by B Krishna
xxv) Lord Mountbatten’s archivist
30 July 1970
Dear Mr. Krishna,
The Secretary of the British Cabinet has now replied on behalf of the Government with reference to the papers which relate to the period when Lord Mountbatten was Viceroy of undivided India. He has given authority for you to have photostat copies of the papers you ask for, and I am prepared to send them on to you, subject to your being prepared to give in return an undertaking which the British Government require you to sign. The reason is that under the 30 year rule these documents would not be available until 1978.
I am, therefore, sending you three copies of the undertaking. Will you kindly sign two copies, one for the Secretary of the Cabinet and one for the Broadlands Archives, and retain the third copy yourself. I will then send on the papers you want, and there will thus be the agreed charge of 1/- per page and an additional charge for the postage under registered cover, as you ask. There is no need, of course, to pay the charges until you receive the copies.
If you wish to have access to the documents relating to the period when Lord Mountbatten was Governor-General of Independent India, after 15 August 1947, then Lord Mountbatten will apply to the Queen’s Private Secretary for Her Majesty’s concurrence for copies of the documents being given to you, and I know from previous experience that he would require an assurance from your Prime Minister’s Private Secretary, which I suggest you should send through me, that the Government of India would have no objection to your having access to these documents.
Since writing the foregoing I realise that these papers are very delicate, and in view of this I will make arrangements to have them forwarded to you, possibly through the British High Commission in New Delhi.
Yours sincerely,
Mollie Travis
xxvi) H.V. R. Iengar, ICS, Home Secretary
8 May 1975
Dear Mr. Krishna,
With reference to our conversation in Bombay the other day, I enclose the text of the memorial lecture that I delivered on Sardar Patel at Surat last year.
It was a pleasure meeting you and I do hope that you will carry out your project of writing the biography of one of the greatest men our country has produced.
Yours sincerely,
H.V. R. Iengar
xxviia) Former Punjab Premier Khizr Hayat Khan’s letter to Sardar Patel
47, Wellington Mall,
Lahore Cantt:
26 July 1947
My dear Sardar Sahib,
I was wanting to come myself but not feeling well I am sending this letter per special messenger by air. Whatever may be the good intentions expressed by leaders in various statements, the local people here have started victimization of officers on a large scale, who have worked honestly for the last regime. There are many of them who are going to suffer but I can only pick up glaring cases of people who were intimately associated with me personally.
The most important case in this category is that of Nasir Ahmad I.C.S, O.B.E, He is an officer with an excellent record with about 17 years service. The Chief Secretary proposed him for Commissionership but the decision arrived at is that he os to be posted as a District and Sessions Judge, which means that he is by one stroke being shifted from the Executive to the Judicial with practically no future prospects. He is a confirmed D.C. and was holding the job of Director of Industries. A man 16 places junior to him, has been posted Commissioner, while another, 59 places junior is taking his place as Director of Industries.
These seniorities are according to the old list. Though many Englishmen and non-muslims are going, but still the desparity is very considerable. This is clear vindictiveness to post him as Sessions Judge. What is more, the next Chief Justice of West Punjab said that this man will have to be punished when he the judiciary because he has done the greatest harm to the Muslims i.e. in Sargodha, my home district where he was D.C. during the last general elections, he did not use his official position to favour the league and 1 and others were elected. I, in this matter consider it a personal responsibility to see him fixed up.
Now the choice before Nasir Ahmad is euher to resign on proportionate pension or to select to go to the bast. He is quite willing to come to the East end, Sardar Swarn Singh and Dr. Gopi Chand to whom I have talked, are prepared to have him on the Eastern Cadre provided Government of India takes him. It is only the Government of India who can give him a suitable job, because I would like him to get a post corresponding to what he is entitled and which he is losing on my account.
When I was at Delhi, I understood that there were a number of joint secretaryships likely to fall vacant. If he can be taken for one of these I shall be highly obliged. If there is none in your department, I shall be obliged if you kindly ascertain from other departments whether he can be fixed up. I have written to Sardar Baldev Singh, and you might kindly speak to Pundit Ji and your other colleagues so that he may be taken somewhere. He belongs to Jullundur, and is a resident of the East Punjab. The time factor is ver y important as his Excellency the Governor to whom I mentioned the case has said that he will like to know whether Nasir Ahmad elects to go to the East within the next three or four days. In case no job is going immediately, Nasir Ahmad is prepared to take leave. He can be put on the Eastern Cadre and can wait till joint Secretaryship of a corresponding job is available. This is of course if he is assured of eventual adjustment.
These days you will be very busy but I hope you will give special consideration to this letter. I shall be grateful if you could give me some idea by return. I hope you will not mind the trouble.
With best wishes,
Yours sincerely,
Khizr Hayat
Tiwana
P.S. Officers of Nasir Ahmed’s seniority have been taken as joint secretaries.
The Hon’ble Sardar Patel.
Government of India.
New Delhi.
xxviib) Sardar Patel’s reply to Sir Khizr Hayat Khan
New Delhi, 27 July 1947
Thank you for your letter of the 26th July, 1947 regarding Mr, Nasir Ahmad, I.C.S
I fully sympathise with him in his difficulties and am prepared to do my best to accommodate him. We have, however, appointed a committee to go into the question of reorganisation of the Government of India Departments with a view to ensuring a most effective and efficient use of I.C.S and other man power available. Pending its decision, we are not making any important appointments. I regret, therefore, it will not be possible for me to hold out any definite promise to accept Mr. Nasir Ahmad for a central job, but after we have settled the organization of the Central Government and subject to Mr. Nasir Ahmad’s record being satisfactory, I shall certainly consider him at the appropriate time.
In the meantime, I think the best course would be for Mr. Nasir Ahmad immediately to inform the Government of India Home Department that he wishes to leave the province of the Punjab for another Province, save East Punjab. We could then allot him to East Punjab, or if East Punjab has already got a sufficient number of I.C.S officers to another province. We could later on consider whether he could be taken at the Centre. If there is any time-lag, that gap could be filled by his taking leave for a month or two.
With kindest regards,
Yours sincerely,
Malik Sir Khizr Hayat Khan
Tiwana
xxviic) Sardar Patel’s letter to Sardar Baldev Singh
New Delhi
31 July1947
With reference to the letter from Sir Khizr Hayat Khan Tiwana which you handed to me, I write to say that the case of Mr. Nasir Ahmed has already been covered by me in a letter to Sir Khizr Hayat. If Mr. Nasir Ahmed elects for East Punjab or any other province on the ground of apprehended victimization, we shall be able to accept his request for transfer.
As regards Khan Bahadur Malik Khuda Baksh, under the rules, no choice is open to him except to go to East Punjab. The question is one which may be settled with Dr. Gopichand or Sardar Swaran Singh.
Your
s Sincerely,
The Hon. Sardar Baldev Singh,
17 Tughlak Road,
New Delhi
Postscript: The correspondence reveals the true character of Sardar Patel: absolutely non-communal. It shows also the trust that Sardar enjoyed of Khizr Hayat Khan Tiwana, former Prime Minister of undivided Punjab. It was Patel’s greatness to have agreed to accommodate in India the victimized Muslim ICS official who had opted for Pakistan. That Patel was totally non-communal is borne out also by K. B. Lall’s letter published earlier.
If Sardar Patel was communal at all, it was so towards the Muslim League leaders who had got the “motherland” divided.
Along with Jinnah and Liaquat Ali Khan, Khaliquzzaman was equally guilty in Patel’s eyes. He had stayed on in India, some believe, to complete Jinnah’s unfinished agenda, like Bhopal’s in Jodhpur and some other states. He attempted to patch up with Patel by offering him greetings thrice in the corridors of Parliament. Each time Sardar turned his face the other way. To a question, his answer was: “I don’t want to put premium on treachery.”
The deep trust Patel enjoyed of Khizr led some to agree with Jayaprakash Narayan: “If Sardar, and not Pandit Nehru, had been the first Prime Minister of India, maybe, partition of the country would have been averted.”
15
THE MAN WHO DARED CHURCHILL
But Won His Admiration
None could dare Churchill. He was indomitable. He towered over all around him. His fierce bulldog looks commanded immediate obedience. He was a super egoist too, whose voice drowned out others. It was Patel whose “ironness” quietened the British “bulldog”; even won his appreciation for his unexpected, bold retort. Their spat was over Churchill’s unbecoming running down of India in June 1948 while “bemoaning the disappearance of the title of Emperor of India from the Royal titles”. In his arrogance Churchill had poured out simply venom:
Churchill’s Anti-India Outburst
The Times of India, 28 June 1948
Addressing a rally of Conservatives yesterday, Winston Churchill accused the Socialists who, “on gaining power, threw themselves into the task of demolishing our long built up and splendid structure in the East with zeal and gusto, and they certainly have brought widespread ruin, misery and bloodshed upon the Indian masses to an extent no one can measure.
“Power has been recklessly confided to Indian political parties which in no way represent the needs or feelings of the 400 million people who had dwelt so long under the protection of the British Crown. Already there has been something like a collapse in the process of internal administration and we must expect an indefinite epoch of internecine and religious strife.
“We have witnessed the violent action of Mr. Nehru’s Hindu Government against Kashmir, four-fifths of whose people ar e Muslims. It may be that soon this same Government, using the modern weapons we left behind, will attack the ancient State of Hyderabad with its 17 millions of people and overthrow the Government of the Nizam.”
Further to the above, Churchill was reported to have arrogantly forecast: “Power will go into the hands of rascals, rogues and free-booters… These are men of straw of whom no trace will be found after a few years.”
Patel’s smashing reply (reproduced next) silenced the British “bulldog”. But he took it in good spirit and told Patel in a message through Anthony Eden, on a visit to India, that he had “thoroughly enjoyed the retort”, and that he had “nothing but admiration for the way the new Dominion had settled down to its tasks and responsibilities, particularly those involving relations with the Indian States.” Churchill even suggested that the Sardar should “not confine himself within the limits of India, but the world was entitled to see and hear more of him.
~
Patel could not stomach the insult to India, as well as to his colleagues in the government of which he was the deputy prime minister. From his sick-bed at Dehra Dun, Patel gave Churchill a blistering reply, calling him what no one else could have dared: “an unashamed imperialist at a time when imperialism is on its last legs”.
Sardar Patel’s Stunning Retort
The Times of India, 30 June 1948
In a rare moment of rage, Sardar Patel gave him a most stunning reply: “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 and that British statesmen and others learn to speak of this country in terms of friendship and goodwill.
“Mr. Winston Churchill, His Majesty’s Leader of the Opposition and Britain’s war-time Premier, while bemoaning the disappearance of the title of ‘Emperor of India’ from the Royal titles, has indulged in a characteristically ignorant but extremely prejudiced outburst against India and its Government… Mr. Churchill is an unashamed imperialist and at a time when imperialism is on its last legs, he is the proverbial last-ditcher to whom obstinacy and dog ged consistency mean more than reason, imagination and wisdom…
“That Mr. Churchill’s attack on India and its Government is both mischievous and venomous… we were fully aware of the machinations of the vested interests both in India and the UK to hand over as difficult a legacy to India as possible. The balkanisation of India was being actively promoted. Large scale disturbances were being manufactured. Vandalism at the peak of the impending departure from the scene of personal rule was actuating many of the Churchillian agents in power here.
“We, therefore, decided to drink the bitter cup and accept the lesser evil of partition, only on the condition that it commanded the support of all parties… We thought Mr. Churchill was an honourable man and would abide by the obligations inherent in the agreement… If a proof of his deep-seated prejudice and his medieval mind were needed, it would be enough to show that whilst he refers to Kashmir as being four-fifths Muslim, he has omitted to mention that Hyderabad is four-fifths Hindu, and that a creation of the 18th century, as the Nizam’s State is, is suddenly, by the magic of Mr. Churchill’s words, transformed into an ‘ancient State’. The fact of the matter is that, to vary the words of a British statesman, whether Mr. Churchill roars like a lion or coos like a dove, it is his ignorance and blind prejudice that must come out prominently…”
The Times of India, 30 June 1948
~
Churchill took Patel’s counter-attack in good spirit—as between two great men—by conveying a message to him, through Anthony Eden, earlier his foreign secretary, who was visiting India, that he had “thoroughly enjoyed the retort” and that he had “nothing but admiration for the way the new Dominion had settled down to the tasks and responsibilities, particularly those involving relations with the Indian States”. Churchill had specially said that the Sardar should “not confine himself within the limits of India, but the world was entitled to see and hear more of him”.1
NOTES
Introduction
1. Wavell, The Viceroy’s Journal, p. 260.
2. Alan Campbell-Johnson, Mission With Mountbatten, p. 52.
3. Sardar Patel’s Speeches (Hindi translation from Gujarati by Narhari D. Parikh), p. 445.
4. The Hindu, 16 November 1997.
5. M. N. Roy, Men I Met, pp. 15-16.
1: What was Vallabhbhai?
1. This was Sardar, Commemorative Volume, vol. I, pp. 447-49.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Harijan, 26 January 1951, p. 419.
5. The London Times, 16 December 1950.
6. The Manchester Guardian (now the Guardian), 16 December 1950.
7. Thakur Jaswant Singh, recorded interview with author, 5-7 March 1970.
8. Lieut-Gen. S. P. P. Thorat, From Reveille to Retreat, p.119.
9. Khushwant Singh (former Editor, the Illustrated Weekly of India), recorded interview with author; also, his autobiography Truth, Love and a Little Malice, pp. 116-17.
10. This was Sardar, Commemorative Volume, vol. I, p. 168.
11. Ibid, p. 207.
12. A. R. Tiwari, Making of a Leader—Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, p. 6.
13. Narhari D. Parikh, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, vol. I, p. 27.
14. Tiwari, Making of a Leader—Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, pp. 13-14
15. Ibid, p. 184.
16. Sardar Patel’s Speeches (in Hindi), 1918-48, p. 467.
17. Parikh, p. 36
PART I: DIRECT ROLE
2: Freedom Fighter
Kheda Satyagraha
1. Pattabhi Sitaramayya, The History of the Indian National Congress, part I, p. 239.
2. Sardar Patel, by Junius, article in the Bharat, 31 October 1951.
3. The Bombay Chronicle, 13 January 1915.
4. G. V. Mavalankar, Sardar Patel, an article on Patel’s 70th birthday in the Tribune, Lahore, 3 November 1945.
5. Ibid
6. Narhari D. Parikh, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, vol. I, p. 67.
7. Ibid, p. 78.
8. Ibid, pp. 49-50.
9. Ibid, p. 58.
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid, p. 60.
12. Ibid, p. 55.
13. Ibid, p. 72.
14. Ibid.
15. Sardar Patel’s Speeches (in Hindi), pp. 3-4.
16. Parikh, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, vol. I, p. 74.
17. The Bombay Chronicle, 13 April 1918.
18. Ibid.
19. Parikh, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, vol. I, p. 80.
20. Sardar Patel’s Speeches (in Hindi), pp. 4-5.
21. Parikh, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, vol. I, p. 85.
22. The Bombay Chronicle, 3 June 1918.
23. Ibid.
Nagpur Satyagraha
1. Narhari D. Parikh, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, vol. I, p. 204.
2. Ibid, p. 206.
Borsad Satyagraha
1. Narhari D. Parikh, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, vol. I, pp. 220-22.
2. Ibid, p. 223.
3. Ibid, p. 228 (quote from pamphlet issued by Patel).
4. Ibid, p. 242.
5. Ibid, pp. 242-43.
6. Young India, 6 April 1924.
Bardoli Satyagraha
1. Mahadev Desai, The Story of Bardoli, p. 107.