Nehru: Patel’s choice as the Prime Minister

 

Nehru: Patel’s choice as the Prime Minister

There is a well-orchestrated vilification campaign by Narendra Modi to discredit Pandit Nehru and the Nehru-Gandhi family for his political survival. Of late, the vilification campaign is carried to the extreme.  A mythical narrative is created that Pandit Nehru grabbed the post of Prime Minister from Sardar Patel. The fact is neither of them ever claimed to be Prime Minister in the first place. An attempt is made in this article to present a true historical picture. 

 

In his speech in the Lok Sabha on 14 December 2024, Modi claimed that Pandit Nehru snatched the Prime Minister’s post from Sardar Patel, and carried a blistering attack on the Congress. He raised a question, without substance and with a mala fide intent: why was Pandit Nehru made the Prime Minister and Sardar Patel not allowed to become the Prime Minister? He alleged that twelve CWC members had proposed the name of Patel as the Prime Minister, and yet Nehru became the Prime Minister. This is false. In April 1946, a majority of the CWC members proposed Patel as the President, as he was the Congress President only once in 1931. The question of independence and Patel becoming the Prime Minister didn’t arise then. Modi also made a false misleading claim that the constitution of the Congress provided for Prime Minister. There is no such thing in the party’s constitution; it doesn’t say the party president would be Prime Minister.

 

It is interesting to recall that Modi was not the President of BJP when he became the Prime Minister. Sushma Swaraj was the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha during the UPA-2 government of Manmohan Singh and L.K. Advani was the BJP President. They were sidelined.  Neither of them became the Prime Minister in 2014 when the BJP captured power at the Centre. Modi, who had never been a President of the BJP, was sworn in as the Prime Minister, forcing Advani to resign from all his positions in the party. Subsequently, Nitin Gadkari, Rajnath Singh and J.P. Nadda were elected as the BJP Presidents, but none of them was allowed to replace Modi.

 

Gandhiji named Pandit Nehru as his political heir. In 1946, Abul Kalam Azad, Acharya Kripalani and Sardar Patel were in the contest for the presidency of the Congress.  Gandhiji had intervened and made them to withdraw from the contest, as he wanted Pandit Nehru as the Congress President. In his assessment, Pandit Nehru as the Congress President at that historical crucial junction, when the freedom struggle was in the last phase, would be best suited to negotiate the question of Indian independence with the British, because of his vast knowledge, intellect, understanding of the issues, and above all his unmatched popularity and acceptance by all sections of the Indian society, cutting across  communities, and international standing. 

 

No one proposed the name of Patel as the Prime Minister in 1947and no one objected to Nehru becoming the Prime Minister either. K.M. Munshi - a member of Nehru’s first Cabinet - quoted from Sardar Patel’s daughter Maniben’s diaries that Patel was not interested in becoming the Prime Minister, and that his choice was Pandit Nehru. In the Interim Government 1946, when Nehru had become the de facto Prime Minister of India, he was 56 years old and in good health, while Patel was 70 years old and ailing. The Congress leaders knew that Pandit Nehru would be the Prime Minister.

 

In an interview recorded on 19.10.1966 (Oral History Project of the Nehru Memorial Museum and Library), Munshi said that the question of Sardar Patel becoming the Prime Minister never arose. And when the interviewer asked him: “In 1946, was there any question of choosing Sardar Patel as the prime Minister?”, Munshi answered: “No. There was no question of that at any time. Sardar himself would never accept it.  As a matter of fact, when some people asked him whether he should not become the Prime Minister, he laughed and said: ‘You know what will happen. Jawaharlal is well-known in the international sphere and would enhance the prestige of India in the outside world.  And, knowing him as I do, 1 think he is safer with me than in the opposition.”

 

And when it came to the formation of Nehru’s cabinet, Mountbatten had reservation about certain persons. Rajmohan Gandhi in his book Patel: A Life makes some interesting observations. Mountbatten had pressed Nehru to “get rid of a lot of top-weight like Rajagopalachari and Maulana Azad” and also “dear old man, Rajendra Prasad”. Rajagopalachari was excluded. Patel asked him to go as Governor of West Bengal. Thus, he became the first Governor of West Bengal after the independence, from August 15,1957 to June 21,1948.  Over Azad, too, Patel backed Mountbatten. Surprisingly, Gandhiji wrote to Nehru on July 24 concurring with Patel that Azad should not be made a member of the Cabinet.  Nehru was firm and he chose to retain the Maulana.  Mountbatten’s desire to see “a crowd of really good young men” in the Cabinet did not have Patel’s support.

In the politically significant selection of Ambedkar and Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, Patel’s was undoubtedly the decisive role. “On July 1, 1947, five weeks before he was asked to join the Cabinet, Ambedkar came for tea to 1 Aurangzeb Road at Patel’s invitation. Mukherjee, who represented the Hindu Mahasabha, had gained the Sardar’s favour by demanding Bengal’s partition in March 1947 and by refusing to join an abortive bid for a united and independent Bengal that Sarat Bose and Suhrawardy made in April and May.”

 

On August 1, 1947, Nehru wrote a letter to Patel asking him to join the cabinet: "As formalities have to be observed to some extent, I am writing to invite you to join the new Cabinet. This writing is superfluous because you are the strongest pillar of the Cabinet." In turn, Patel, in his reply to Nehru on August 3, spoke about the long-standing comradeship between the two, while appreciating Nehru’s sacrifices for India: "Many thanks for your letter. Our attachment and affection for each other and our comradeship for an unbroken period of nearly 30 years admit of no formalities. My services will be at your disposal. I hope for the rest of my life; you will have unquestioned loyalty and devotion from me in the cause for which no man in India has sacrificed as much as you have. Our combination is unbreakable and therein lies our strength. I thank you for the sentiments expressed in your letter."

 

On the Kashmir issue, Nehru and Patel had some differences. To assist him in handling Kashmir, Nehru brought into the Cabinet, as Minister without portfolio, N.Gopalaswami Ayyangar, a former Dewan of the State and a constitutional expert. The differences between them reached a flashpoint when both of them offered to quit. Nehru in his letter to Patel on December 23,1947 offered to resign: “I am myself very unhappy about the trend of events and the difficulties that have arisen between you and me. It seems that our approaches are different, however much we may respect each other. If I am to continue as Prime Minister, I cannot have my freedom restricted and I must have a certain liberty of direction. Otherwise, it is better for me to retire. If unfortunately, either you or I have to leave the Government of India, let this be done with dignity and goodwill. On my part I would gladly resign and hand over the reins to you.”

 

Patel answered the letter the next day, December 24: “1 have no desire to restrain your liberty of direction in any manner nor have I ever done so in the past...The question of your resignation or your abdicating your functions does not arise at all. I am at one with you in that the decision may be taken with dignity and goodwill and I will strain every nerve to help you in doing so but you will not, l am sure, want me to continue long as an ineffective colleague.”

 

Both Nehru and Patel turned to Gandhiji, as an umpire rather than a guru. Nehru In his note to the Mahatma dated January 6,1948 said that if the Prime Minister’s function, as he saw it, was not appreciated, “then the only alternative left is for either me or Sardar Patel to leave the Cabinet. If someone has to leave, I would prefer to leave.” The Sardar’s response showed that if suspicion and touchiness marked the Patel-Nehru relationship, so did nobility. Patel in his note on January 12 to Gandhiji said: “If anybody has to go, it should be myself. I have long passed the age of active service. The Prime Minister is the acknowledged leader of the country and is comparatively young. I have no doubt that the choice between him and myself should be resolved in his favour. There is, therefore, no question of his quitting office.”

 

Gandhiji mediated between the two. He was assassinated on January 30. On hearing the news, Pandit Nehru rushed to his place, fell on the feet of the Mahatma and cried inconsolably, like a child. The assassination brought the duumvirate - Nehru and Patel - closer, making them to bury their differences and work as colleagues and friends. Patel felt responsible for the death of Gandhiji. He sent resignation letters twice to Nehru, which. Nehru didn’t accept.

 

Sardar Patel was well aware of Nehru’s primacy and popularity. He told the American journalist Vincent Sheean, when the latter marveled at the mammoth crowd of more than 3 lakhs that had come to hear him and Nehru in Bombay: “They come for Jawahar, not for me,” On November 14, 1948 - Nehru’s 59th birth anniversary- Patel said: “Mahatma Gandhi named Pandit Nehru as his heir and successor. Since Gandhiji ’s death we have realized that our leader’s judgment was correct.”

 

V.N. Gadgil, also a member of Nehru’s first Cabinet, in his book Government from Inside recalls an interesting anecdote between him and Sardar Patel: “Vallabhbhai was to have flown to Bombay for treatment on December 12, 1950. On December 11, I got a phone call from Shankar (Sardar Patel’s PS) that Vallabhbhai wanted me immediately. I went and found him in bed. He called me near and said: ‘Now I am going. I am not going to live. Give me a promise that you will do whatever I ask you to do.” I said, ‘first tell me what the promise is about’. He insisted that I should promise first and looked at me in such a way that I could not but promise.  As soon as I said ‘yes’, Vallabhbhai took my hand in his and said: ‘Whatever may be your differences with Panditji, do not leave him’. I again said ‘yes’ and he seemed relieved. At the airport the next day he reminded me about the promise, and I again promised him to abide by it.” And three days later on December 15, he died in Bombay.