What do you think?
Rate this book
Sardar Patel : The Best PM India Never Had
"...[then] it seemed to me that Jawaharlal should be the new President [of Congress in 1946—and hence Prime Minister] ...I acted according to my best judgement but the way things have shaped since then has made me to realise that this was perhaps the greatest blunder of my political life... My second mistake was that when I decided not to stand myself, I did not support Sardar Patel." — Abul Kalam Azad, ‘India Wins Freedom’ "The problem of the [princely] states is so difficult that only you can solve it." —Gandhi to Sardar Patel "Patel possessed the organising ability of Bismarck, the astute statesmanship of Chanakya, and the single-minded devotion to the cause of national unity of Abraham Lincoln." —VV Giri, ex-President of India "Here was a man [Sardar Patel] with a crystal-clear mind who could see to the core of the problem within the shortest possible time… " —Frank Anthony It is not fully appreciated, but if one studies the unfolding pre-independence and the post-independence scenario between 1945 and 1950, and takes stock of the crucial period and the critical decisions taken, one has to acknowledge that it was not Gandhi or Nehru or any other leader but Sardar Patel who played an indispensably wise, critical, mature, decisive, responsible, steering leadership role. This book highlights that role. Sardar Patel boldly took upon himself the demanding and thankless task of critical and risky decision making that others were either too timid, or too uncertain, or too confused, or too cautious to take. It was he who took the lead in devising winning strategies and tactics post 1945. It is not so well known that Sardar had excelled in academics. He completed the 36-month, 9-terms law course at the Middle Temple (one of the Inns of Court, as London’s law colleges were called then) in about two years obtaining first class with honours, getting first rank, and winning a prize of 50 pounds! What is more he had self-financed his education in England through his law-practice in India, as his father was not in a position to support him. Through the dint of his labour and competence, he established a roaring law-practice upon return from England, which he gladly gave up upon a call from Gandhi. This was in sharp contrast to Nehru who with all the financial resources and facilities provided by his father had just scraped through in lower second division in England; and rather than being able to earn as a lawyer, despite his father’s established practice in Allahabad, had to remain financially dependent upon his father for himself and for his family. India of today is what was British India after partition, plus additional 40% geographical area on account of the integration of 548 Princely States into it (out of 562, 14 went to Pakistan), which Britain had declared to be independent upon lapse of their paramountcy. The credit for expanding India’s area by a massive 40% goes to Sardar Patel. This book provides interesting details on that integration. But for Sardar Patel Hyderabad would have been either another Pakistan or Kashmir. J&K would not have been a perennial problem as it has become, bleeding India profusely in terms of men, money and materials through the decades, and Kashmiri Pandits would not have seen the terrible days that they have, had Nehru allowed Sardar to handle J&K too, like he [Sardar] had successfully handled the integration of all the other Princely States. This book brings out all the critical details on both Hyderabad and Kashmir. This book covers interesting autobiographical details on Sardar Patel, and the related political and historical details on independence, partition, Gandhi, Nehru, and others to bring out why, as a dynamic, decisive, firm, feet-on-ground, pragmatic, and exceptionally competent and wise leader, Sardar Patel was what the young India desperately needed as its ‘Iron Man’ and the first PM. Unfortunately, he was the best first PM India never had!
- GenresHistory
284 pages, Paperback
Published September 28, 2018
53 people are currently reading
101 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
July 2, 2020
Backed by atleast 50+ books as references & statements from various contemporaries throughout the book, this book as serves as the most concise & comprehensive book for understanding the phenomenon that was Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel.
The author uses logic impeccably at various standpoints,raising various questions & discussing various viewpoints to make sure you could understand how important was Sardar Patel's role in the Congress. It felt like if Sardar Patel wasn't there, Congress would've shattered. He was a thread who carried all the pearls like Gandhi, Rajaji, Bose etc. together. He was the only person capable of taking rational decisions in the Congress & that made him a rival in the eyes of the deluded Nehru.
In a timeline marked by injustices, Sardar Patel remained the 'unsung' hero of Congress. This book cleared all the air about how shallow was Nehru & god forbid if Sardar didn't exist to deal with the extremely delicate case of the princely states.
The next time you see the Statue of Unity, don't mock it for the cost it took to build that. If not for Sardar Patel, there would've been atleast a 40% area of India not in our control as we are having today. His contemporaries who were his rivals also repented for opposing Sardar by saying that he was right & they were wrong. At every standpoint Sardar was vindicated. His prophecies would all turn true & would give Nehru horrors till his death. He had accurately predicted the China, Tibet, Kashmir danger which troubles us till date. Whenever people didn't listen to Patel, they had to pay(read: India had to pay).
Thanks to the wonderful author. He discussed so many aspects about Sardar Patel & Nehru,that nobody else normally does. He clearly has a beautiful knowledge of history & has clearly read hundreds of books before writing this up, which shows in the bibliography. I have no idea why he is so underrated. He deserves a round of applause for writing a no nonsense book & making us feel as if we ourselves are watching the whole reel of the Congress & what all conspiracies were happening in those times & how Sardar always rose to be the only Saviour.
Iron Man, Sardar Patel was indeed the best PM India never had.
The author uses logic impeccably at various standpoints,raising various questions & discussing various viewpoints to make sure you could understand how important was Sardar Patel's role in the Congress. It felt like if Sardar Patel wasn't there, Congress would've shattered. He was a thread who carried all the pearls like Gandhi, Rajaji, Bose etc. together. He was the only person capable of taking rational decisions in the Congress & that made him a rival in the eyes of the deluded Nehru.
In a timeline marked by injustices, Sardar Patel remained the 'unsung' hero of Congress. This book cleared all the air about how shallow was Nehru & god forbid if Sardar didn't exist to deal with the extremely delicate case of the princely states.
The next time you see the Statue of Unity, don't mock it for the cost it took to build that. If not for Sardar Patel, there would've been atleast a 40% area of India not in our control as we are having today. His contemporaries who were his rivals also repented for opposing Sardar by saying that he was right & they were wrong. At every standpoint Sardar was vindicated. His prophecies would all turn true & would give Nehru horrors till his death. He had accurately predicted the China, Tibet, Kashmir danger which troubles us till date. Whenever people didn't listen to Patel, they had to pay(read: India had to pay).
Thanks to the wonderful author. He discussed so many aspects about Sardar Patel & Nehru,that nobody else normally does. He clearly has a beautiful knowledge of history & has clearly read hundreds of books before writing this up, which shows in the bibliography. I have no idea why he is so underrated. He deserves a round of applause for writing a no nonsense book & making us feel as if we ourselves are watching the whole reel of the Congress & what all conspiracies were happening in those times & how Sardar always rose to be the only Saviour.
Iron Man, Sardar Patel was indeed the best PM India never had.
May 21, 2020
Amazing and heart touching book about Shree Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel's life and his various and amazing contributions before and after independence.
This books prooves that why he should or must become the first PM of India instead of Jawaharlal Nehru in terms of legally, Pratically, Ethically and by public and national interest.
Must read for every one.
This books prooves that why he should or must become the first PM of India instead of Jawaharlal Nehru in terms of legally, Pratically, Ethically and by public and national interest.
Must read for every one.
April 26, 2022
"This is an abridged version of the author’s other book: “Sardar Patel : The Iron Man who should have been India’s First PM”"
Well, it's more than worth reading, and really ought to be part of general education.
Excellent first chapter, succinctly outlining major points. It gives the biography and lifetime details in short, terse, succinct terms in a table form, which already helps one see the person and his life in proper context.
Later as one goes through the book, the details that one comes across are revealing, because mostly the history of freedom struggle, as propagated after independence in general education, has been concentrated on two names and one family, others being reduced to names barely mentioned.
So various details here that are quite public are still a revelation, to anyone who's not a professional historian.
That the language is an easy, simple, conversation level, helps make it an easy read for a normal reader.
***
After Sardar’s joining freedom movement, as per teaching of Gandhi he'd given everything to Freedom Struggle. Maniben too had been in the movement from a very young age, and later taken care of her father.
" ... When Sardar Patel expired, he had left nothing for his daughter. With Sardar no more, she had to vacate the house. She was left all alone to fend for herself, with no money and no house. Sardar had instructed her to give a bag and a book to Nehru upon his death.
"After Sardar’s death—which happened in Mumbai—Maniben dutifully went to Delhi, took an appointment with Nehru and met him. She handed over to him the bag and the book. It seems the book was an account book, and the bag contained rupees 35 lacs. After having done so, she waited for Nehru to express sympathy, enquire as to what she intended doing, where would she stay, her monetary position, whether she wanted anything, and what he could do for her. But, Nehru showed no interest and said nothing. After some time, she left disappointed.
"She returned to Ahmedabad to stay with a cousin. Neither Nehru, nor the Congress Party bothered about her well-being. ... "
One cannot help contrasting this with story of INA treasure as reported in Anuj Dhar's work on Netaji, two trunks filled with gold and diamond jewellery worth 2 crores and 22 crores respectively, reportedly taken straight from airport in Delhi when brought over from Japan and, as prr instructions, driven to the then PM Jawaharlal Nehru, and credited to his account, never to be heard of again.
***
"Mountbatten wrote to his mother on 14 June 1947: “I must stress the importance of Patel in the agreements so far reached. He has a rough exterior and an uncompromising manner… he has never wavered and has stood firm against inner voices and neutral indecisions that have sometimes afflicted his colleagues. Patel’s realism has also been a big factor in the acceptance of the Dominion Status formula.”{ACJ/136/L-2430}"
Author might have added a short introduction here - his mother, Princess Victoria of Battenberg, was daughter of Princess Alice, daughter of Queen Victoria. Her first cousins included a king of England and the then deposed Kaiser Wilhelm, apart from other royals; She had lost two sisters due to Russian revolution, Alexandra and Elizabeth, both of whom had married into Romanov family who were their cousins.
"Patel had himself admitted: “For several years, Gandhi and I were in perfect agreement. Mostly we agreed instinctively; but when the time for a big decision on the question of India’s independence came, we differed. I felt that we had to take independence there and then. We had, therefore, to agree to partition. I came to this conclusion after a great deal of heart-searching and with a great deal of sorrow. But I felt that if we did not accept partition, India would be split into many bits and completely ruined.”{ISS1} {NS/90}"
"Indeed, the Muslim League call for Pakistan and partition could only have been resisted if the Congress was prepared for a strong, sustained retaliatory violence, and a long drawn-out communal strife in cities, towns and villages. However, that was apparently beyond the Congress leadership brought up on Gandhian non-violence. The Congress leadership was incapable of American style civil war. If Netaji Subhas had been there, one could have thought about it.
"It is also worth noting that the Hindus and Sikhs of East Punjab and the Hindus of West Bengal had openly demanded partition. Gandhiji had himself admitted in his prayer meeting on 10 June 1947 that as “non-Muslim India is overwhelmingly in favour of partition”, he “could not coerce public opinion.”"
That this demand was an overwhelming response to the massacre perpetrated in Calcutta, ought to have been mentioned.
"A senior leader who stood out against partition, and voted against the Pant resolution, was Purshottamdas Tandon. He stated he was prepared to suffer the British rule a little longer than pay the heavy price of partition. He claimed the Nehru government had been intimidated by the Muslim League. He got a huge applause when at the end of his speech he said: “Let us fight both the British and the [Muslim] League.”"
***
"The British and the Muslim had started working in tandem to ensure partition and Pakistan, and to make as large a Pakistan as possible—as per the “16 May 1946 Cabinet Mission Plan” groupings, where Group-B (Punjab, Sindh, NWFP, Baluchistan), combined with Group-C (Assam and Bengal) could form Pakistan; leaving just Group-A (Madras, UP, Central provinces, Bombay, Bihar and Orissa) for India.
"The achievement of the same required practical proof on the ground that Muslims and Hindus cannot live together, and that Muslims dominated those provinces. That required violence and riots—Jinnah and the Muslim League were willing to invest on that; and the British were willing to look the other way when that happens. Gandhians were for non-violence, and hence for non-retaliation. That suited both the adversaries—the Muslim League and the British—tremendously. The British, of course, had all along been highly grateful to Gandhi for his guiding political principle of non-violence, and had, in gratitude, helped elevate him to the status of ‘Mahatma’.
"Ghaznafar Ali of the Muslim League had stated: “Mohammad Bin Qasim and Mahmud of Ghazni invaded India with armies composed of only a few thousands, and yet were able to overpower lakhs of Hindus. God willing, a few lakhs of Muslims will yet overwhelm crores of Hindus.”
"On one hand Jinnah had been arguing for and justifying Pakistan on the plea that Hindus and Muslims formed two nations, and that they couldn’t live together; while on the other hand he wanted the whole of Group-B (Punjab, Sindh, NWFP, Baluchistan) and Group-C (Assam and Bengal) provinces to form Pakistan; leaving just Group-A (Madras, UP, Central provinces, Bombay, Bihar and Orissa) for India. If Hindus and Muslims formed two nations, and they could not live together, as Jinnah argued, why would Hindu-majority Assam go to form Pakistan; and how were Hindus to live with Muslims in undivided Punjab and Bengal?
"When Mountbatten brought up the issue of partition of Punjab and Bengal, Jinnah advanced the counter-logic that the Hindus of Punjab and Bengal were respectively first Punjabis and Bengalis rather than being Hindus or Congressis, and therefore the provinces could not be divided, and the whole of them should form Pakistan. Mountbatten promptly pointed out the contradictions in Jinnah’s argument, telling him that if his logic were to be accepted there could be no case for Pakistan too! “I am afraid I drove the old gentleman quite mad,” reported Mountbatten jovially, “because whichever was his argument went I always pursued it to a stage beyond which he did not wish it to go.”"
Post independence, the same intentions have been followed, via a two pronged policy deliberately employed - one, illegal migration, especially to Northeast, chiefly from East Bengal, with intentions to populate Assam and then separate it; two, ousting Hindu populations, from any neighborhood across India, wherever muslims number more than a certain percentage, by threats and enacted violence.
And, of course, deliberately conducted policy of increasing population, in name of religion, while other populations of India control population and aim for education, prosperity and modernising, helps increase numbers, and demand in name of equal treatment while accusing anyone pointing at facts of communal bent helps a fraudulent propaganda of anti-muslim treatment to India in general that cannot be corrected as long as non-muslims exist.
***
"Jinnah and Muslim League’s diabolical design behind the Calcutta riots was to somehow make Calcutta a Muslim-majority city, and ensure its inclusion in Pakistan. The idea was to force exodus of Hindus out of Calcutta, trigger counter-riots against Muslims in Bihar, and thus force migration of Muslims out of Bihar, and into Calcutta, increasing its Muslim population.
"The riots spread to Bihar, UP, Punjab and NWFP. It all suited Jinnah: Hindus and Muslims can’t live together; Pakistan must be granted. The British didn’t bother much to quell the riots. They watched bemused—happy to let the world know what would happen without them. Further, the British had a vested interest in the creation of Pakistan; and they were delighted the ground was being readied for the purpose.
"Law and order was a provincial matter, and Bengal was under the majority control of the Muslim League, which, rather than quelling riots, was instigating it. Sardar Patel as Home Minister in the Interim Government asked for central takeover of the areas, but the demand was rejected by Viceroy Wavell. Patel wrote to Viceroy Wavell on 25 October 1946: “It would indeed be a tragic paradox if we who have undertaken the responsibility of the Government of India should be powerless to do anything to terminate the reign of terror.”
"The British were blatantly favouring the Muslim League over the Congress. This became further obvious when Viceroy Wavell, who remained blind to the riots in Calcutta and Noakhali in Bengal, promptly sent his Deputy Private Secretary Ian Scott on a mission to enquire into the riots in Bihar, where the Provincial Government was under the Congress. Significantly, Jinnah issued a press-statement on 26 November 1946 in the context of the Bihar riots asking for “Transfer of Population”: transfer of Muslims out of Bihar. Ian Scott conveniently suggested Bengal as the location of the Muslim evacuee camps. The Muslim League and the British administration were working in tandem to ensure Bengal became Pakistan!
"Both the British and the Muslim League wanted the riots and chaos to spread across Bengal, Assam, Punjab, Sind, NWFP, and other areas. More the chaos and riots, more the justification for partition and Pakistan. When Patel insisted with Viceroy Wavell for enforcement of Martial Law in disturbed areas, Wavell refused saying it was not necessary!
"When the question of partition of Bengal and Punjab rose, Jinnah pleaded with Mountbatten “not to destroy the unity of Bengal and Punjab, which had national characteristics in common: common history, common ways of life, common language, and where Hindus have stronger feelings as Bengalis or Punjabis than they have as members of the Congress.” In saying so, Jinnah apparently missed the irony that his logic also went against the logic of Pakistan!
"Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy (1892–1963), the then premier of Bengal, who had been responsible for the Calcutta Killings of 1946, was desperate to avoid any partition of Bengal, for he had ambition to head Group-C, Bengal plus Assam, as a separate nation. He had the backing of the British Governor, and had also secured the backing of the Congress Leaders, Sarat Chandra Bose and Kiran Shankar Ray, who desired an undivided Bengal. Kiran Shankar Ray was from East Bengal, and was leader of the Congress in the Bengal Legislative Assembly. Suhrawardy even proceeded to threaten those who supported division, and stated that “Calcutta will be sacked and burnt in case the partition idea is favoured.”
"Given such a situation, Dr Shyama Prasad Mookerjee and KC Neogy beseeched Sardar Patel: “…all our eyes are turned towards you in the hope that you will not fail to take whatever action is possible to save Bengal and Calcutta from utter ruin and bloodshed.”
"Patel responded: “Bengal cannot be isolated from the Indian Union. Talk of the idea of a sovereign republic of independent Bengal is a trap to induce the unwary and unwise to enter into the parlour of the Muslim League. The Congress Working Committee is fully aware of the situation in Bengal. Bengal has got to be partitioned if the non-Muslim population is to survive.”{DD2/43}
"Patel thereafter wrote to both Sarat Chandra Bose and Kiran Shankar Ray. It had the desired effect. Jinnah, rattled by the Congress demand for partition of Bengal and Punjab, called it a “sinister move actuated by spite and bitterness.”"
Here's the explanation of the absurd propaganda going on for decades, maligning Nehru and Patel, arguing that they insisted on partition for sake of power; as also the absurd argument repeated over and over, that Punjab cares for its other half, not for Bengal.
"With indescribable atrocities against Hindus in East Bengal going unabated, the GoI made an appeal to Pakistan to call a halt on the same. But, there was little response.
"It is worth noting in this connection that Gandhian non-violent principles yielded NOTHING. ... "
Slightly incorrect - it was repeatedly used to shame Hindus every which way, while muslim killers were supposed to be loved, honored, and handed over everything they demanded or took, from millions of extra square miles west of Ganga to millions more of lives of Hindus, because Gandhi said so.
" ... It was only tit-for-tat that brought Pakistan to the negotiating table.
"In Rajlakshmi Debi’s Bangla novel Kamal-lata, quoted by Tathagata Roy in his book ‘My People, Uprooted: A Saga of the Hindus of Eastern Bengal’ (Chapter 6), there is a conversation described between a Hindu from Mymensingh town and a Muslim from a Calcutta suburb sometime just after partition. In the process of haggling the Muslim says “Excuse me, but your position and ours are not the same. So long as Mahatma Gandhi is alive we have no fears. But you won’t be able to live here [East Bengal] much longer.”
To a reader not familiar with those names, it's confusing to see those names, belong as they do to major characters of Sharat Chandra Chatterjee's Srikant series.
"There was a marked difference between Punjab and Bengal in respect of the partition. In Punjab, the carnage was on both sides, East Punjab and West Punjab, although more in the Muslim-dominated West Punjab. In Bengal, the mayhem was mostly in the Muslim-dominated East Bengal. In Punjab, the migration was both ways: Muslims migrating from East Punjab in India to Pakistan, and Hindus migrating from Pakistan to East Punjab in India. In a way, there was a population transfer between West Punjab and East Punjab. In Bengal, the predominant migration was that of Hindus from East Bengal/Pakistan to West Bengal/India. There was a reverse migration of Muslims too, but comparatively far less.
"However, the continued violence against the Hindus in East Bengal had begun provoking retaliation in West Bengal. For example, the anti-Muslim riots in Howrah turned serious from 26 March 1950 onwards, leading to the beginning of migration of Muslims from West Bengal to East Bengal by March 1950. That is, the population transfer that had happened in Punjab in 1947-48 began to happen in Bengal belatedly by March 1950. It is this which alarmed Pakistan and the Muslim League leaders, who had hitherto been inciting the mobs in East Bengal, and were happy at Hindus being at the receiving end.
"It was only when the anti-Muslim riots in Howrah, in retaliation of the on-going carnage in East Bengal, took a serious turn from 26 March 1950 onwards that the Pakistan PM Liaquat Ali made his first conciliatory gesture in a speech at Karachi on 29 March 1950, and expressed his intention to travel to New Delhi on 2 April 1950 to work out a solution with Nehru.
"Liaquat Ali hurried to New Delhi on 2 April 1950, and signed the Nehru–Liaquat Pact, also called the Delhi Pact, on 8 April 1950. It provided for safety of refugees when they returned to dispose of their property; return of abducted women and looted property; derecognition of forced conversions; complete and equal right of citizenship and security of life and properties to minorities; and setting up of Minority Commission in each country.
"As expected, while India firmly implemented the Pact, not Pakistan. While the anti-Muslim violence in West Bengal was put down with a firm hand, and the migration of Muslims from West Bengal to East Bengal ceased; the violence against the Hindus in East Bengal continued unabated, so also the migration of Hindus from East Bengal to West Bengal. That is, the carnage became only one-sided: that of Hindus in East Bengal. Also, the migration became only one way: Pakistan to India.
"Looking to the track-record of the Muslim League leaders, who had themselves been inciting the mobs, Nehru should have known what the result of the pact would be. Sardar Patel was unhappy with the Pact, but being in the cabinet, didn’t oppose it. However, Shyama Prasad Mookerjee and KC Niyogee, the two central ministers from West Bengal, immediately resigned from the Union Cabinet in protest against the Pact.
"Rather than facilitating transfer of population between West and East Bengal, and removing forever the problem and the poison, Nehru extracted the following “benefits” for India from the Nehru-Liaquat pact: (1)Checked depletion of Muslim population from West Bengal and Assam by stopping their migration to Pakistan. (2)Increased the population of Muslims in West Bengal and Assam by allowing their reverse migration—allowing Muslims to return who had migrated. (3)Allowed fresh migration of Muslims from East Bengal. (5)Condemned the Hindus in East Bengal (a)to violence, (b)to second-class status, and (c)to remain at the mercy of Muslims. (6)Forced subsequent migration of Hindus from East Bengal to West Bengal (as the atrocities did not subside in Pakistan)."
***
"What was noteworthy was that on 20 April 1946, that is, nine days before the last date of nominations of 29 April 1946, Gandhi had indicated his preference for Nehru. Yet, not a single PCC nominated Nehru!"
" ... Gandhi prodded Kriplani to convince a few CWC members to propose Nehru’s name for the party president. Kriplani ....
Well, it's more than worth reading, and really ought to be part of general education.
Excellent first chapter, succinctly outlining major points. It gives the biography and lifetime details in short, terse, succinct terms in a table form, which already helps one see the person and his life in proper context.
Later as one goes through the book, the details that one comes across are revealing, because mostly the history of freedom struggle, as propagated after independence in general education, has been concentrated on two names and one family, others being reduced to names barely mentioned.
So various details here that are quite public are still a revelation, to anyone who's not a professional historian.
That the language is an easy, simple, conversation level, helps make it an easy read for a normal reader.
***
After Sardar’s joining freedom movement, as per teaching of Gandhi he'd given everything to Freedom Struggle. Maniben too had been in the movement from a very young age, and later taken care of her father.
" ... When Sardar Patel expired, he had left nothing for his daughter. With Sardar no more, she had to vacate the house. She was left all alone to fend for herself, with no money and no house. Sardar had instructed her to give a bag and a book to Nehru upon his death.
"After Sardar’s death—which happened in Mumbai—Maniben dutifully went to Delhi, took an appointment with Nehru and met him. She handed over to him the bag and the book. It seems the book was an account book, and the bag contained rupees 35 lacs. After having done so, she waited for Nehru to express sympathy, enquire as to what she intended doing, where would she stay, her monetary position, whether she wanted anything, and what he could do for her. But, Nehru showed no interest and said nothing. After some time, she left disappointed.
"She returned to Ahmedabad to stay with a cousin. Neither Nehru, nor the Congress Party bothered about her well-being. ... "
One cannot help contrasting this with story of INA treasure as reported in Anuj Dhar's work on Netaji, two trunks filled with gold and diamond jewellery worth 2 crores and 22 crores respectively, reportedly taken straight from airport in Delhi when brought over from Japan and, as prr instructions, driven to the then PM Jawaharlal Nehru, and credited to his account, never to be heard of again.
***
"Mountbatten wrote to his mother on 14 June 1947: “I must stress the importance of Patel in the agreements so far reached. He has a rough exterior and an uncompromising manner… he has never wavered and has stood firm against inner voices and neutral indecisions that have sometimes afflicted his colleagues. Patel’s realism has also been a big factor in the acceptance of the Dominion Status formula.”{ACJ/136/L-2430}"
Author might have added a short introduction here - his mother, Princess Victoria of Battenberg, was daughter of Princess Alice, daughter of Queen Victoria. Her first cousins included a king of England and the then deposed Kaiser Wilhelm, apart from other royals; She had lost two sisters due to Russian revolution, Alexandra and Elizabeth, both of whom had married into Romanov family who were their cousins.
"Patel had himself admitted: “For several years, Gandhi and I were in perfect agreement. Mostly we agreed instinctively; but when the time for a big decision on the question of India’s independence came, we differed. I felt that we had to take independence there and then. We had, therefore, to agree to partition. I came to this conclusion after a great deal of heart-searching and with a great deal of sorrow. But I felt that if we did not accept partition, India would be split into many bits and completely ruined.”{ISS1} {NS/90}"
"Indeed, the Muslim League call for Pakistan and partition could only have been resisted if the Congress was prepared for a strong, sustained retaliatory violence, and a long drawn-out communal strife in cities, towns and villages. However, that was apparently beyond the Congress leadership brought up on Gandhian non-violence. The Congress leadership was incapable of American style civil war. If Netaji Subhas had been there, one could have thought about it.
"It is also worth noting that the Hindus and Sikhs of East Punjab and the Hindus of West Bengal had openly demanded partition. Gandhiji had himself admitted in his prayer meeting on 10 June 1947 that as “non-Muslim India is overwhelmingly in favour of partition”, he “could not coerce public opinion.”"
That this demand was an overwhelming response to the massacre perpetrated in Calcutta, ought to have been mentioned.
"A senior leader who stood out against partition, and voted against the Pant resolution, was Purshottamdas Tandon. He stated he was prepared to suffer the British rule a little longer than pay the heavy price of partition. He claimed the Nehru government had been intimidated by the Muslim League. He got a huge applause when at the end of his speech he said: “Let us fight both the British and the [Muslim] League.”"
***
"The British and the Muslim had started working in tandem to ensure partition and Pakistan, and to make as large a Pakistan as possible—as per the “16 May 1946 Cabinet Mission Plan” groupings, where Group-B (Punjab, Sindh, NWFP, Baluchistan), combined with Group-C (Assam and Bengal) could form Pakistan; leaving just Group-A (Madras, UP, Central provinces, Bombay, Bihar and Orissa) for India.
"The achievement of the same required practical proof on the ground that Muslims and Hindus cannot live together, and that Muslims dominated those provinces. That required violence and riots—Jinnah and the Muslim League were willing to invest on that; and the British were willing to look the other way when that happens. Gandhians were for non-violence, and hence for non-retaliation. That suited both the adversaries—the Muslim League and the British—tremendously. The British, of course, had all along been highly grateful to Gandhi for his guiding political principle of non-violence, and had, in gratitude, helped elevate him to the status of ‘Mahatma’.
"Ghaznafar Ali of the Muslim League had stated: “Mohammad Bin Qasim and Mahmud of Ghazni invaded India with armies composed of only a few thousands, and yet were able to overpower lakhs of Hindus. God willing, a few lakhs of Muslims will yet overwhelm crores of Hindus.”
"On one hand Jinnah had been arguing for and justifying Pakistan on the plea that Hindus and Muslims formed two nations, and that they couldn’t live together; while on the other hand he wanted the whole of Group-B (Punjab, Sindh, NWFP, Baluchistan) and Group-C (Assam and Bengal) provinces to form Pakistan; leaving just Group-A (Madras, UP, Central provinces, Bombay, Bihar and Orissa) for India. If Hindus and Muslims formed two nations, and they could not live together, as Jinnah argued, why would Hindu-majority Assam go to form Pakistan; and how were Hindus to live with Muslims in undivided Punjab and Bengal?
"When Mountbatten brought up the issue of partition of Punjab and Bengal, Jinnah advanced the counter-logic that the Hindus of Punjab and Bengal were respectively first Punjabis and Bengalis rather than being Hindus or Congressis, and therefore the provinces could not be divided, and the whole of them should form Pakistan. Mountbatten promptly pointed out the contradictions in Jinnah’s argument, telling him that if his logic were to be accepted there could be no case for Pakistan too! “I am afraid I drove the old gentleman quite mad,” reported Mountbatten jovially, “because whichever was his argument went I always pursued it to a stage beyond which he did not wish it to go.”"
Post independence, the same intentions have been followed, via a two pronged policy deliberately employed - one, illegal migration, especially to Northeast, chiefly from East Bengal, with intentions to populate Assam and then separate it; two, ousting Hindu populations, from any neighborhood across India, wherever muslims number more than a certain percentage, by threats and enacted violence.
And, of course, deliberately conducted policy of increasing population, in name of religion, while other populations of India control population and aim for education, prosperity and modernising, helps increase numbers, and demand in name of equal treatment while accusing anyone pointing at facts of communal bent helps a fraudulent propaganda of anti-muslim treatment to India in general that cannot be corrected as long as non-muslims exist.
***
"Jinnah and Muslim League’s diabolical design behind the Calcutta riots was to somehow make Calcutta a Muslim-majority city, and ensure its inclusion in Pakistan. The idea was to force exodus of Hindus out of Calcutta, trigger counter-riots against Muslims in Bihar, and thus force migration of Muslims out of Bihar, and into Calcutta, increasing its Muslim population.
"The riots spread to Bihar, UP, Punjab and NWFP. It all suited Jinnah: Hindus and Muslims can’t live together; Pakistan must be granted. The British didn’t bother much to quell the riots. They watched bemused—happy to let the world know what would happen without them. Further, the British had a vested interest in the creation of Pakistan; and they were delighted the ground was being readied for the purpose.
"Law and order was a provincial matter, and Bengal was under the majority control of the Muslim League, which, rather than quelling riots, was instigating it. Sardar Patel as Home Minister in the Interim Government asked for central takeover of the areas, but the demand was rejected by Viceroy Wavell. Patel wrote to Viceroy Wavell on 25 October 1946: “It would indeed be a tragic paradox if we who have undertaken the responsibility of the Government of India should be powerless to do anything to terminate the reign of terror.”
"The British were blatantly favouring the Muslim League over the Congress. This became further obvious when Viceroy Wavell, who remained blind to the riots in Calcutta and Noakhali in Bengal, promptly sent his Deputy Private Secretary Ian Scott on a mission to enquire into the riots in Bihar, where the Provincial Government was under the Congress. Significantly, Jinnah issued a press-statement on 26 November 1946 in the context of the Bihar riots asking for “Transfer of Population”: transfer of Muslims out of Bihar. Ian Scott conveniently suggested Bengal as the location of the Muslim evacuee camps. The Muslim League and the British administration were working in tandem to ensure Bengal became Pakistan!
"Both the British and the Muslim League wanted the riots and chaos to spread across Bengal, Assam, Punjab, Sind, NWFP, and other areas. More the chaos and riots, more the justification for partition and Pakistan. When Patel insisted with Viceroy Wavell for enforcement of Martial Law in disturbed areas, Wavell refused saying it was not necessary!
"When the question of partition of Bengal and Punjab rose, Jinnah pleaded with Mountbatten “not to destroy the unity of Bengal and Punjab, which had national characteristics in common: common history, common ways of life, common language, and where Hindus have stronger feelings as Bengalis or Punjabis than they have as members of the Congress.” In saying so, Jinnah apparently missed the irony that his logic also went against the logic of Pakistan!
"Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy (1892–1963), the then premier of Bengal, who had been responsible for the Calcutta Killings of 1946, was desperate to avoid any partition of Bengal, for he had ambition to head Group-C, Bengal plus Assam, as a separate nation. He had the backing of the British Governor, and had also secured the backing of the Congress Leaders, Sarat Chandra Bose and Kiran Shankar Ray, who desired an undivided Bengal. Kiran Shankar Ray was from East Bengal, and was leader of the Congress in the Bengal Legislative Assembly. Suhrawardy even proceeded to threaten those who supported division, and stated that “Calcutta will be sacked and burnt in case the partition idea is favoured.”
"Given such a situation, Dr Shyama Prasad Mookerjee and KC Neogy beseeched Sardar Patel: “…all our eyes are turned towards you in the hope that you will not fail to take whatever action is possible to save Bengal and Calcutta from utter ruin and bloodshed.”
"Patel responded: “Bengal cannot be isolated from the Indian Union. Talk of the idea of a sovereign republic of independent Bengal is a trap to induce the unwary and unwise to enter into the parlour of the Muslim League. The Congress Working Committee is fully aware of the situation in Bengal. Bengal has got to be partitioned if the non-Muslim population is to survive.”{DD2/43}
"Patel thereafter wrote to both Sarat Chandra Bose and Kiran Shankar Ray. It had the desired effect. Jinnah, rattled by the Congress demand for partition of Bengal and Punjab, called it a “sinister move actuated by spite and bitterness.”"
Here's the explanation of the absurd propaganda going on for decades, maligning Nehru and Patel, arguing that they insisted on partition for sake of power; as also the absurd argument repeated over and over, that Punjab cares for its other half, not for Bengal.
"With indescribable atrocities against Hindus in East Bengal going unabated, the GoI made an appeal to Pakistan to call a halt on the same. But, there was little response.
"It is worth noting in this connection that Gandhian non-violent principles yielded NOTHING. ... "
Slightly incorrect - it was repeatedly used to shame Hindus every which way, while muslim killers were supposed to be loved, honored, and handed over everything they demanded or took, from millions of extra square miles west of Ganga to millions more of lives of Hindus, because Gandhi said so.
" ... It was only tit-for-tat that brought Pakistan to the negotiating table.
"In Rajlakshmi Debi’s Bangla novel Kamal-lata, quoted by Tathagata Roy in his book ‘My People, Uprooted: A Saga of the Hindus of Eastern Bengal’ (Chapter 6), there is a conversation described between a Hindu from Mymensingh town and a Muslim from a Calcutta suburb sometime just after partition. In the process of haggling the Muslim says “Excuse me, but your position and ours are not the same. So long as Mahatma Gandhi is alive we have no fears. But you won’t be able to live here [East Bengal] much longer.”
To a reader not familiar with those names, it's confusing to see those names, belong as they do to major characters of Sharat Chandra Chatterjee's Srikant series.
"There was a marked difference between Punjab and Bengal in respect of the partition. In Punjab, the carnage was on both sides, East Punjab and West Punjab, although more in the Muslim-dominated West Punjab. In Bengal, the mayhem was mostly in the Muslim-dominated East Bengal. In Punjab, the migration was both ways: Muslims migrating from East Punjab in India to Pakistan, and Hindus migrating from Pakistan to East Punjab in India. In a way, there was a population transfer between West Punjab and East Punjab. In Bengal, the predominant migration was that of Hindus from East Bengal/Pakistan to West Bengal/India. There was a reverse migration of Muslims too, but comparatively far less.
"However, the continued violence against the Hindus in East Bengal had begun provoking retaliation in West Bengal. For example, the anti-Muslim riots in Howrah turned serious from 26 March 1950 onwards, leading to the beginning of migration of Muslims from West Bengal to East Bengal by March 1950. That is, the population transfer that had happened in Punjab in 1947-48 began to happen in Bengal belatedly by March 1950. It is this which alarmed Pakistan and the Muslim League leaders, who had hitherto been inciting the mobs in East Bengal, and were happy at Hindus being at the receiving end.
"It was only when the anti-Muslim riots in Howrah, in retaliation of the on-going carnage in East Bengal, took a serious turn from 26 March 1950 onwards that the Pakistan PM Liaquat Ali made his first conciliatory gesture in a speech at Karachi on 29 March 1950, and expressed his intention to travel to New Delhi on 2 April 1950 to work out a solution with Nehru.
"Liaquat Ali hurried to New Delhi on 2 April 1950, and signed the Nehru–Liaquat Pact, also called the Delhi Pact, on 8 April 1950. It provided for safety of refugees when they returned to dispose of their property; return of abducted women and looted property; derecognition of forced conversions; complete and equal right of citizenship and security of life and properties to minorities; and setting up of Minority Commission in each country.
"As expected, while India firmly implemented the Pact, not Pakistan. While the anti-Muslim violence in West Bengal was put down with a firm hand, and the migration of Muslims from West Bengal to East Bengal ceased; the violence against the Hindus in East Bengal continued unabated, so also the migration of Hindus from East Bengal to West Bengal. That is, the carnage became only one-sided: that of Hindus in East Bengal. Also, the migration became only one way: Pakistan to India.
"Looking to the track-record of the Muslim League leaders, who had themselves been inciting the mobs, Nehru should have known what the result of the pact would be. Sardar Patel was unhappy with the Pact, but being in the cabinet, didn’t oppose it. However, Shyama Prasad Mookerjee and KC Niyogee, the two central ministers from West Bengal, immediately resigned from the Union Cabinet in protest against the Pact.
"Rather than facilitating transfer of population between West and East Bengal, and removing forever the problem and the poison, Nehru extracted the following “benefits” for India from the Nehru-Liaquat pact: (1)Checked depletion of Muslim population from West Bengal and Assam by stopping their migration to Pakistan. (2)Increased the population of Muslims in West Bengal and Assam by allowing their reverse migration—allowing Muslims to return who had migrated. (3)Allowed fresh migration of Muslims from East Bengal. (5)Condemned the Hindus in East Bengal (a)to violence, (b)to second-class status, and (c)to remain at the mercy of Muslims. (6)Forced subsequent migration of Hindus from East Bengal to West Bengal (as the atrocities did not subside in Pakistan)."
***
"What was noteworthy was that on 20 April 1946, that is, nine days before the last date of nominations of 29 April 1946, Gandhi had indicated his preference for Nehru. Yet, not a single PCC nominated Nehru!"
" ... Gandhi prodded Kriplani to convince a few CWC members to propose Nehru’s name for the party president. Kriplani ....
December 22, 2020
Iron is strong irrespective of the blows!
My gratitude to you, Shri. Rajnikant Puranik for detailing the facts about Sardar and also the political climate during pre-independence & post-independence.
India, today is still a developing country, thanks to Nehru. One has to read this book to understand as to who gave birth to dynasty politics, minority-majority religion based politics, curbing the economical growth of economy. In contrary, the great Sardar and his team are responsible for integrating 548 Princely States except for Kashmir as the international affairs expert Nehru took upon himself to deal with J&K region. And the result of J&K is there to be seen. Thanks to Sardar that we have Hyderabad with us.
There are many eye opening details that we, the citizens of India must know.
Felt very emotional reading the part of Post Death treatment by the them PM to Sardar.
My gratitude to you, Shri. Rajnikant Puranik for detailing the facts about Sardar and also the political climate during pre-independence & post-independence.
India, today is still a developing country, thanks to Nehru. One has to read this book to understand as to who gave birth to dynasty politics, minority-majority religion based politics, curbing the economical growth of economy. In contrary, the great Sardar and his team are responsible for integrating 548 Princely States except for Kashmir as the international affairs expert Nehru took upon himself to deal with J&K region. And the result of J&K is there to be seen. Thanks to Sardar that we have Hyderabad with us.
There are many eye opening details that we, the citizens of India must know.
Felt very emotional reading the part of Post Death treatment by the them PM to Sardar.
June 4, 2021
Being a Gujarati myself reading about Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel makes me so proud. The book does total justice to Sardar Patel’s life and his significant and imperiahable contribution to India, before and after independence.
Apart from having various repetitions within the book itself, the author has taken alot of his own writings from another book of his named “Nehru’s 97 Blunders”. Also the book is less about Sardar Patel and more about comparisions between Sardar Patel and Nehru.
The author seems a little too prejudiced against Nehru, who did lack political wisdom but made an honest and sincere attempt as the first Prime Minister of independent India. Sardar was definitely the better choice for being the first Indian Prime Minister but claming that Nehru did no rights and Sardar did no wrongs, is a little too much for me.
Apart from having various repetitions within the book itself, the author has taken alot of his own writings from another book of his named “Nehru’s 97 Blunders”. Also the book is less about Sardar Patel and more about comparisions between Sardar Patel and Nehru.
The author seems a little too prejudiced against Nehru, who did lack political wisdom but made an honest and sincere attempt as the first Prime Minister of independent India. Sardar was definitely the better choice for being the first Indian Prime Minister but claming that Nehru did no rights and Sardar did no wrongs, is a little too much for me.
September 1, 2023
This book gives a good overview of Sardars life. Quite a few things which I did not know before though I did know his significant contributions which made him definitely one of our top most leaders of the freedom struggle if not the most important. If not for Sardar we would have not being a single country and would have balkanized under the influence of foreign powers and local satraps. We remain a democracy in true sense due to him. we will be forever in his debt
the way the book is written is a bit topic based essay type which is bit unlike others which are told as tales. The continuous comparison with Nehru persists throughout the book. Though it is very crucial since they represented opposite views on the most important things related to India polity in the first half of the previous century and the making of India. We definitely lost an important opportunity to set our country in the right trajectory in the early part of our life since Nehru was preferred over Sardar. Of course we are at the liberty of deciding this well in hindsight. I wonder if the people who are loathed by the Right in India were just ordinary people who might have their hearts on the right side but just too incompetent ill informed or fallible in their own ego to understand what is of the larger good for India. Anyway i will definitely recommend this book as an informative read if not a rousing chronicle of one of our founding fathers.
the way the book is written is a bit topic based essay type which is bit unlike others which are told as tales. The continuous comparison with Nehru persists throughout the book. Though it is very crucial since they represented opposite views on the most important things related to India polity in the first half of the previous century and the making of India. We definitely lost an important opportunity to set our country in the right trajectory in the early part of our life since Nehru was preferred over Sardar. Of course we are at the liberty of deciding this well in hindsight. I wonder if the people who are loathed by the Right in India were just ordinary people who might have their hearts on the right side but just too incompetent ill informed or fallible in their own ego to understand what is of the larger good for India. Anyway i will definitely recommend this book as an informative read if not a rousing chronicle of one of our founding fathers.
October 18, 2025
A detailed account of Sardar Patel and his involvement and contributions to India's freedom fights. The book mostly takes an impartial view (despite the book title) of the events and politics during that time. It is interesting to read about the politics and inner fights within congress. Through this book, the author describes a leader, who, if was elected as India's first PM --- may have set India on a very different course after independence. A must read for any buff of Indian history, politics and freedom struggles
January 17, 2022
Truth indeed tastes bitter!
Q: Who a national leader should be?
A: The one who has the ability to listen to their team, gutsy enough to take the timely critical decisions in the interest of one's people and moreover one's nation.
Learnings-
-One's own interest should never prevail over one's nation.
- “Leaders who don't listen will eventually be surrounded by people who have nothing to say.”― Andy Stanley
Q: Who a national leader should be?
A: The one who has the ability to listen to their team, gutsy enough to take the timely critical decisions in the interest of one's people and moreover one's nation.
Learnings-
-One's own interest should never prevail over one's nation.
- “Leaders who don't listen will eventually be surrounded by people who have nothing to say.”― Andy Stanley
December 27, 2021
Sardar Patel was the man needed to captain India to new heights.
He was a born administrator, with his feet firmly planted in realism rather than idealism , clear vision and an iron will.
He is a study in contrast to Nehru
A very good read to get to know about Sardar Patel.
He was a born administrator, with his feet firmly planted in realism rather than idealism , clear vision and an iron will.
He is a study in contrast to Nehru
A very good read to get to know about Sardar Patel.
September 29, 2021
Eye-opener
There were so many preband post independence facts that I was ignorant about and so impressed with Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel 🙏🏻🙏🏻
There were so many preband post independence facts that I was ignorant about and so impressed with Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel 🙏🏻🙏🏻
January 23, 2021
The Great Sarda who build the INDIA
One of the best book written on Sarda Patel. It’s tell us about the great work done by Sarda Patel and also tell us about the difference between working of Nehru & Patel.
One of the best book written on Sarda Patel. It’s tell us about the great work done by Sarda Patel and also tell us about the difference between working of Nehru & Patel.
February 12, 2022
Current Favorite! I get to know about our 1900's history. Sardar is truly the Iron Man. This book is a try to covers the truth that is the reverse of what most people know or taught in schools.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews