nehru was the vice-Chairman (equal to Prime Minister ) Nehru’s “Secularism” can be seen in action.
5.4 Nehru had nothing to say about the Calcutta killings, the Noakhali and Tippera atrocities of Moslems on Hindus. He did not go there. Gandhiji went to Noakhali; his presence was not liked by Moslems. He had to leave the area peremptorily.
(Just like Nehru had to give up his ‘direct contact” tours among Moslems, to win them over in 1937; few Moslems turned up to see him. He gave up in despair and disgust.
5.5 But Nehru condemned Hindus in Bihar; he urged the Vice Roy to machine-gun Hindus from the air; bomb them and even invoke Section 93 of the Government of India Act 1935 to dismiss the Hindu Congress government of Bihar as it was not protecting Moslems. Gandhiji forced the Congress Chief Minister to undertake protection and rehabilitation work for Muslims at a cost of Rs. 2.5 crores (Rs. 250 cr at current value) (pages 48 to 54 Madhav Godbole). Nehruvian (and Gandhian) “secularism” is thus all concern and care of Moslems’ welfare, safety and protection, little or none even on a reciprocal basis for Hindus . Hindu life, honour, property and sentiments are nothing but those of Moslems-whether in Delhi, Guajarat, Kannur (Kerala) or Kashmir and Muzaffarnagar are uppermost.
(When Morarji Desai was the Prime Minister, there were serious, prolonged Moslem-Hindu riots in Meerut. While on the opening day the well prepared Moslems had the upper hand, in the days following more Moslems were at the receiving end. Pakistan’s High Commissioner in Delhi met with Morarjibhai and protested against the government’s failure to control the riots and protect the Moslems. Morarjibhai asked the Pakistani: “ Do you want India to solve the minority problem as your country solved? (i.e by ethnic cleansing of Hindu-Sikhs). The Pakistani diplomat got the shock of his life; speechless, he left the office.
Annex#1
Muslim Leaguers become Nehruvian “secular” Congressmen ( See Para 14.1)
The famous (notorious) Muslim Leaguers who were admitted to Congress and rose to be MLAs, MPs and Ministers etc., are :
Raja of Pirpur, the author of the infamous Pirpur report that the Congress governments in 1937-39 terrorized and oppressed Muslims; Raja of Mohammadabad (Raja Mohammed Amir Ahmed Khan), a former Member of the All India Muslim League and its treasurer; Nawab Ismael Khan, Chairman of the Action Committee of the all India Muslim League for achievement of Pakistan ( he became a Congress MP later), Begam Aizaz Rasool, leader of the Muslim League Legislature Party in UP before partition, later a Congress MLA and Minister in the Congress government in UP; Nafis Ul Hasan, a prominent Muslim League leader, who became Speaker of the UP Legislative Assembly and later Chairman of the UPPSC; Sayyed Ahmed Mehdi ( son of the notorious Raja of Pirpur) who became a Congress MP (1957-67) and Parliamentary Secretary, Union Ministry of Irrigation and Power and Dy. Minister for Steel & Mines; Tahir Mohammed a ML member of Bihar Provincial Assembly, 1946, became Congress MP 1957- 67 and 1971-77; Tajmal Hussain became Congress MP 1950-‘58; Sayyed Hussain Imam, President of the Bihar Provincial Muslim League, he attended the inauguration of Pakistan and then became Congress MP; Jafar Imam a former Muslim League MLA became the Congress Cabinet Minister in Bihar (1963-67); Gulam Sarvar who became a Congress Minister in Bihar in 1977; Mohamemd Sadullah, the Muslim League Chief Minister of Assam before partition ; Mohammed Rafiq, a former Muslim League MLA of Assam; Moinul Huq Choudhary, the General Secretary of All India Muslim Students Federation who became a Congress MLA in Assam in 1952 and a Cabinet Minister and an MP in 1971 and Union Cabinet Minister in 1972 and lots of others.
Some of these former Muslim League members who later joined Congress, led a deputation of Muslims from Kachar district of Assam to Karachi in Nov 1947 to plead with Jinnah to get Kachar and Golpara districts of Assam included in Pakistan!
Sayed Badruduja was a senior Muslim League leader of Bengal. He stayed on in India and started a movement for an alliance of Muslims, Anglo-Indians Christians and tribal communities for protection of “minority” interest . In his speech in Parliament in 1966 April, Badruduja denounced secularism as a snare and delusion...a fraud and ...hypocracy... thy name is exploitation of minorities particularly of the religious Muslims minority spoliation and ruination of the Muslims minority,
Abdul Hameed Khan, a Muslim League MLA in Madras Presidency; Mohammed Ismael, a senior Muslim leader from Madras declared in 1940 that the Muslims in India were in the midst of jihad. That only Pakistan could save their civilisation and culture . He stayed on in India and as a Member of Parliament till 1971, he was President of the Indian Union Muslim League (new name for the pre-1947 Muslim League) .......
|
Their list is long. Nehru invited and patronised all these former Muslim Leaguers. In fact, Muslims had become the block -voting supporters of Congress. A grateful Nehru himself introduced the legislation in 1956, in the Parliament to subsidise the Muslims’ Haj pilgrimage to Mecca from the secular states revenues. (Pages– 334-339; Understanding Partition by Yuvraj Kishan). |