Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel
Page 24
*
Being Administrator of the United State of Matsya, I was travelling by car from Alwar to Jaipur to attend the inauguration of Greater Rajasthan. A man standing on the roadside stopped my car and showed me a note from the Private Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister, V. Shankar, saying that the Dove carrying him and his party had force-landed.
I took over an hour to travel a distance of four miles and found Sardar Patel and his daughter, Maniben, settled comfortably in two chairs which had been detached from the aircraft. Some other members of the party were seated on the charpoys which the neighbouring villagers had provided.
On seeing me, the Sardar gave a broad smile and enquired as to how I managed to reach the spot. I briefly replied: “A note from your Private Secretary called me to my duty.” The Sardar’s humour had not deserted him and he quipped: “Somehow you manage to turn up from nowhere in critical situations.!”
The Sardar’s face showed no sign of anxiety or agitation. He appeared well composed. He was at peace with himself and content with the situation in which he found himself. There was no trace of worry or annoyance or agitation. There was no excitement either. He seemed willing to let others do what was necessary to be done to take him from the site of landing to his destination in Jaipur.
I requested Sardar Patel and his party to get into my car. He, however, insisted that he must wait for the Maharaja of Jodhpur, who had gone to the main road to organise rescue from there. On being assured that the Maharaja would be looked after, he moved into the car with great reluctance. He desired that adequate arrangements should be made for the crew’s comfort.
Yours sincerely,
K. B. Lall
xiii) K. B. Lall, ICS
17 May 1974
Dear Balraj Krishna,
Your letter of 3 May. The Sardar led the Indian team to the Partition Council. The breaking up of a single entity into two independent units was a complex operation. So much was to be done. So little time to do.
The Sardar kept all the ropes in his own hands. At the same time he believed in decentralisation and had confidence in the competence and patriotism of Civil Servants and military officers. He welded them into a united team.
The Sardar had an eye for the essential and yet no detail escaped his attention. He defended with determination every Indian interest. He had no difficulty in reconciling it with generosity and goodwill for Pakistan. On all but three issues agreed decisions were reached. At the last meeting of the Partition Council, Abdur Rab Nishtar, while taking leave of him, admired his statesmanship, applauded his constructive approach and affirmed that the Pak Ministers would continue to look upon him as their elder brother.
Opposition wilted before his firmness; flexibility converted opponents into friendly followers. He listened to everyone, without exception; but at the end he expected to be listened to. He was both respected and feared at the same time. He handled men, both admirers and critics, as human beings. Pettiness and prejudice had no place in his versatile repertoire. He was harsh if the occasion so demanded. He was kind and considerate, even to those who worked against him.
India’s State structure and administrative system bear testimony to his patriotic vision and wise statesmanship. The monument to the Sardar as leader of men is enshrined in the hearts and deeds of those whose minds he transformed, whose actions he inspired, and whose determination he helped to steel!
Yours sincerely,
K. B. Lall
xiv) N. Senapati, ICS
24 April 1969
Dear Mr. Krishna,
I thank you for your letter of 21 April 1969. When Sardar Patel came to Cuttack on 13 December 1947, I was present at the various conferences he had with the Ruling Chiefs of Orissa. In the meeting at Governor’s residence, a 21-year old Prince started talking about: “My people want . . .” Sardar Patel remarked: “They are not your people, Your Highness. They are my people. Leave them to me.” A saffron-robed Prince started talking about Princely duty. Sardar Patel remarked: “Your Holiness is not fit for Princely duties.” When Maharaja of Mayurbhanj said that he had transferred power to his Ministers, Sardar Patel left him out of the discussion with the remark: “I will deal with Your Highness later”.
At the public meeting held at Cuttack, on 14 December 1947, large numbers of people from the Princely States had come. They demanded that power in the feudatory States should be transferred to the Ministers in each State and not given to the Government of Orissa. Sardar Patel remarked: “Shall I take from a thief and give to a dacoit?”
After signing an agreement on 15 December 1947, at one of the meetings with Sardar Patel at Delhi, the Ruling Chiefs produced legal arguments to justify their demand to be left as separate entities and not be merged with Orissa. Sardar Patel heard the Princes for about half an hour and remarked: “Your Highnesses may consult lawyers, but I make the law.” To the demand of the Princes to form a Union, Sardar Patel remarked: “I am prepared to leave each of your Highnesses as a separate unit, but will not allow Your Highnesses to form a Union. Remember, if any of Your Highnesses wants my help to deal with your people, I will not come to your help.”
Yours sincerely,
N. Senapati
xv) K. P. S. Menon, ICS, Foreign Secretary
22 October 1968
Dear Sri Krishna,
Many thanks for your letter of 9 October. Here’s the story about the Jam Saheb of Nawanagar. In 1949, when I was Foreign Secretary, we were selecting our delegation to the General Assembly of the United Nations. At that time, we followed the British practice of invariably including a representative of the Princes. A reference was made to the State Department, which was included in the Home Department under Sardar Patel; and the name suggested by them was the Jam Saheb of Nawanagar. I mentioned this to Jawaharlal Nehru. He did not like this nomination and exclaimed: “I am damned if I send him on our delegation. He and his diamond buttons!” I then went to Sardar Patel and said that the Prime Minister would like to have another name for inclusion in the delegation. Sardar Patel kept quiet for a few seconds and said: “I have given my nomination and I stick to it.” Panditji accepted the nomination without further ado.
Yours sincerely,
K. P. S. Menon
xvi) K. P. S. Menon, ICS, Foreign Secretary
24 February 1970
My dear Krishna,
Many thanks for your letter of the 18 February. I can well understand why your biography of Sardar Patel is taking so much time. I am sure it will be a valuable contribution to the history of our times.
As regards your query about Sir C. P. Ramaswamy Iyer, all I can say is that he declared Travancore independent in a moment of megalomania. Not only did he declare Travancore independent but he expressed his intention to establish diplomatic relations between Travancore and Pakistan, and even selected a retired Police Officer for the post of Ambassador of Travancore in Karachi. Sir CP was a man of great ability and resourcefulness, but he was also a superb egoist.
With kind regards,
Yours sincerely,
K. P. S. Menon
xvii) Shavax A. Lal, ICS
6 January 1970
Dear Shri Krishna,
I am really very sorry for not having replied to your letter of 5 October 1969 and the previous one of 2 August.
Your letter kindled a host of memories of my association with Sardar Patel and it was not easy to pick one which was free from political overtones. I have always scrupulously avoided politics of any kind and that was perhaps one reason why the Sardar had implicit faith in the objectivity of my opinions. I have, however, no hesitation in recalling the following incident:
My first contact with Sardar Patel was soon after the joint Congress and Muslim League Government was formed (in 1946). I was then Law Secretary and one day the Sardar sent for me. He asked my opinion on a question which was raised by the then Governor-General. Having just had a somewhat unpleasant experience of a straightforward but rather unpalatable opinion given
by me to one of his Cabinet colleagues, I asked the Sardar whether he wanted my honest opinion. The Sardar flared up and said tartly: “Does Government pay you Rs. 4000/- a month for your dishonest opinions? It is your duty to give an honest opinion and it is for me to accept it or not.”
The incident so impressed me that I remember his exact words. After this introduction I knew where I stood and never hesitated to speak my mind whenever the Sardar consulted me, which was quite often, and the questions were not confined to legal matters only. It was indeed a pleasure to work with Sardar because those who worked with him instinctively felt that he would never let them down.
Yours sincerely,
Shavax A. Lal
xviii) K. M. Munshi
17 December 1968
Dear Shri Balraj,
Please refer to your letter of 12 December. The substance of Article 370 of the Constitution was settled before Nehru left for USA. The drafting was left to Sri Gopalaswamy Ayyangar, Sheikh Abdullah and myself. Sheikh Abdullah was unhappy with the Article as we drafted and though he was scheduled to support the Article before the Constituent Assembly, he absented himself.
Yours sincerely,
K. M. Munshi
(Note: Abdullah didn’t do that. In Nehru’s absence, Patel was the Prime Minister. He, therefore, preferred to attend the debate on Article 370 in the Constituent Assembly, but could not bear the discussion. He lodged a loud protest by saying: “I am going back to Kashmir.” That evening he had settled down in his railway compartment when Mahavir Tyagi entered to deliver Patel’s stern message: “You could leave the House; but you cannot leave New Delhi.” A tamed Abdullah quietly got down and didn’t go back to Kashmir)
xix) Frank Anthony, MP, leader of Anglo-Indians
31 October 1968
Dear Mr. Krishna,
I am sorry for the delay in my replying to your letter of 18 ultimo. I met Sardar Patel. This was my first meeting. In the popular mind he had been invested with an awesome aura, as the “Iron Man” of India. That nom de guerre suggested not only a hard but even ruthless approach to administrative and political problems. As a lawyer I had got into the habit of trying to study those whom I met and of forming an estimate of their qualities.
As I sat down, I scrutinised the Sardar. His heavy-lidded, half-closed eyes and sphinx-like manner did not help in my assessment. I stated the case of the community before him rather fully, setting out the historical and political position and also the special economic needs of the community. Beyond a few non-committal monosyllabic grunts he did not interrupt me. I wondered how much he had taken in. To my surprise he then put me a series of staccato questions which no other leader had asked. I realised then, what further contacts and subsequently increasing close association only helped to confirm.
Here was a man with a crystal-clear mind who could see to the core of a problem within the shortest possible time. He asked me how many seats I wanted. I said three. He asked me how many votes in my opinion would be required to return three candidates to the Constituent Assembly. I said that my estimate was that, on an average, it would require about four votes in each Provincial Assembly to return one representative to the Constituent Assembly. I made it clear, however, that except for Bengal where we had 4 seats, we could not, on our own, return an Anglo-Indian representative to the Constituent Assembly. He asked me how many seats we had in all the Provincial Assemblies. I said 12. How many of these representatives, he asked, would vote according to my direction. I said all 12. He was a little incredulous that I could command the vote of every Anglo-Indian in every Legislature, but I assured him that this was a fact.
He then said that since we had 12 seats in the Provincial Legislatures, he would be prepared, on my assurance of their voting solidly at my direction, to recommend three seats for the community in the Constituent Assembly. He said that the Anglo-Indians would have to vote in support of non Anglo-Indian Congress candidates in States where no Anglo-Indian representative could be returned, but that from three Provincial Assemblies he would ensure, by giving us the necessary number of Congress votes, that three Anglo-Indians are returned to the Constituent Assembly.
Yours sincerely,
Frank Anthony
xx) Lieutenant General L. P. Sen
26 August 1970
Dear Mr. Krishna,
Thank your for your letter of 14 August. In 1955, when I was commanding 4 Division in Ambala, Messervey, as Colonel of the JAT Regiment, came to India to visit the unit. At Army HQ’s request he was my guest. One evening I asked him a straight question as to whether he was aware of the preparations being made to invade Kashmir. His answer to me was “Yes.” Akbar Khan’s office was very close to his, and he had been told to give Akbar Khan all the help he required.
Sardar Patel’s attitude towards J&K left no doubts in any one’s mind. It had acceded to India and was Indian territory, and as such any invasion of the State must be firmly dealt with. I do know that Sardar Patel had a high opinion of Bakshi Ghulam Mohd whom he regarded as an individual who would get on with the job and not bellyache.
Yours sincerely,
Lieut-Gen. L.P. Sen
xxi) Humayun Kabir, union minister; earlier long-time secretary to Maulana Azad
22 July 1969
Dear Mr. Krishna,
Your letter of 6 March regarding your biography of Sardar Patel. As far as I am aware, there was no sharp difference between Sardar Patel and Maulana Azad till 1945. They had of course occasional differences, but these were not strong. I do not know if the period spent together in Ahmednagar Jail had anything to do with their growing estrangement. After 1945, I think, personal and political factors combined to draw them apart. You may remember that when Maulana Azad’s term was over, Mahatma Gandhi had thought of Sardar Patel as the new President of the Congress. This was virtually choosing Sardar Patel to be the first Prime Minister of India. Maulana Azad intervened by proposing Pandit Nehru’s name.
I think this was the last and perhaps the most powerful cause of antipathy between Sardar Patel and Maulana Azad. Maulana Azad at that time thought that Sardar Patel’s views were somewhat narrow, but I think towards the end of his life, he changed his views.
Yours sincerely,
Humayun Kabir
(The Statesman of 25 August 1969: Humayun Kabir stated that “Maulana Azad in his last days had come to believe that Sardar Patel would have made a better Prime Minister than Mr. Nehru”.)
xxii) C. D. Deshmukh (ICS)
2 October 1962
Dear Shri Krishna,
Thank you for sending me a copy of your article – I can only say that I read it with interest. It seems to me that two propositions are incontestable:
1. No nation has the good fortune to have an unbroken succession of supermen, and
2. Amongst the others who also come to the top, selection and stability can only come through full operation of democratic processes. Nominations may work only through silent acknowledgement. Shri Nehru’s leadership began with nomination, but has continued because he is what he is.
Yours sincerely,
C. D. Deshmukh
xxiii) Lord Mountbatten
31 July 1968
Dear Shri Krishna,
Thank you for your letter of the 27 July from which I am glad to note that you have undertaken to write the biography of my friend, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel.
It would have been easy to help you if you had been in England or I had been in India but more difficult to do so by correspondence.
Yours sincerely,
Lord Mountbatten
xxiv) Lord Mountbatten
3 November 1969
Dear Shri Krishna,
Thank you for your letters of the 20 August and 14 October.
I am afraid your letter of the 20 August arrived while I was abroad, and my archivist started acting immediately on it, and had great difficulty in tracing any of the Patel papers as they are not, unfortunately, all filed under Patel but in several different
places.
First of all let me thank you very warmly for having sent me a copy of Sardar Patel’s letter to me of the 20 August 1948 which I am delighted to have. I remember it well and I am very sorry to say my archivist has been unable to find the original so far. We are, therefore, particularly glad to have a copy. On the other hand, she has been able to trace the original of the remarks about oil contained in my Farewell Memorandum and your copy is correct, and I have no objection to it being used in your proposed book on the Indian Oil Industry.
Turning to the three letters from Sardar Patel dated the 16 August 1947, 31 October 1947 and 11 July 1948, of which photostat copies have been sent to you. My archivist has not been able to find a copy of my letter to Sardar Patel of the 14 August 1947, but has found those of the 31 October 1947 and 19 June 1948. She had made typewritten copies for you which I enclose.
I am afraid I am under such heavy pressure (last month I made twenty-four speeches) I have not been able to read your articles.
My archivist has also searched for my “excellent note on some of the current problems” to which Sardar Patel referred in his letter of the 11 July 1948, but has not yet been able to find it.
When she does she will send it to you in due course.
Yours sincerely,
Lord Mountbatten