Their desperation to claim Sardar Patel

'Hit where they feel invincible’ is a classical tactic of psychological warfare, and the Congress party’s choice of Ahmedabad to hold its just-concluded has a similar imprint. The decision to energetically reclaim Sardar Patel’s legacy at the plenary is also of a piece with the same strategic vision — to take the battle straight into the rival’s bastion.

With no legacy of its own in the freedom struggle, the BJP confronts a historical vacuum — and in trying to fill it, it of the very Congress it seeks to erase. Of the many attempts to usurp the Congress’s legacy and co-opt its heroes, the forays to claim Sardar Patel stand out.

To set the record straight at the very outset: Sardar Patel remained a staunch and unwavering soldier of the Congress throughout his life.

In 1917, he appeared in the Gujarat Political Conference in Godhra. Within a year, he was alongside Gandhi in the Kheda peasant satyagraha. By 1920, he’d given up his legal practice and wholeheartedly joined the non cooperation movement. In 1928, he led the Bardoli satyagraha with remarkable resolve. It was the women of Bardoli who honoured him with the title ‘Sardar’, a tribute to his fearless leadership and deep connect with the people.

Around this time, he became actively involved in the organisational affairs of the Congress — first in Gujarat, and then gradually across the country. While Jawaharlal Nehru was perhaps the most popular leader after Gandhi, Patel stood out as the Congress’s most influential organiser. He was an integral part of several influential committees, working in close coordination with Nehru, Rajendra Prasad and Maulana Azad.

As India moved closer to independence, Patel played a crucial role in the transfer of power — be it negotiations with the British, the interim government or the national government after 15 August 1947. After Independence, he served as deputy prime minister and home minister in Nehru’s cabinet.

He played a pivotal role in the making of the Indian Constitution and chaired several key committees of the Constituent Assembly, including the Advisory Committee on Fundamental Rights, Minorities and Tribal and Excluded Areas, as well as the Provincial Constitution Committee. Patel presided over the Congress only once — but that one session, the Karachi session of 1931, was historic.

It was under his leadership that the party passed the landmark resolution on fundamental rights. Today, when BJP governments at the Centre and in the states routinely undermine those rights, what moral authority do they have to invoke Sardar Patel’s name? In his presidential address at Karachi, Patel did not forget to emphasise: “But before all else comes the question of Hindu–Muslim unity or rather communal unity.”

Even more to the point, how can the BJP lay claim to a leader who stood unwaveringly for Hindu–Muslim unity — a principle he championed with both conviction and courage? Patel’s commitment to Hindu–Muslim unity was truly exemplary.

Throughout his political life, he consistently underscored the significance of communal harmony. In his own poignant words: “I am striving to become the best cement between the two communities. And my longing is to be able to cement the two with my blood, if necessary. But before I can do so, I must prove to the Musalmans that I love them as well as I love the Hindus.”

Even amid the horrors of Partition, his sense of responsibility never faltered. Here’s another litmus test for the BJP RSS, if they are truly desperate to appropriate Patel’s legacy. Patel’s response to an advocate of Hindu Rashtra powerfully illustrates his secular vision: “I do not think it will be possible to consider India a Hindu state with Hinduism as a state religion. We must not forget that there are other minorities whose protection is our primary responsibility.”

While the BJP–RSS have been actively marginalising minorities — bulldozing their homes and draping mosques on the occasion of Holi — Sardar Patel’s vision stands in stark contrast.

In his book My Reminiscences of Sardar Patel, V. Shankar recalls a poignant incident when Patel rushed out late one night to protect the dargah of Hazrat Nizamuddin Auliya in Delhi. Upon hearing that the shrine had been taken over by miscreants, he hurriedly wrapped a shawl around himself and turning to his private secretary, said: “Let’s go to the saint before we incur his displeasure.”

On to the crux of the argument: why did Patel, then home minister, after the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi?

On 4 February 1948, the home ministry banned the RSS, stating that some of its members had been involved in arson, robbery and murder, and found with illegal weapons.

The government also accused them of distributing leaflets that encouraged people to take up arms, defy the government, and influence police and military personnel. Later, on 14 November 1948, the home ministry responded to a pledge of good conduct by RSS leader M.S. Golwalkar.

However, Patel was reportedly not satisfied even after two rounds of meetings. In a home ministry press statement, which was, of course, issued at the behest of the home minister, the government maintained that the activities linked to the RSS were ‘anti-national, subversive and often violent’.

Let that sink in: it was Patel’s own ministry that labelled the RSS ‘anti-national’. After that, is there really anything left to prove? The RSS has no rightful claim over Sardar Patel.

One last thing: the RSS has an enduring passion to spread falsehoods about Nehru. Sometimes it will pit Netaji against him, at other times Patel. But repeated lies cannot alter the reality that these leaders had deep affection and respect for each other.

There are innumerable examples of this in their correspondences and memoirs. When Nehru formally invited Patel to be a part of the ministry, he responded with warmth and respect, saying he would dedicate the rest of his life to serving under Nehru’s leadership, promising complete loyalty and commitment.

He also added that no one in India had made greater sacrifices for the nation than Nehru, and that their partnership was unbreakable — a source of their collective strength.

After Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination, Patel offered to resign. In response, Nehru expressed deep emotion, saying Bapu’s death had changed everything and brought tougher challenges ahead. He was upset by the rumours suggesting serious differences between him and Patel, and urged an end to such misunderstandings.

Nehru reminded Patel of their long journey together, facing many hardships over 25 years, and said his affection and respect for Patel had only grown with time. In that difficult moment, he believed it was their shared duty to stand together — as friends and colleagues.

So, garlanding a photo or building a statue does not make one an heir. To be a true heir is to carry forward the same ideas. Does the BJP or the RSS today have the courage to speak like Sardar Patel did?

Saurabh Bajpai is the convener of the National Movement Front