Sardar Patel's Approach to Kashmir and Historical Redefinition
India's 1947 partition marked the beginning of a complex political and social journey for the nation, particularly in relation to the Kashmir issue. While Jawaharlal Nehru's approach to post-partition challenges remains a topic of much discussion, it is intriguing to speculate how Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel would have handled the Kashmir question. This article explores the potential strategies Patel might have employed, the implications for India's historical narrative, and the role of Hindutva ideologues in reinterpreting these events.
Strategic Retention: Patel's Perspective
Had Sardar Patel, one of the most revered figures of the Indian independence struggle, been the Prime Minister in 1947, he likely would have resolved the Kashmir issue expeditiously. Unlike Nehru, who dealt with the situation quickly but lacked a coherent long-term strategy, Patel's approach would have been more decisive. Instead of attempting reconciliation, Patel might have preferred a clear confrontation, instructing Kashmir to join Pakistan. As Kashmir was geographically located on the border of Pakistan and was predominantly Muslim, this move would have eliminated the challenge posed by a potential hesitant state trying to align with Pakistan.
Primary Concerns: However, Patel was more concerned about regions within India that were at risk of joining Pakistan. States like Junagadh in Gujarat and Hyderabad in South India were of greater immediate concern. These areas posed a direct threat to India's territorial integrity and required urgent attention and control to prevent a domino effect of secession.
Historical Redefinition and Hindutva Ideology
The reinterpretation of history, particularly by Hindutva ideologues, has been a focal point in recent discussions. These individuals are attempting to redefine the image of Muslim rulers and leaders, often through artificial narratives and selective historical information. Critics argue that this reinterpretation is driven by political and ideational agendas rather than a genuine scholarly approach.
Figures like Dinkar Joshi and other neo-Hindutva historians play a significant role in promulgating these narratives, while the broader 'internet Hindus' mold historical information based on their biases and limited knowledge. This approach is often viewed as shallow and detrimental to a comprehensive understanding of complex events.
Implications of Patel's Actions
The actions of Patel, as Home Minister during the partition, indicate a more pragmatic and less sentimental approach to governance. His role in ignoring the massacre of Muslims in Hyderabad, Punjab, and Delhi is often dismissed in favor of his other contributions, such as ensuring peace in Junagadh and Hyderabad. Critics argue that it would be unfair to judge Patel solely on his actions in the face of partition.
A historian or any investigator does not focus on the personal exchanges between Patel and Nehru, but rather on the actions taken during their tenure. For instance, the Partition of Punjab and Bengal, and the distribution of assets to Pakistan, were significant decisions that required Patel's approval.
There is no concrete evidence to definitively state Patel's stance on Article 370, although it is reasonable to infer that his support played a crucial role in its passage. Furthermore, his ban on the RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) seems to indicate his desire to maintain political stability and balance within his party and the bureaucratic class.
PM Modi's Projections and Historical Arguments
Recent statements by Prime Minister Narendra Modi about Patel include the suggestion that he would have handled the Kashmir situation differently. Modi argues that Patel would have rejected Lord Mountbatten's advice to involve the United Nations and would have allowed the Indian Army to advance further towards Domel. This argument posits that without UN intervention, Kashmir's situation might have been resolved sooner, and Azad Kashmir could have been prevented from forming.
However, it is important to recognize that Patel's strategic decision not to support further military operations may have been influenced by practical concerns. The premature ceasefire, which followed Patel's advice, led to a loss of Skardu to Pakistan. Lieutenant Colonel Sher Jung Thapa, sent to Skardu with a small force, endured a six-month siege where Pakistani forces tragically massacred all Sikhs and raped countless women, including elderly individuals, after surrendering due to food shortages.
While Patel may have hoped for a swift resolution, the consequences of his actions highlight the delicate balance between immediate military victory and long-term political stability. In contrast, Nehru's decision to involve the UN provided India with a strategic lever to combat potential international pressure for decades, ensuring long-term stability in the region.
These contrasting approaches illustrate the complex nature of post-partition governance and the enduring impact of historical decisions on future generations.