Sardar’s Legacy

Sardar Patel was, in fact, opposed to going to the United Nations at all (on Kashmir). He had resisted this in the case of Junagadh and Hyderabad as well. And his logic was one of basic realism: that India should not submit its issues to the judgement and interests of other powers

It is a great pleasure to share some thoughts with all of you today on Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and governance. Indeed, for anyone who has studied his life, good and strong governance is naturally associated with him. If I were to pick two other characteristics, I think nationalist and realist come immediately to mind. And this is not just me; it is the popular image of the Sardar that has remained deep in our consciousness even 74 years after he passed away.

2. Much has been written about him, both directly and with reference to the events and personages of that period. There is a widely held perception that the conventional narrative with which we are all familiar has not done adequate justice to him. That is attributed to the politics of that era; but I do not want to go into it on this occasion. My hope, perhaps even expectation, is that with the passage of time and a more balanced and objective debate in our society, the value of Sardar Patel’s multiple contributions would be given the recognition they deserve.Allow me today to essentially focus on some of them and highlight their contemporary relevance.

3. I’m sure all of you would agree with me, it is no exaggeration to assert that but for Sardar Patel’s leadership, the story of the integration of Indian states in the aftermath of the partition would be very different. Decisions pertaining to Hyderabad, Junagadh and the Rajputana have all been written about at length. But there are many more that we take for granted because of his efforts. Even today, his Secretary V P Menon’s account I believe is a must-read to understand our modern history. I often give that book to young officers who have just entered the government. It both tells you how it really was; and how it could have been, but for Patel.

4. Equally revealing have been developments in the one state that Sardar Patel was not allowed to handle i.e., Jammu and Kashmir. We all know how that unfolded. It has taken us much national effort and many sacrifices to rectify those errors subsequently. Eight decades after independence, the younger generations may not readily appreciate how seriously a ‘third force’ model was being pushed by the colonial power to ensure our permanent weakening. It was in large measure Patel’s legendary firmness and vast negotiating skills that ensured that the many Instruments of Accession were signed. But in the handling of Jammu and Kashmir, we created serious problems for ourselves – problems in national integration, in national security, in diplomacy and in geo-strategy.

5. The foundation that Sardar Patel laid has since become the strong edifice of a modern and confident India. But there are lessons from his endeavours which are relevant even now. Foremost among them is that our civilizational ethos does not automatically translate into political coherence and national unity. At various points of our history, internal divisions and selfish agendas have done our country great harm. Indeed, these were traits that the world repeatedly exploited to its advantage. What Sardar Patel was able to do and do remarkably in 1947-48 was to evoke an emotion and awareness among the States and their rulers towards our nationhood. That is how he could actually bring us together. Sustaining that spirit is the task that he bequeathed to us. And overcoming many challenges, we have reached the current stage.

6. But there are still forces and voices, as they have been in the past, that seek to divide and weaken. They speak of narrower identities, promote conflicting interests and advocate divided loyalties. To a point where an India, which has existed virtually as long as human history, is again envisaged by some as a negotiation! In a democratic society, there will inevitably be debates and discussions. But these should end up as understandings and consensus, and not become a counterpoint to our nationalism. For that very reason, we should be continually committed to strengthening the national spirit and nurturing our integration. History has demonstrated the great cost of mainstreaming divisive politics, especially those centered around vote banks. The real tribute we can pay Sardar Patel is to never let our guard down.

7.  All polities are run by institutions and through their established practices. The quality of governance is often a key factor in determining comprehensive national power. At the time of independence, there were serious dilemmas that accompanied the political transition. It is to the credit of Sardar Patel that he stood up strongly for the continuity of our governance, whether it was our bureaucratic or military institutions and their practices. This enabled responsible policy making and smooth implementation. Let us appreciate that in the era of decolonization, very few others were able to create the kind of systemic stability that we experienced in India. Obviously, a great deal of the credit goes to the national movement, which instilled political awareness deeply among our people. But this venue is particularly appropriate to also recognize how crucial the role was of the bureaucracy in the exercise of nation-building after independence. Sardar Patel, more than any of his other contemporaries, was a bridge builder between the world of politics and civil services.

8. It was not just a question of structures. Contemporary accounts, including those of his political colleagues, reveal how hard Sardar Patel strove to ensure that decisions were not made in silos. Probably his unique standing encouraged others to seek his advice and share their anxieties. Though his portfolios were Home, the States and Information & Broadcasting, his policy impact ranged from defence and external affairs, to development and finance. The takeaway here is the importance of integrated decision making and efficient systems of delivery. Today, when much greater emphasis is being put on continuous training and strong performance evaluation, the Sardar certainly serves as a symbol of good governance.

9. Sound policy-making requires a proper understanding of the environment in which we operate. Since no nation is really an island unto itself, this applies as much to foreign policy as it does to domestic politics. What makes Sardar Patel stand out was his hard-headed approach to challenges, reflected in both strategic clarity and decisive action. He, at least, was never given to viewing problems through rose-tinted glasses, nor being swayed by the fashionable ideologies of the day.

10. This was a man who intuitively gauged the big picture, worked through all its complications and carefully prepared on the ground the right responses. In the field of national security, for example, he assessed the dangers in Junagadh, Hyderabad and Kashmir accurately. When the time came to act, he had no hesitation in using all the instruments at his command. And because the governance structures at this delicate period in our history saw in him their champion, they too responded to their fullest. In that sense, this period is instructive on how to get the best out of the system and deal with critical issues. Those too are lessons to remember.

11. Of particular relevance in this regard is the handling of Jammu and Kashmir, and the decision to refer the Pakistani attack to the UN, under Article 35 of the UN Charter, as a threat to international peace and security. Now, there has been a debate whether this would have been done better under Article 51 of the Charter, as a right of self defence. But Sardar Patel was, in fact, opposed to going to the United Nations at all. He had resisted this in the case of Junagadh and Hyderabad as well. And his logic was one of basic realism: that India should not submit its issues to the judgement and interests of other powers.

12. Sadly, for all of us and for the nation, his caution was disregarded. An India lulled by a sense of false internationalism was set up by the United Kingdom, ably assisted by Belgium, Canada and the US. What began as the ‘Jammu and Kashmir Question’ was conveniently changed to the ‘India-Pakistan Question’, putting the two at par with each other and with attendant implications. It took us a quarter century to then settle the matter.

13. Other than the misreading of world politics, there was an equally serious mis-judgement of Pakistan by India. Within our system, Patel was the most forceful advocate of using all avenues of pressure on that country after the invasion of Jammu and Kashmir. His reluctance to take the matter to the UN itself stemmed from the belief that Pakistan was better directly dealt with, rather than in a framework that Pakistan could manipulate. His own approach in regard to the refugee handling and rehabilitation issues also said much about his attitude to nationalist forces. Patel recognized those who truly responded to the crises should be supported without allowing politics to colour his assessment.

14. Today, we may be tempted to speculate what Sardar Patel’s approach would have been on the Pakistan-related issues that came up in the decade after his passing away. For example, would he have extended his support to the Indus Waters Treaty of 1960? Or dismissed it like the then Prime Minister, as an issue just about a ‘pailful of water’ that was negligible in the context of larger international politics? And subscribed to the justification that it was a decisive move towards a settlement and to peace with Pakistan? An understanding of the Sardar’s life, policies and actions should allow us to come to our own answers. Like with any neighbor, India would certainly like to have good relations with Pakistan. But that cannot happen by overlooking cross-border terrorism and indulging in wishful thinking. As the Sardar demonstrated, realism must be the foundation for policy.

15. India’s relationship with China is similarly an issue on which Sardar Patel’s instincts are on record. And they differed considerably from that of the then Prime Minister. The most cited example of that was their exchange of correspondence in 1950. In Patel’s view, India had done everything to allay China’s apprehensions, but that country regarded us with suspicion and skepticism, perhaps mixed with a little hostility. He highlighted that for the first time, India’s defence had to concentrate on two fronts simultaneously. His assessment was that China had definite ambitions and aims that shaped its thinking about India in a less-than friendly way. This is a near verbatim summary of his famous letter.

16. Pandit Nehru, in contrast referred to China’s protestations of friendship and warned against losing our sense of perspective and giving way to unreasoning fears. To him, it was inconceivable that China would undertake, what he called, a wild adventure across the Himalayas. He did not, in his words, envisage any real military invasion from China in the foreseeable future.

17. This exchange was part of an internal debate and allowed the two leaders to express themselves frankly, even if undiplomatically. Each one reflected an approach not just to a neighbour, but to issues of national security and world politics as well. Patel passed away soon after this exchange and must have surely felt vindicated by the events in the decade that followed. The point about the recollection is to stress the importance of getting the right assessment of the relevant situation. This is a key aspect of governance. Because, if we start with a mis-diagnosis, everything else thereafter only takes us in the wrong direction.

18. The result of the idealist view in this case, for example, shifted India’s focus away from preparing its defences. Instead, it spent its energies making common cause on third party issues, and advocating the claims in the UN, of the very neighbour, with whom it then had a conflict in 1962.

19. Now, governance is equally about undertaking the appropriate level of planning, right level of preparations and ensuring suitable appointments. In 1962, our troops were sent to the Himalayan borders without the right equipment or acclimatization. And that was because there was virtually no planning for the contingency. And to compound matters, those charged with responsibilities – from Defence Minister Krishna Menon downwards – were visibly ill-equipped to deal with them. This was not hindsight since questions were raised and controversies erupted even ahead of the war.

20. Today, the same challenge is being met with a more painstaking and focused efforts, in parallel with our diplomatic engagement. That our border infrastructure spending has gone up five times in the last decade is but one reflection of our seriousness. So too is the fact that there is such a tight ‘pol-mil’ approach, which ensures that our system moves fully in lockstep. Indeed, even other facets of the relationship are coordinated in a manner that our national security interests are better served. Sardar Patel would surely appreciate that the integrated decision-making, which centered around his personality, is now increasingly inbuilt into our system.

21. During the end of the Sardar’s life, India and China were both re-emerging in the global order as modern nation states. The complexities of their relationship were just beginning to be visible. Much has happened in the decades that have passed. Today, our ties are again at cross-roads. The present situation does not serve the interests of either nation. There is a way forward. And that is by reinstating peace and tranquility in the border areas, respecting the LAC and not seeking to change the status quo. Beyond that, the three mutuals – mutual respect, mutual sensitivity and mutual interests – offer a credible pathway. After all, the rise of Asia can only happen when India and China have a positive dynamic.

22. Another issue that has confronted our nation from the Sardar’s time till now is the nature of the relationship that we should have with the West. This is with particular reference to the United States and United Kingdom. Even by 1950, the duality of these relationships had become apparent. On the one hand, Western nations were our major development partners and interlocutors on the international stage. At the same time, on matters related to our national integration and our national security – most of all Jammu and Kashmir – their role was mischievous, if not worse. All Indian leaders have sought to strike a balance and the Sardar was no exception. How to get it right has been the perennial challenge.

23. Sardar Patel’s view was typically grounded and optimal. In some of my own writings, I have referred to him as the pioneer of an ‘India First’ approach in foreign policy. He recognized the realities of the global power structure and felt that they should be handled appropriately to gain advantage. In particular, he appreciated the salience of the United States to the world order, and believed that it would be difficult for India to industrialize significantly, without American cooperation. As a nationalist, he had definitely no problems standing up to the West on Jammu and Kashmir. But as a realist, he saw little point in crossing them on matters not central to India. At that time, India’s vigorous advocacy of China’s permanent membership of the UN was a major irritant with the West. Many of the less ideological members of the Cabinet also believed that this campaign was misplaced. They included Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee amongst others.

24. In one of his last public appearances, Sardar Patel declared that many people – and we all know what that means – many people believed that India should not take American help because it would lose prestige and be perceived as joining a bloc. He, on the contrary, felt that India was quite capable of realizing and protecting its own interests and positions. This is both a debate about national assuredness as well as on global strategy. Allowing others a veto on our positions, and not exercising choices because we fear their displeasure and what they will say, is neither being independent nor being smart. Unfortunately, the very ideological outlook that Sardar Patel was contesting in 1950 still has its strands. We saw that when it came to assessing the merits of the Quad mechanism in the Indo-Pacific. The difference between backing out in 2007 and standing firm in 2017 was one of clarity and confidence. In the last decade, whenever we have returned to Patel’s approach, it has undoubtedly served us well.

25. While we largely associate the Sardar with the challenge of integration and administration, some thought also needs to be given to his economic outlook. He had very strong faith in Indian entrepreneurship and envisaged unleashing our economic energies as the key to rebuilding India. In that regard, he visualized partnerships abroad that would enhance productivity and upgrade technology at home. How comfortable he would have been with the socialist policies that followed his demise is something that we can only contemplate, though with some degree of confidence. That this eventually led us to the crisis of 1991 is an undeniable fact. It is, of course, strange that some seek to advocate again the very policies which brought the nation to that point. But the fact that the Government is doing the reforms we should, rather than just the reforms we must, is surely a phenomenon that would meet with the Sardar’s approval.

26. Let me also say a word about vote bank politics, since it is so prevalent in our times. Sardar Patel was amongst those who were troubled by our unwillingness then to take forward ties with Israel for that reason. Like so many things in India, that too has fortunately changed.

27. Sardar Patel was dealing with the enormous challenge of reconstructing India after two centuries of colonialism. But we must not forget that he was doing so at a time when the international order was being reshaped after the Second World War, and as decolonialization just began. Reading the big picture right and making our calculations was not easy. Today, the world is again in great churn. The order that had just emerged in his times has now run its course. We are seeing the emergence of multi-polarity and the return to the natural diversity of the world. There is no model or textbook to guide us in that regard. What we need is the right combination of self-belief, realism, preparation and nationalism to prepare for Viksit Bharat. Sardar Patel will always be an inspiration in this endeavour.

(Excerpts of remarks by External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar at the Sardar Patel Memorial Lecture on Governance on October 5, 2024)