Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel

by B Krishna

  Patel grew still bolder. He moved out of the school confines into the public life of Nadiad. It was to help a teacher, with poor means and far less influence, who stood for the municipal election. His opponent was an influential, wealthy person— proud of both. In his arrogance he declared that if he were defeated, he would have his moustache—then a symbol of masculine pride and status—shaved off. The student in Patel worked with “such resolute will and steadfastness” that his teacher scored a resounding victory. Along with some fifty boys, and accompanied by a barber, Patel went to the opponent’s house, calling upon him to step out to honour his pledge and shave off his moustache!

  Patel had “no patience with an indifferent teacher”; nor could he “spare a lazy one.” His class teacher was a habitual late-comer. This irked Patel’s sense of discipline. If he and his classmates were expected to come on time, why couldn’t the teacher as well? He and his fellow-students created a rowdy atmosphere in the class-room just to heap ridicule on him. Out of spite, the teacher punished Patel with the task of writing numbers from 1 to 10. So simple! Yet, Patel refused to comply with an unjust order. But the teacher, in his vengeance, doubled the figure for each day’s failure till the figure reached 200. Writing out numbers 1 to 10, 200 times! It was an arduous task, repugnant to Patel’s sense of fair play. His ingenuity worked. He simply wrote “200” on the slate, and with an innocent air showed the slate to his teacher.

  In Patel’s words: “The teacher asked me where were the padas? [meaning in Gujarati both “sums” and “buffaloes”]. I told him I could write only 200 when the padas [buffaloes] ran away! The teacher was all sound and fury. I was presented before the headmaster, who, instead of punishing me, took the teacher to task for not knowing the correct method of prescribing task.”10

  From Nadiad, Patel moved to a school in Vadodara. His stay did not last even a month. An incident showed how much more rebellious he had grown. One day, he found his math teacher failing to solve an algebraic sum. Patel had the audacity to stand up and boldly tell him, “Sir, you don’t know how to work it out.” In annoyance the teacher threw a challenge: “If I do not know how to do it, you come here and be a teacher yourself!” An unabashed Patel went to the board and solved the sum. Not stopping at that, he impudently sat on the teacher’s chair! Howsoever improper, he was impishly complying with what the teacher had told him to do. The headmaster sent for Patel and warned him to behave himself in future. But Patel’s pride was hurt. He retorted: “I do not wish to study in a school where there are teachers of such type.”11

  In 1913, Patel achieved his ambition of becoming a barrister. With his determined spirit and sharp intellect, he obtained a first class first and was called to the Bar on 27 January. The young barrister immediately returned to India and set up practice in Ahmedabad. His fearlessness, clear thinking, and ability to quickly judge people served him well, and in a short time Barrister Patel was successfully practising at Ahmedabad. In 1914, an ominous development threw the Ahmedabad municipality into a deep crisis, which threatened to smother freedom at the civic level—a freedom which liberal-minded British rulers had themselves granted. The threat came from the amended District Municipal Act in allowing appointment of British ICS bureaucrats, mostly diehards, as heads of self-governing institutions. The amendment was anti-national in two ways: one, it curbed national aspirations influencing civic life; and, two, it controlled and directed school education and thereby did not allow national feelings to take root in the minds of schoolchildren at an impressionable age.

  In November 1915, a hardliner, J. A. Shillidy (ICS), took over as municipal commissioner. It was considered a bad omen. Municipal councillors became apprehensive of losing whatever limited autonomy they enjoyed. From the very start, there developed friction between the two over Shillidy’s unconstitutional interference in the working of the municipal administration. Not only did he spend money as he wished without reference to the appropriate municipal body, he even chose to usurp the president’s right to correspond with the government, make appointments on his own and disburse largesse as he chose. Further, he even absented himself from work without intimation to the president. He was arrogant, assertive, and self-opinionated. His was a sort of dictatorship, not self-governance that the government had given people under the Municipal Act.

  Municipal affairs had been rendered chaotic. There was “little organisation, duties were carelessly defined and procedure negligible”. According to the president, R. B. Ramanbhai, “The efficiency of the municipal staff is at a low ebb . . . delays and corruption . . . have been rife.”12 The Bombay Provincial Conference, at its session at Ahmedabad in October 1916 was highly critical of the municipal affairs. Presided over by Jinnah, the creator of Pakistan in 1947, the conference recommended abolition of the office of the municipal commissioner.

  Who could take the bull in Shillidy by the horns? And even secure the abolition of the post of municipal commissioner? In the considered view of some, “only someone with Vallabhbhai’s skill, shrewdness and fearlessness”.13 Shillidy could be outwitted by one who possessed “[a] tough temperament, rough manners and indomitable spirit to match the arrogance, obstinacy and irritability of Shillidy”. And so, “a search for such a person was going on till the eyes of some of the members of the Gujarat Club fell upon Vallabhbhai, who was well-known among his colleagues for qualities of sustained labour, blunt repartee and a tendency of delivering telling blows on his adversaries”.14 Patel alone could meet their expectations. On becoming a councillor in May 1917, he sought to curb the self-acquired autocratic powers of the municipal commissioner through forthright, determined, and bold constitutional moves.

  Patel took two steps—both constitutional: First, he put monetary limits on purchase transactions, allowing only those authorised by the board to be entertained by the municipal commissioner. Second, the municipal commissioner was required to accept any of the tenders recommended by the board. Further, Patel got the board to ask the municipal commissioner to furnish a statement of purchases made by him since 1914-15. Still further, the managing committee was to scrutinise it before its submission to the board. It was a battle of wits between Patel and Shillidy. The latter had to eat humble pie on quite a few occasions. Even Shillidy’s boss, the commissioner, F. G. Pratt, was, on one occasion, stunned by Patel’s “impertinent” behaviour. Patel’s boldness had left Pratt speechless.

  Patel’s battle was a major one to rescue municipal education from British control and influence, and “to remove their strangulating hold from the municipal schools”.15 Under his instructions, the municipality refused to accept government grant and even debarred government inspectors from visiting schools. In the boycott, out of over 300 teachers, 297 stood by Patel. The municipalities of Ahmedabad, Surat, and Nadiad supported him. The presidency government at Bombay got alarmed. The education minister, Raghunath Paranjpe, stepped onto the scene. But no settlement could be reached. The government got tougher. So did Patel.

  Patel organised a People’s Education Board. He had instant success. It ran 43 schools, including 13 for girls; and it had 270 teachers and nearly 8,400 pupils, of whom over 900 were Muslims and nearly 2000 were girls. These schools incurred a monthly expenditure of Rs. 10,000. Patel had raised Rs. 1.25 lakh through public subscription. In comparison, the government had 57 schools, 250 teachers and around 2000 pupils. Admitting defeat, the government sought a compromise, which Patel generously accepted.

  Addressing the Municipal Employees’ Association in Ahmedabad in 1940, Patel stated: “It is a matter of pride with me that I have devoted the best part of my life here. I recall those years with great satisfaction.”16 Much later in 1948, he admitted: “To serve our own city must give unmitigated pleasure and satisfaction, which I cannot get in any other sphere. To cleanse the city of the dirt is quite different from cleansing the dirt of politics.”17

  Part I

  DIRECT ROLE

  2

  FREEDOM FIGHTER

  Backbon
e of Gandhi’s Satyagrahas

  Kheda Satyagraha

  The Kheda satyagraha of 1918 ushered in a new era in India’s freedom struggle—an era of mass agitation on the basis of non-violent non-cooperation. It was equally significant, according to Congress historian Pattabhi Sitaramayya, that “it brought two great men together”.1 They were highly complementary to each other: if Gandhi provided the soul force, Patel contributed his “muscle power” as a superb organiser. He was to Gandhi what Ashoka was to Buddha, or Vivekananda to Ramakrishna Paramahansa. Socialist leader Yusuf Meherally stated: “Vallabhbhai at long last found a leader the likes of whom the country had not seen for centuries— not since the days of Ashoka and Akbar. The Mahatma had found a lieutenant that those Emperors would have given a kingdom to get.”2

  Gandhi had already attained worldwide fame before returning home from South Africa in January 1915 after conducting a brave, non-violent fight against apartheid. For such heroism, he had earned the admiration of world leaders like Tolstoy and Romain Rolland. He came to be reverentially called “The Mahatma” and his countrymen saw in him an apostle. Early in the century, he was considered to be one of the ten great people in the world. It was but natural that Pherozeshah Mehta should have looked upon him as “a hero in the cause of Indian independence”.3 Yet, Gandhi did not take an immediate plunge into Indian politics. He followed Gokhale’s advice to wait for a year or two, in order not only to acclimatise himself to the political climate, but also to test Indian political waters.

  In fact, the shrewd Gandhi waited for the right opportunity: one that would concern a cause worthy enough to unite an agitated public. Equally important for him was to find a deputy commander and a band of trusted, self-sacrificing workers who could organise and lead the people in the fight. But he had first to win their confidence in his capability to lead them to victory. He did that in 1917, a year prior to his launching the Kheda satyagraha. He proved his credentials with his victory in three cases in quick succession: first, the viceroy’s compliance with his request to abolish indentured labour by a fixed date; second, the removal of the customs barrier at Viramgam in Kathiawar; and third, the British indigo planters’ surrender to his challenge in Champaran, Bihar, in agreeing to do justice to the exploited indigo cultivators. These three victories established Gandhi as the new leader of India’s non-violent freedom struggle.

  “Who should be my deputy commander?” Gandhi asked himself. Patel first appeared to him “a stiff-looking person”. Not without reason. Patel enjoyed the reputation of being “a bridge-player, [a] chain-smoking barrister”, who had earlier despised Gandhi for being a queer-looking figure from whom he had “kept himself cynically and sarcastically aloof ”; and was openly “very sceptical and critical about Gandhi’s ideas and plans”.4 In personal appearance, Patel looked “a smart young man, dressed in a well-cut suit with a felt hat worn slightly at an angle, stern and reserved, his eyes piercing and bright, not given to many words, receiving visitors with just a simple greeting but not entering into any conversation, and of a firm and pensive expression, almost as if one looking down upon the world with a sort of superiority complex, talking with an air of confidence and superiority whenever he opened his lips”.5

  Such a proud, sophisticated, highly anglicised Patel underwent a dramatic change under the irresistible spell of Gandhi’s magnetism. It was a complete transformation of the man Patel was: from an unsparing scoffer to a most ardent admirer, co-worker, and freedom fighter. Patel not only gave up his lucrative legal practice, but discarded for good his western dress and lifestyle. He adopted, instead, the Gandhian style of austere, frugal living. He started wearing a villager’s dress— coarse, hand-spun kurta and dhoti and a pair of crude chappals— even while walking on dusty rural roads. It was a complete change, good for Gandhi, good for Patel, no less for the freedom struggle.

  Gandhi discovered Patel’s uniqueness as a freedom fighter on the “battlefield” of Kheda. His challenge to the British was over land revenue—the very foundation of their Indian empire. Commissioner F. G. Pratt said, “In India, to defy the law of land revenue is to take a step which would destroy all administration. To break this law, therefore, is different from breaking all other laws.”6

  Gandhi appeared to the British to be preaching rebellion in asking the peasants to withhold payment of land tax. Pratt expressed his grave apprehensions by telling the peasants: “If you fight about land revenue today, the whole country will fight about it tomorrow.”7 The issue involved was very simple and just. The kharif crop had been completely ruined by excessive monsoon, while an epidemic of rats and other pests had heavily damaged the rabi crop. Revenue rules permitted postponement of assessment if the yield was estimated to be less than 25% and a complete remission if there were a failure of the crop in the following year. Gandhi demanded only postponement, not total remission. That too, until a full inquiry had been conducted by the government. Over 18,000 peasants signed an application submitted to the government on 15 November. The Bombay government refused to interfere with the commissioner’s authority.

  This encouraged the local officials to conclude that “the peasants were complaining only because they had been instigated and their emotions worked up by agitators. So, if the government accepted the demands of the peasants, it would be the agitators who would gain in reputation, while the reputation of the officers would decline. Thus, to government officers, the fight on this occasion was one chiefly of prestige”.8 It was not so with Gandhi and Patel. They were fighting for a just cause: noble for its purity of motive in urging the government to postpone recovery of land revenue.

  Despite that, Commissioner Pratt rode roughshod over the people’s hopes and aspirations by being dictatorial. He told the secretaries of the Gujarat Sabha, on whose behalf the satyagraha was being conducted, not the Congress, that “the responsibility for proper administration in Kheda district is that of the collector,” and held out the threat: “If I do not hear from you by tomorrow, I shall write to the government recommending that your Sabha should be declared illegal.”9 It was a serious threat, which Gandhi and Patel could not ignore.

  Since Gandhi was launching his first satyagraha in India, he and Patel had to prepare the masses for it; and also to educate their lieutenants about how to conduct themselves. Gandhi’s advice to them was: “You may be arrested for doing so, but you must regard that as the fulfilment of your work. That is satyagraha.”10 This assumed importance in view of the collector’s threat: “If anyone, influenced by the wrong advice which is being given to them, refuses to pay up his land revenue dues, I shall be compelled to take stringent legal measures against him.” To this Gandhi replied, “The Government may do what it likes. If the hardship is genuine and the workers skilful, they cannot but achieve success.”11

  Gandhi and Patel moved nearer to the “battlefield”: from Ahmedabad to Nadiad. They opened a camp office in the local orphanage, and conducted an on-the-spot inquiry into the conditions of peasants. They jointly visited about 60 villages, while a team of workers surveyed 425 villages out of a total of 600. Their joint operations were at Gandhi’s bidding. He had laid down the condition that a sabha worker should accompany him and devote all his time to the campaign until it lasted. “As no one else was prepared to give up his other activities wholly, Vallabhbhai offered his services, much to Gandhi’s delight.”12

  Patel enjoyed two advantages: First, he belonged to Karamsad in Kheda. He was born and brought up on its soil and amid its environment, and had practised as a lawyer at Borsad earlier in the century. Second, being the son of a peasant, he knew and understood the people better than Gandhi. Both worked together, moving in the dusty countryside on foot over long distances.

  The satyagraha was launched on 22 March 1918 at a public meeting of peasants at Nadiad. Gandhi’s inspiring words were: “It is intolerable that the Government should forcibly recover assessment. But that has become the practice in our country. However truthful the people, and however just their
case, the Government refuses to believe them and insists on having its own way. There must be justice, and injustice must be ended . . . That people would tell lies for the sake of saving at the most a year’s interest—for they are asking only for postponement of assessment—is inconceivable. It is an insult to all of us that the Government dares to make this accusation.”

  Gandhi exhorted the peasants: “I would, therefore, tell you, that if the Government does not accept our request, we should declare plainly that we shall not pay land revenue, and will be prepared to face the consequences . . . the Government may recover the assessment by selling our cattle and our movable property, confiscate jagirs and even put people in jail on the ground that they are not law-abiding. I do not like this charge of lawlessness . . . The people are fighting for a principle, while the officials are fighting for their prestige. The peasants of Kheda have ventured to take up cudgels in the interests of justice and truth.”13

  The satyagraha had run for a few days when Gandhi had to leave for Indore to preside over the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan. He handed over charge to his deputy commander. Patel displayed great qualities of leadership. He had the bluntness of a soldier and the astuteness of an organiser. In a fighting speech at Nadiad, he declared: “This fight will act as a spark which will set the whole country afire.” Speaking of Gandhi, he said, “The brave man who has inspired this fight is capable of converting the cowardly into the bravest of persons, and in India, Kheda district is the land of brave men.” Patel also told the peasants, “A State ought to be proud of a people who are strong and determined. There is nothing to be gained from the loyalty of a cowardly and cringing public. The loyalty which you get from a fearless and self-respecting people is the loyalty which a Government should welcome . . . it is only if you are prepared to face hardships now and get the Government to change its policy, that you can remove the source of hardship for all time.”14