Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel

Early Career
Born on October 31, 1875 at Nadiad, in the Kaira district of Gujarat, in the family of a Leva
Patidar. He passed the matriculation examination from the Nadiad High School in 1897. In
his 30s, he went to Britain; like many of his generation of political leaders, he qualified as a
barrister. He returned to India in 1913 and started practising as a barrister in Ahmedabad,
fulfilling his second ambition. Patel joined Gandhi in representing the weavers in the dispute
with mill owners in Ahmedabad in 1918, and he played a pivotal role in helping to redress
the grievances of peasants in Kheda district.

Freedom Struggle

o. it
The impact of Gandhi's personality on Vallabhbhai was tremendous. The Champaran

m
id ix
struggle waged by Gandhi had a sweeping effect on Patel's mind. In Gandhi's Champaran
victory Patel saw the beginning of a new agrarian revolution. His interest in politics had
av D
co
been kindled, as became abundantly clear in the Provincial Political Conference organised by
the Gujarat Sabha and presided by Gandhi at Godhara. He became a staunch follower of
.fl en

Gandhi.
He was a strong supporter of the Non Cooperation Movement of Gandhi and worked
w e

against alcoholism, Untouchability and caste discrimination in Gujarat. He was elected as

w v

the municipal president of Ahmedabad in 1922, 1924 and 1927. When Gandhi was in prison,
w ra

he led the Satyagraha in Nagpur in 1923 against the British law, banning the raising of the
Indian flag.
P

Patel was charged in 1928 with leading the difficult Satyagraha at Bardoli, where again the
colonial state was attempting to exact heavy taxes from an impoverished peasantry, and he
acquitted himself brilliantly. He was elected as the President of India National Congress in
1931. He was at the forefront of the Congress' all India election campaign in 1934 and 1937
and was a prominent leader in organising the Quit India Movement in 1942. He was
arrested prior to the Quit India Movement and was released in 1945.
He was a true Gandhian and followed the footsteps of his master throughout the freedom
struggle while carving a status of his own. However, he was often criticised by supporters of
Subhas Chandra Bose for acting coercively to put down politicians not supportive of Gandhi.

The Nation Builder

He was a key leader in the framing of the Constitution, consolidated the nascent state by
integrating the Princely states and reorganising the bureaucracy.
With the dual task of administering a nascent Nation appalled by the horrors of Partition
and unifying 500 fragmented Princely states, he sought to ensure the stability of
administration by forging a bridge of faith and confidence with the "Steel Frame". Most of
the I.C.S. officers suspected that the Congress leaders, particularly Sardar in view of his past
experiences with them, would have no faith in the I.C.S. But Sardar rose to the occasion and
reposed total trust in their capability to serve the nation. He was, thus, able to win their
unstinted support in the endeavour of nation building.
On the eve of their departure, the British government announced that its paramountcy
would lapse not only over the British territory but even over the native States. This meant
that as many as 625 small and big native States would become independent like India and
Pakistan. Consequently, the country would be divided into a number of small and big units.
The intricacy of the situation can perhaps be gauged by the fact that there were 26 small
States in Orissa and 15 in the Chattisgarh area of present Madhya Pradesh. It required skilful
diplomacy on the part of Sardar Patel to persuade them to merge into bigger, more viable
units.

o. it
m
Attempts were afoot for finalising the standstill agreement with the States. It provided that
id ix
the Central Government will be vested with powers of defence, foreign policy and
av D
co
communications even over the States. Travancore, Hyderabad and some other States
declared themselves sovereign States and created hurdles in the agreement. On the other
.fl en

end, Jinnah with a view to tempt Jodhpur, Jaisalmer and other Border States made them an
unconditional offer to align with Pakistan on their terms.
w e

To find an amicable solution to this complicated situation, Sardar issued a statement to the
w v

princes wherein he appealed to their sense of patriotism and reiterated that the new States
w ra

department in no way, desire to have supremacy over them. There was a popular agitation
in Travancore and the State acceded to India. The Nawab of Bhopal realised that there was
P

no alternative, he sent the instrument of accession duly signed to Sardar.

Almost within a year he redrew the map of India with every princely State joining the Indian
union and thus, forming part of the political stream of life that was endowed with cultural
unity and harmony. Even by August 15, Hyderabad kept aloof. Hence, Lord Mountbatten
himself started negotiations. At one stage, it appeared that there was a settlement but
Nizam found himself helpless against the pressures of Razakars. The Razakars started
harassing the local public. Thus, when the situation went out of control, Sardar with the
consent of the Governor General initiated police action. In 108 hours, the Nizam
surrendered and Hyderabad acceded and merged with India. The Nawab of Junagadh
accepted an accession with Pakistan. Sardar solved this complex problem in his own
inimitable way and the Nawab and his Diwan left Junagadh for Pakistan.

Minorities
Patel contributed very substantially to the deliberations of the Constituent Assembly, and it
has not always been recognized that the protection and privileges guaranteed to minorities
in the Indian Constitution under Articles 29 and 30 owe much to the vigilance of Patel. With
respect to the position of Muslims, Sikhs, and other religious communities in India, Patel
wrote that "it is up to the majority community, by its generosity, to create a sense of
confidence in the minorities, and so also it will be the duty of the minority communities to
forge the past ". His criticism of the use of violence to resolve political disputes bears a
sharp contrast with the use of violence by religious extremists in India in recent years. In
1949, an idol of Lord Ram was surreptitiously installed in the precincts of the Babri Masjid,
writing to Govind Vallabh Pant, then Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, on 9 January 1950,
Patel encouraged him to prosecute violators of the law and perpetrators of violence.
However there are number of instances which show Patel in a different light. Even Patel's
friends among the British diplomats could not deny his communal sympathies.
In Hyderabad, Patel turned a blind eye to the massacre of Muslims, in Kashmir, he defended
the RSS when Nehru complained of its activities, in post-Partition Delhi, he insisted that
there was widespread anger about Muslims being allowed to go about openly in the streets,
eventually going on to protest Nehru's view that Muslim refugees who evacuated their

o. it
m
homes should be allowed to return. Even in inviting the Hindu Mahasabha and RSS to join
id ix
the Congress, Patel is reported to have said those who "ride on two horses" will have to go
av D
co
to Pakistan.
There are always two equally strong views over the issue and the debate is unending. One
.fl en

can conclude that he was a Realist, unemotional in temper and shrewd in thinking, who
took his stand not exactly on the ideological basis but on the demand of the situation.
w e
w v
w ra

Political Ideology
Although Patel never developed a systematic set of ideas for India's political development,
P

economic policies, or foreign relations, he had strong views on many matters, which were
expressed in his actions and statements.

 In his concept, the State was founded and held together by a high sense of
nationalism and patriotism. Individual liberty was to be in conformity with the
provisions of the Constitution.
 He favoured a strong Central government in relation to the states. He supported a
clause in the constitution, article 356, empowering the central government to take
over the administration of any state under certain circumstances.
 He pressed for the emancipation of backward communities and women and bring
about Hindu-Muslim unity through the Gandhian constructive programme and
skilfully utilised the higher castes for social integration and political mobilisation.
 He stood for the transformation of India into a major industrial power, which he
thought could be achieved only by a strong, centralized state. Although not averse to
a governmental role in industrial development and agrarian transformation, he did
not support assaults against private industrial and commercial enterprises.
 Socialist politicians such as Jaya Prakash Narayan and Asoka Mehta criticised him for
his personal proximity to Indian industrialists such as the Birla and Sarabhai families.
It is said that Patel was friendly towards capitalists while Nehru believed in the state
controlling the economy
 He was sharply critical of and opposed politically the communist and socialist parties
and their leaders, whose ideas he considered unrealistic and irrelevant to Indian
society and economy.
 In agriculture he supported the rights of peasant proprietors against both the former
landlords and the state.
 He opposed the demands for the reorganization of the internal boundaries of the
Indian states on linguistic grounds as a potential threat to Indian unity, and favoured
the adoption of Hindi as the official language of the country.
 As home minister he used his powers of arrest to stave off militant Sikh demands in
Delhi for a special status for the Sikhs in Punjab.
 Although he declared his belief in the secular ideology of the Indian state, he

o. it
adopted a patronizing attitude towards the Muslims who remained in India after

m

partition. id ix
On the other hand accepting as patriotic Indians the members of the militant Hindu
av D
co
organization, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). He disputed the complicity of
this organization in the murder of Mahatma Gandhi and urged an early removal of
.fl en

the ban imposed on it after Gandhi's assassination.

 He was vocal about the abolition of the system of separate electorates for Hindus,
w e

Muslims, and Sikhs.

 He took a strong stand against communists, he successfully piloted the Preventive
w v

Detention Act through parliament in February 1950, it was intended to strengthen

w ra

the government's ability to detain communists in gaol for longer periods without
trial than the courts were willing to allow.
P

 As a fiery champion of fundamental rights and liberty, he was convinced that these
values were essential pre-requisites for the development of the individual and a
nation.
 He not only criticised the arbitrary policies of confiscation of movable and
immovable properties, but also insisted on guarded regulations on land reforms and
nationalisation of key industries.
 He encouraged the duly elected authority to bring restrictions through various
legislative measures to freedom for all. Thus, his political value system was a fine
synthesis of liberalism, conservatism and welfarism.
 He supported the right of dispossessed landlords to adequate compensation for their
land, the payment of privy purses in perpetuity to the former Indian princes in
compensation for the loss of their kingdoms.
 In foreign relations Patel took such a strong stand in favour of sanctions against
Pakistan after partition that he earned the displeasure of Gandhi.
 He took a position opposite to that of Nehru in relation to Tibet and China, adopting
an attitude of distrust towards China in general, condemnation of the Chinese
 invasion of Tibet in particular, and a willingness to provide Indian diplomatic support
to Tibet.
 He favoured strong condemnation of North Korea's aggression against South Korea
in June 1950.
 Nor did he share the mistrust of Nehru and others on the left in Indian politics of the
United States and their reluctance to accept US aid.
 Patel also supported strongly the maintenance of India's membership in the
Commonwealth.
Patel desired nothing more than that the Indian nation-state should persevere and flourish.
His devotion to the idea of the nation-state also points to the limitations of his thinking,
unlike Gandhi, Patel could not think beyond the nation-state, and he was incapable of
offering the critique of modernity that Gandhi pioneered. Nor did Patel have the kind of far-
reaching and complex views of science, industrial civilization, masculinity, or a whole host of
other subjects on which Gandhi pondered for a considerable portion of his life.

o. it
m
id ix
av D
co
.fl en
w e
w v
w ra
P