By Dr. Jilukara Sreenivas,
Constructing the images of the national leaders is a result of dominant politics. There are many instances to realize this political manufacturing of ideal leaders who worked for the country in the colonial period. In terms of G. Aloysius national movement is an amalgamation of power and brahmanical culture. Brahmanical politics had generated many upper caste leaders. National movement mainly led by Congress party has a number of brahmanical fanatic leaders. Mr. M.K. Gandhi openly declared himself as a Sanatan Hindu. He never felt ashamed in opposing civil and political rights for minorities in colonial rule. Nehru and Vallabhabai Patel never disobeyed the words of Mr. M.K.Gandhi. These three people colluded with Lord Mountbatten for partition of the country. But Modi and Manmohan Singh are jointly stating that Mr. Patel had fought for national integration. This is nothing but abusing the Indian history.
Vallabhabibai Patel, a kshatriya by caste, had never performed his efficiency and intellectuality.. He never supported Dr. Ambedkar who fought for separate electorate in association with Muslim League. Aga Khan and Dr. Ambedkar worked together during the time of round table conferences (1930-31). Mr. Patel opposed Dalits and Muslims when communal award was announced in 1932. He stood by the Gandhi’s coercive fast. Across the Gujarat he campaigned against the civil rights of depressed classes and minorities at that crucial time. Patel was a land lord in Gujarat and he worked for his class interests. He was never interested in democratic values. He has no meaning for the equality, fraternity, and freedom for the downtrodden people. His undemocratic and fanatic attitude was revealed during the partition time.
Patel like Gandhi did not demand for independence. He asked colonial rulers for swaraj, complete swaraj/purna swaraj, and dominian status. These notions were formulated and propagated by Tilak and Gandhi. These three concepts do not mean independence or freedom but sharing the power with the colonial ruleers. Although Patel had no role in producing the new concepts and ideological categories, which became the chanting slogans for the congress followers in the struggle. Such an intellectually impotent man was Patel. How he will be the ideal for a learned society? Sharing the power through legislature and administration was a central theme for the different sections. Muslims had been awarded communal representation according to their population. Dr. Ambedkar had demanded colonial rulers to extend this scheme to the depressed classes. He had argued for adequate representation in legislature and education, and employment.
What was Patel’s stand? Oppressed people demands were denied by this so called steel man. He was antagonistic towards Muslims because they are enjoying communal representation. Muslims were politically independent and they were equal share holders in the power. This autonomous political behaviour of Muslims had caused irritation to the Gandhi, Patel and Nehru. Congress used to oppose the communal award for Muslims. This kind of attitude can be seen in the Nehru Report (1929) and in round table conferences. As a result of this hatred, political, educational and employment representation (reservation) had been dismissed for Muslims, Sikhs, OBCs and Indian Christians on 27-28 August, 1947. Patel had compelled Muslims to give away the constitutional rights guaranteed by the objective resolution of the constituent assembly. Patel introduced a resolution saying there will not be any kind of reservation for any section on the basis of religion, caste, and creed. Dr. Ambedkar did not accept this proposal. But all the Congress Muslim leaders accepted. Sole opponent to the social justice, Gandhi played a game by pushing Patel into the scene. It was the Patel and Gandhi who had rejected social justice for the Muslims and OBCs. Patel was a Manuwadi, he was not a Manavatavadi (Humanist).
Patel also opposed share in the power for the minorities, dalits, tribes and OBCs. Lord Wovell categorically announced an official statement saying Muslims, Hindus and Depressed Classes (SC, ST, BC) will have equal share in the power in Independent India. This statement has threatened Mr. Gandhi, Nehru and Patel. These three men agreed with the proposal of partition which was opposed by Muslim League in 1947. This truth is no where revealed. Modi is now chanting that Patel was a national integrationist. What a political drama!
Patel is picturized as a steel man. So Modi wants to install a largest steel statue for him. This is ridiculous. Patel was an ordinary foot soldier of Mr. Gandhi. He did not protect Muslims after partition. He was completely inefficient in handling the complicated situations. He is a symbol of hatred and violence. Patel can never be an ideal on the national scene.
Surprising thing is that Mr. Patel is a congress man. Modi is a BJP war monger. Modi is no where connected with Patel politics. But Modi is claiming Patel as a national hero like him. Congress Party is not interested in Patel from the national movement time. It has abandoned him long back. As Gujarat pride, Modi appropriated Patel who was a week man in the critical times. Congress and Modi both are playing games to fool the country. Modi may search his self/soul in the steel statue of Patel, but definitely he will learn a good lesson from the history.
—
Dr. Jilukara Sreenivas is associated with Dalit Shakti Programme (DSP)