Skip to main content

Urvish Kothari's Sardar

Urvish Kothari
It was August 20, 2009 forenoon. I barged into the small cabin of a senior home department babu, an IAS bureaucrat who is currently working in the general administration department of the Narendra Modi administration, seeking to humbly “advise” the government on IAS postings. I found him “busier than he was”, to quote from one of Geoffrey Chaucer’s characterizations. The babu was too engrossed in scanning through BJP leader Jaswant Singh’s book, “Jinnah: India – Partition – Independence”, banned by the Gujarat government a day earlier for allegedly casting aspersions on Sardar Patel’s supposed role in partitioning India. “I am too busy. I have been given the task of finding out the objectionable references which are critical of Sardar Patel”, the official said, frantically looking into the index pages on the backside of the hard cover book. Why now? I wondered. The book had already been banned! “So was the book banned without reading it? And when did you receive the book?”, I inquired. And his answer said it all: “We received its first copy today by the morning flight…”A thought came to my mind: how casually Sardar was being treated by those who claim to live up by his legacy. Modi ordered banning late on August 19, sitting in Shimla. The home department, operating under him, just followed the order, without even having a copy of the book. It’s quite another thing that, based on a PIL, in less than a month’s time the Gujarat High Court set aside the Modi order, saying it curtailed “fundamental rights”. Expectedly, the effort to capitalize on Sardar continued. Exactly a year later, Modi came up with a fresh idea – to give India’s Iron Man the tallest iconic stature. He approved a proposal for constructing a 182-metre high statue of Sardar Patel, 10 metres higher than the highest Crazy Horse Memorial sculpture being carved in Mount Rushmore in Black Hills, South Dakota. While the proposal has been pushed by hiring a consultant, Turner Project Management, which conceptualized the world’s tallest building, Burj Khalifa, none in the powerdom is able to fathom – from where will the money required for it come, an estimated Rs 2,500 crore!
Many still live under the delusion that Modi is the true follower of Sardar. But gone are the days when he was nicknamed “Chhote Sardar”. Now, he is supposed to no less than Sardar. In fact, state Cabinet minister Bhuprendrasinh Chudasma, a long-time Modi protégé, seems to believe that Modi is one step ahead. Chudasma told me once that Modi has gone beyond acting like an ordinary human, acquiring “superhuman” characteristics. “Sincerely, you must believe me. You can quote me”, he insisted. It is in this context that I am tempted to refer to a book by my friend and virulent writer Urvish Kothari, “Sardar: Sacho Manas, Sachi Vat” (Urvish translates it as meaning "The truth regarding a fair man"). Its second edition is about to be released by the publishing house he and two other colleagues have just founded, Saarthak Prakashan. Some of its chapters lay bare at least one fact: that even though Sardar may have developed a little attraction towards Hindutva, he was a “practical” Gandhian, whose governance didn’t suggest an iota of antipathy towards any particular community.
The chapter on misconceptions about Sardar is especially interesting. It’s a must read for all those who are critical of Sardar as also those who seek to use him for political ends. Urvish writes, “One of the biggest misconceptions about Sardar is that he was anti-Muslim… Sardar’s attitude towards Muslims can be summed up by saying that he was not Gandhi. But surely was a disciple of Gandhi.” Urvish gives one instance after another to prove his point. During the Bardoli satyagraha, the British rulers, in an effort to break Hindu-Muslim unity, hired a few Pathans to ensure that at least Muslims pay up a higher land revenue tax, against which the farmers had protested. “Sardar didn’t let the Hindu-Muslim unity break. He ensured that Muslims became the chief complainants against the Pathans’ divisive tactics”, Urvish recalls.
Even as recognizing that there were differences between “Gandhi’s idealism, Nehru’s secularism and Sardar’s beliefs”, Urvish recalls how, during the communal holocaust in the wake of the Partition, Sardar personally reached Amritsar to convince the Sikhs to allow vulnerable Muslim groups to pass by. “Brave-hearts do not massacre innocent and unprotected men, women and children. You must pledge to ensure security to the vulnerable Muslims”, he told them. His efforts brought fruit. The Sikhs allow Muslim groups to pass through Amristar without any fear, and reach Pakistan.
As the first home minister of Independent India, Urvish says, Sardar took such drastic steps such as imposing collective fine in areas where communal riots had taken place. During those days such fabricated stories – like Sardar allowed a train full of dead bodies to reach Pakistan – were afloat. However, few know that he organized a special train for Delhi-based Muslims belonging to Rampur to go to their home town in the western part of Punjab, now in Pakistan. The Nawab of Rampur wrote, on September 13, 1947, that he was “immensely grateful” to Sardar for showing the special gesture towards “my people”. In fact, Sardar ordered steps like setting up “special village security teams” in eastern Pakistan to ensure that the trains carrying Muslims to Pakistan are not harmed. “Immediate collective fine should be imposed if these trains are harmed or the railway tracks are damaged”, he instructed.
Referring to a letter by Rajendra Prasad, who had written about how, as a result of a Meo Muslim protest, there was a sense of insecurity among non-Muslims in Delhi, Sardar hit back, “I am attaching newspaper clippings. You can see, the attack in Delhi is one-sided. The attackers are mainly Hindus and Sikhs. The reports suggest fear complex among Hindus is ill-founded.” He also said that a rumour was being spread that the government had granted Rs 5 lakh to Meo Muslims, and this would, if anything, only “incite the Hindus.”
Urvish believes, it is in this overall context that one should assess a statement by Sardar in Lucknow in January 1948, cited by many, including socialists and communists, as his communal bias. He advised, as a “real friend of Muslims”, that those who are not faithful to India should leave for Pakistan. It was a special situation, demanding particular kind of action. This was needed in order to avoid bloodshed. Quoting an instance, Urvish cites how riots broke out in Mumbai, affecting the livelihood of Muslims and Pathans working at the port. “He instructed Morarji Desai to work out ways to exchange these Pathans and Muslims with the Hindus working at the Karachi port”, Urvish says. The Mahatma’s solution would perhaps have been different – to ensure that Hindus and Muslims lived together. But a “practical” Sardar seemed to think otherwise.
Far from being anti-Muslim, Sardar wanted someone from the Muslim leadership to act in the same way as Gandhi had in Bihar. “One should see how he has deeply involved himself to save the life of the Muslims in Bihar. Yet, it is regrettable that there is no one from the Muslim League has come forward to save the minorities in the Muslim-majority areas”, Urvish quotes Sardar as saying.
Even if one assumes for a moment that Modi was not involve in the Gujarat riots of 2002, there is nothing to suggest that he followed Sardar’s ways of governance to save minorities, who were the chief target. To quote Urvish from one of his blogs, “It is in Modi’s reign, and under his watch, that the Hindus in the Sabarmati Express and thereafter, during the riots, Muslims and others got mercilessly butchered. For both these acts, the moral responsibility rests solely with the chief minister. If instead of mouthing platitudes such as ‘It’s natural for every action to have a reaction. Neither does one want action, nor a reaction’, he could have chosen to act as an elected leader should, and dealt with the rioters firmly. That would have been enough to send a strong signal to the lumpen elements everywhere, that no one was above the law.”
During one of the early days of the riots, I went around with Modi’s mentor Shankarsinh Vaghela, a former BJP leader who joined had the Congress three years earlier. He was visiting the affected Muslim regions of North Gujarat. All through, Vaghela advised Muslim leaders to buy up land and form separate Muslim localities, away from their original place of living. “This alone would ensure your future safety”, he told them everywhere. Not a Gandhian approach, but, one is tempted to say, it was somewhat nearer to the “practical” solution Sardar once came up with!


Popular posts from this blog

Surprised? Communist candidate in Ahmedabad bypoll in a Hindutva bastion

On October 11, 2019 morning, as I was scanning through daily news online (I don’t read papers now), I found that both BJP and Congress candidates from Ahmedabad’s Amraiwadi assembly constituency, which fell vacant following the victory of its BJP MLA in the Lok Sabha polls, have been asked to explain as to why they had cash in hand for election campaign, and why they did not deposit their money in a bank account. Fighting the bypoll, BJP’s Jagdish Patel and Congress’ Dharmendra Patel had declared they possessed Rs 1.81 lakh and Rs 1.70 lakh as cash in hand, respectively, for election expenditure.

Tree-felling for greenery? Gujarat govt 'accepted' proposal; awaits implementation

The other day, I went to Nadiad, a town in Central Gujarat, about 55 kilometres from Ahmedabad. For a change, I took an alternate route, which falls between two toll roads – the Expressway and the National Highway. What surprised me was, I saw truckloads of wooden logs moving to and fro on this state highway soon after I left Ahmedabad. I was immediately reminded of a "tree enthusiast" I had met in 2007. Introduced by former chief secretary PK Laheri, who was then chairman of the Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd (SSNNL), Jayantibhai Lakdawala came to my Times of India office in Gandhinagar with a unique proposal, which, he said, he had put up before the Gujarat government to grow more trees.

What was wrong with Rahul Gandhi's Chowkidar chor hai campaign?

A few days back, I came across an interesting Facebook post by Vinod Chand, an FB friend. I always read his comments with great interest. This one was on Rahul Gandhi launching what he called “a broadside on Narendra Modi” during the initial phase of the campaign during the last Lok Sabha polls -- “Chowkidar chor hai.” However, during the later phase of the campaign the slogan appeared to have been dropped, not because it seemed derogatory, but perhaps because it was not having the “desired impact.”

When Gandhi said Congress can 'only die with the nation'; warned of its weedy growth

I don’t recall when, why and how, but I have been under the impression for decades that Mahatma Gandhi wanted the Congress dissolved after India attained Independence. However, a few days ago, I was pleasantly surprised on seeing a Facebook post by Hari Desai, a well-known Gujarati journalist and a Sardar Patel expert, putting on record and claiming that this, indeed, was never the case. Desai released the photograph of “Harijan”, edited by Gandhi himself, dated February 1, 1948, which carried an article by Gandhi written on January 27, 1948, three days before he was murdered, clearly stating that the “Indian National Congress ... cannot be allowed to die”, and that it can “only die with the nation.”

A top Gujarat High Court lawyer who lived and worked for the underprivileged

When I came to Ahmedabad to join as assistant editor of the Times of India in 1993, I didn’t know Girish Patel was a senior advocate of the Gujarat High Court. Apart from assisting the then editor, Tushar Bhatt, my job was to specifically look after the editorial page, which also meant I should be selecting from among the letters to the editor that we would get, edit them appropriately, and put them in the Letters to the Editor column.

Nitish Kumar a 'Modi-fied' chief minister 'refusing' to hark to reason

Yesterday, I came across an unusual Facebook post by my veteran journalist colleague, Law Kumar Mishra. It recalls an incident which took place when Mishra was posted in Rajkot as the Times of India correspondent during of the worst droughts in the region in late 1980s. At that time Amarsinh Chaudhury was Gujarat chief minister. Currently Patna, Mishra compares how Chaudhary handled drought with the way Nitish Kumar has been handling Bihar floods.

Enlightened Buddha didn't want monks to get enchanted by the glance of a woman

Some of my Dalit friends, including Martin Macwan, whom I respect as one of the best human rights activists I have met, have a great fascination for Buddhism. Nearly all Dalit rallies or functions I have attended carry with them Buddha’s photographs. Probably, one reason could be that Dalit icon Babasaheb Ambedkar converted to Buddhism because he believed this was the only religion of India which does not believe in casteism. Many Dalits, not without reason, get converted to Buddhism.

Attack on Gandhi: Where diehard Left and extreme Right appear to meet

Another Gandhi Jayanti has come and gone. Several of the top comments – some which we also published in – on this occasion hovered around US president Donald Trump calling Prime Minister Narendra Modi “father of India”. Perhaps things wouldn’t have taken a turn that it did had not Modi’s “diehard” followers like Union minister Jitendra Singh going so far as to say that those who “do not feel proud” of Trump’s comment that Modi is the “father of India”, do not consider themselves Indians.

The enigma called Amit Shah

Those were turbulent days. It was, I remember, second half of March 2002. The post-Godhra riots in Ahmedabad, as elsewhere in Gujarat, may have lost their intensity, but rioting had still not stopped. It was my first meeting with Amit Shah, Gujarat’s former minister of state for home, who has shot into prominence after the CBI arrested him in 2010 allegedly for being an accomplice in a triple murder case, involving the fake encounter of a gangster, Sohrabuddin Sheikh, his wife Kauserbi, and aide Tulsiram Prajapati. At that time, he was MLA from what then was one of the largest state assembly constituencies, Sarkhej, in Ahmedabad, with a voters’ strength of 10 lakh. All that I knew of him was, he was “very popular” in his constituency, almost invincible. He had just met chief minister Narendra Modi, and I had a very vague idea on his proximity to Modi, who had taken over reins in Gujarat.
Shah was coming out of the chief minister’s office (CMO), situated on the fifth floor of Block No…

Why Gujarat imposed mobile internet curfew during the Patel agitation

It was Wednesday, October 31, 1984. After finalizing the semi-left Link newsweekly, for which I worked then, the office driver boldly drove the Ambassador late at night through Delhi streets, which were already in the grip of anti-Sikh riots, erupted following the assassination of Indira Gandhi. The driver squeezed his way through burning vehicles. At several places we could see houses in flames and heard painful, shrieking voices. It was a ghastly scenario, of the type I had never witnessed, or even imagined, before. I reached home, a middle class South Delhi locality; to my consolation all was quiet, though we had a Sikh neighbour.