By Soroor Ahmed, TwoCircles.net,
If the BJP preferred Narendra Modi over Lal Krishna Advani as its prime ministerial candidate because of the former’s young age, by that logic Mahatma Gandhi was right in not accepting the opinion of 12 out of 15 Pradesh Congress Committees to make Vallabhbhai Patel the first PM of India and opted for 14 years younger Jawaharlal Nehru.
But of late, especially between the birth anniversaries of Patel (October 31) and Nehru (November 14) this year, some questions have been raised over Gandhi’s decision. Surprisingly, some BJP leaders, who otherwise champion the cause of young prime minister and ministerial colleagues, are of the view that Patel was a better choice.
Courtesy: The Hindu
Ironically, the party which thinks that everyone around 75 is not fit to be inducted into the cabinet –– even if a person is in perfect condition –– firmly believes that India would have done much better had 72-year-old Patel, who was not in the best health, been made the first PM.
Not to speak of Advani and Murli Manohar Joshi, who are both in late 80s, even Jaswant Singh, Yashwant Sinha, Arun Shourie etc were left out. Patel was not excluded from the cabinet, but was made the all powerful deputy PM. On many issues he got due praise from the countrymen. The decision to merge the princely states and take police action against Hyderabad was that of the Nehru cabinet, and as the captain of the team he should have been credited, but it is his deputy, who was applauded for the boldness and thus earned the sobriquet of the Iron Man of India.
Unlike Advani in 2013, Patel did not express his displeasure over Nehru being preferred by Gandhi. From hindsight it can be said that Gandhi’s choice was right. He chose Nehru as the first prime minister as India then needed a leader who can play a long innings. And Nehru did so by leading the country for 17 long years. In contrast Patel, who was not in the best of health even during the latter freedom movement years and died on December 15, 1950, just three years and four months after Independence? He suffered from heart attack in early 1948. Had India lost its first prime minister within three years — when it had already lost the Father of the Nation within six months — it would have created a vacuum of sorts.
Take the case of Pakistan, which lost Mohammad Ali Jinnah just a year after coming into existence. It remained politically instable since then as it had no personality equal to that of Jinnah, who never groomed the second line.
Some historians are of the view that had the British not accepted the demand of independence and subsequent partition of India for a few more months, Pakistan would not have come into existence as Jinnah was ailing and soon died. The demand for a separate homeland for Muslims would have fizzled out.
Gandhi, on the other hand, reposed faith on Nehru, half a generation younger to him and Patel, as at a time only one person can become the prime minister. The decision was taken keeping in mind all the aspects. If the BJP rejected the claim of the man of the stature of Advani, who literally built the party from scratches, it has its own reason to do so. Thus, instead of questioning the wisdom of Gandhi, one must understand the whole situation in proper perspective.
If someone in the later generation in his family commits some mistakes, it is not for Nehru to be held responsible. After all, Indira did not succeed Nehru as it happens in dynastic rule, but was put up by the Syndicate in the Congress after the death of Lal Bahadur Shastri as they thought that she would be a ‘gungi gudiya’ (dumb doll) and allow them to rule from behind.
——
(Soroor Ahmed is a Patna-based freelance journalist. He writes on political, social, national and international issues.)