: Sardar Patel aur Sangh

सरदार पटेल और संघ

सरदार पटेल की महानता ऐसी है की, संपूर्ण देश उन्हें अपना माने। जो लोग उन्हें किसी एक सियासी पाटीं के बाडे में बंदिस्त करके रखना चाहते है, वे उनका अपमान करते है। इस लेख में सरदार पटेल और राष्ट्रीय स्वयंसेवक संघ के संबंधों के बारे में विचार प्रस्तुत है। 

संघ की क़दर
मुझे निश्चयपूर्वक कहना है कि, सरदार पटेल को राष्ट्रीय स्वयंसेवक संघ और उनके कार्य की क़दर थी। जिस समय काँग्रेस के कुछ नेता और विशेषतः तत्कालीन प्रधानमंत्री पंडित जवाहरलाल नेहरु, जब संघ को नेस्तनाबूत करने का विचार कर रहे थे, उस समय सरदार पटेल संघ की प्रशंसा कर रहे थे। तत्कालीन उत्तर प्रदेश सरकार में एक संसदीय सचिव श्री गोविंद सहाय ने एक पुस्तिका प्रकाशित कर, संघ फासिस्ट है और उसपर बंदी लगाए ऐसी मांग की थी। 29 जनवरी 1948 को, पंजाब प्रान्त में दिये अपने एक भाषण में तत्कालीन प्रधानमंत्री पंडित जवाहरलाल नेहरु ने संघ की तीखी आलोचना करते हुए, उसे हम जडमूल से उखाड फेकेंगे ऐसी गर्जना की थी। लेकिन सरदार पटेल उस समय भी संघ की वाहवा कर रहे थे। 1947 के दिसंबर माह में जयपुर और1948 के जनवरी में लखनऊ में किये भाषण में सरदार पटेल ने संघ के लोग देशभक्त हैं, ऐसा सार्वजनिक रूप में कहा था। संघ पर बंदी लगाने की मांग करनेवालों को लक्ष्य कर उन्होंने कहा था कि, दंडात्मक कानून की कारवाई गुंडों के विरुद्ध की जाती है, देशभक्तों के विरुद्ध नहीं; संघ के स्वयंसेवक देशभक्त है। 

अप्रस्तुत सवाल
उसी दरम्यान, मतलब 30 जनवरी को महात्मा गांधी की हत्या की गई थी। हत्या करने वाला व्यक्ति हिंदुत्वनिष्ठ था। इस कारण, हिंदुत्ववादी संघ भी संदेह के घेरे में आया। 4 फरवरी को सरकार ने संघ पर पाबंदी लगाई। पाबंदी गृह विभाग की ओर से लगाई जाती है और उस समय गृह विभाग के मंत्री थे सरदार पटेल। इस कारण, सरदार पटेल ने पाबंदी लगाई थी, फिर यह पाबंदी लगानेवाले सरदार पटेल संघ के प्रशंसक कैसे हो सकते है और संघवाले सरदार को अपना कैसे मान सकते है, ऐसे प्रश्न, गुजरात के मुख्यमंत्री और भाजपा के प्रधानमंत्री पद के उम्मीदवार श्री नरेन्द्र मोदी ने सरदार पटेल का विशाल पुतला बनाने का निश्चय करने के बाद काँग्रेस के कुछ नेताओं की ओर से उपस्थित किये गए। यह प्रश्न अप्रस्तुत है, ऐसा मुझे कहना है। 

संदेह के बादल
गांधीजी की हत्या होने के बाद, उस साज़िश में संघ भी शामिल है, इस संदेह से उस समय का वातावरण इतना कलुषित हुआ था कि, उस समय के सरसंघचालक श्री गुरुजी को 2 फरवरी की मध्यरात्रि में गिरफ्तार किया गया, यह गिरफ्तारी फौजदारी कानून की धारा 302 के अंतर्गत थी। मानो गुरुजी स्वयं पिस्तौल लेकर दिल्ली गये थे और उन्होंने गांधीजी पर गोलियाँ दागी थी!  यह नीरी बेवकूफी जल्द ही सरकार के ध्यान में आई और उसने वह धारा हटाकर गुरुजी की गिरफ्तारी प्रतिबंधक कानून के अंतर्गत की जाने की बात कही। उस समय, संघ के अनेक अधिकारियों को भी प्रतिबंधक कानून के अंतर्गत गिरफ्तार कर कारागृह में ठूँसा गया था। संघ के करीब बीस हजार कार्यकर्ताओं के घरों की भी तलाशी ली गई। लेकिन गांधीजी की हत्या की साजिश में संघ के सहभागी होने का रत्तिभर भी प्रमाण नहीं मिला। इस वस्तुस्थिति की दखल सरदार पटेल ने निश्चित ही ली होगी।

 
पटेल पर अविश्वास
सरदार पटेल का संघ के बारे में जो मत था वह पंडित नेहरु और उनके वामपंथी विचारधारा के अनुयायी जानते थे। गृहमंत्री सरदार पटेल, गांधी-हत्या के मामले की सही जाँच नहीं करेंगे, ऐसा भाव उनके मन में था। पंडित नेहरु ने सरदार पटेल को लिखे एक पत्र में वह व्यक्त भी हुआ है। पंडित नेहरु का यह पत्र 26 फरवरी 1948 मतलब संघ पर जिस माह बंदी लगाई गई, उसी माह का है। उस पत्र में के मुख्य मुद्दे इस प्रकार है :
1) गांधीजी की हत्या की व्यापक साज़िश की खोज करने में कुछ ढिलाई दिखाई दे रही है।
2) गांधीजी की हत्या यह एकाकी घटना नहीं। वह आरएसएस के व्यापक अभियान का एक हिस्सा है। 
3) संघ के अनेक कार्यकर्ता अभी भी बाहर हैं। कुछ विदेशों में गये है, या भूमिगत है या खुलेआम बाहर घूम रहे है। उनमें से कुछ हमारे कार्यालय तथा पुलिस में भी है। इस कारण, कोई भी बात उनसे गुप्त रखना असंभव है। 
4) मुझे ऐसा लगता है कि, पुलिस और अन्य स्थानीय अधिकारियों ने कडाई से काम करना चाहिए। उन्हें थोड़ी फुर्ती दिखाकर ढिला पडने की आदत है। सबसे अधिक खतरनाक बात यह है कि, उनमें से अनेकों को संघ के बारे में सहनुभूति है। इस कारण, ऐसी धारणा बन गई है कि, सरकार की ओर से कोई परिणामकारक कारवाई नहीं की जाती। 
यह सरदार पटेल पर, अप्रत्यक्ष रूप में, अविश्वास प्रकट करने का ही प्रयास था।

पटेल का उत्तर
सरदार पटेल ने, तुरंत दूसरे दिन ही मतलब 27 फरवरी को विस्तृत उत्तर भेजा। उस प्रदीर्घ पत्र के मुख्य मुद्दे इस प्रकार हैं :
1) गांधीजी के हत्या के मामले की जाँच के संदर्भ में मैं प्रतिदिन जाँच के प्रगति का जायजा लेता हूँ। 
2) जिन आरोपियों को गिरफ्तार किया गया है, उनके निवेदन से यह स्पष्ट हुआ है कि, इस साज़िश के केन्द्र पुणे, मुंबई, अहमदनगर और ग्वालियर थे। उसका केन्द्र दिल्ली नहीं था। ...... उन निवेदनों से यह भी स्पष्ट हुआ है कि इस साज़िश में संघ का हाथ नहीं था।
3) दिल्ली के संघ के बारे में कहें तो उनके वहाँ के प्रमुख कार्यकर्ताओं में से किसी के भी छूटने की जानकारी मुझे नहीं है।
4) मुझे पूरा भरोसा है कि, दिल्ली के सब प्रमुख संघ कार्यकर्ताओं को गिरफ्तार किया गया है। 
5) दूसरे किसी भी स्थान या प्रान्त की तुलना में दिल्ली में गिरफ्तारी की संख्या अधिक है। 

संघ की प्रशंसा
प्रतिबंधात्मक गिरफ्तारी में छ: माह बीतने के बाद 6 अगस्त 1948 को श्री गुरुजी कारागृह से मुक्त हुए। उसके बाद उन्होंने 11 अगस्त को सरदार पटेल को पत्र लिखकर, दिल्ली आकर उनसे मिलने की इच्छा व्यक्त की। श्री गुरुजी को पंडित नेहरु से भी मिलना था और उन्होंने उन्हें पत्र भी लिखा था। लेकिन पंडित नेहरु ने मिलने से इंकार किया। कारागृह से मुक्त होने के बाद भी, श्री गुरुजी को नागपुर से बाहर जाने की पाबंदी थी। वह पाबंदी इस पत्र के बाद हटाई गई और वे दिल्ली गये।
श्री गुरुजी ने 11 अगस्त को लिखे पत्र को सरदार पटेल ने 11 सितंबर को उत्तर भेजा। उस उत्तर में सरदार पटेल लिखते है :
1) संघ के बारे में मेरे विचारों की आपको जानकारी होगी ही। मेरे यह विचार मैंने गत दिसंबर में जयपुर और जनवरी में लखनऊ में किए भाषण में प्रकट किये थे। लोगों ने इन विचारों का स्वागत किया था। 
2) हिंदू समाज की संघ ने सेवा की है, इस बारे में कोई संदेह नहीं। जहाँ सहायता और संगठन की आवश्यकता थी, वहाँ संघ के युवकों ने महिलाओं और बच्चों की रक्षा की और उनके लिए बहुत परिश्रम भी किये।
3) मैं पुन: आपको बताता हूँ कि, आप मेरे जयपुर और लखनऊ के भाषणों का विचार करें और उन भाषणों में मैंने संघ को जो मार्ग दिखाया है उसका स्वीकार करें। मुझे विश्वास है की, इसमें ही संघ और देश का भी हित है। आपने यह मार्ग स्वीकार किया तो हमारे देश के कल्याण के लिये हम हाथ मिला सकते हैं। 
4) मुझे पूरा विश्वास है कि, संघ अपना देशभक्ति का कार्य काँग्रेस में आकर ही कर सकेगा। अलग रहकर या विरोध करके नहीं।
26 नवंबर 1948 को श्री गुरुजी को लिखे दूसरे पत्र में भी श्री पटेल यहीं भावना व्यक्त करते हैं। वे लिखते हैं, ''सब बातों का विचार करने के बाद मेरी आपके लिए एक ही सूचना है, वह यह  कि, संघ ने नया तंत्र और नई नीति अपनानी चाहिए। यह नया तंत्र और नीति काँग्रेस के नियमानुसार ही होनी चाहिए।''

संघ का सत्याग्रह
यह ध्यान में रखना चाहिये  कि, श्री पटेल के यह विचार संघ पर पाबंदी रहने के समय के हैं। श्री गुरुजी ने दिल्ली जाकर सरदार पटेल से भेंट की। संघ की भूमिका विशद की। लेकिन पाबंदी कायम ही रही। इतना ही नहीं तो श्री गुरुजी दिल्ली छोडकर नागपुर लौट जाय, ऐसा हुक्म ही जारी किया गया। लेकिन न्याय मिलने तक दिल्ली न छोडने का निर्धार श्री गुरुजी ने प्रकट किया। तब 1818 के काले कानून के अंतर्गत उन्हें गिरफ्तार कर नागपुर भेजा गया और सिवनी के कारागृह में रखा गया। 

अपने ऊपर हो रहा अन्याय दूर करने के लिए दूसरा कोई भी मार्ग शेष न रहने के कारण, बंदी उठाने के लिये 9 दिसंबर 1948 से संघ ने सत्याग्रह आरंभ किया। आरंभ में इस सत्याग्रह की हँसी उडाई गई। 'हिंसा पर विश्वास रखनेवाले' शांतिपूर्ण सत्याग्रह कर ही नहीं सकेंगे ऐसी उनकी कल्पना थी। और, एक-दो हजार लड़के ही इसमें भाग लेंगे, ऐसा भी उनका अनुमान था। लेकिन सत्याग्रह पूरी तरह से शांततापूर्ण हुआ। कुछ स्थानों पर पुलिस ने अत्याचार किये, लेकिन स्वयंसेवकों की शांति भंग नहीं हुई और सत्याग्रह में 70 हजार से अधिक स्वयंसेवकों ने गिरफ्तारी दी। 

विचारवंतों की मध्यस्थता 
इस सत्याग्रह ने समाज के विचारवंतों को आकृष्ट किया और उन्होंने मध्यस्थता के लिए पहल की। प्रथम 'केसरी' के तत्कालीन संपादक श्री ग. वि. केतकर सामने आये। वे सरकार के प्रतिनिधियों से मिले; कारागृह में श्री गुरुजी से मिले और उन्होंने गुरुजी को बताया कि, जब तक सत्याग्रह समाप्त नहीं किया जाता, तब तक सरकार के साथ चर्चा नहीं हो सकती। श्री केतकर की सूचना के अनुसार 22 या 23 जनवरी 1949 को सत्याग्रह रोका गया। लेकिन पाबंदी कायम ही रही। फिर पुराने मद्रास क्षेत्र में एडव्होकेट जनरल इस महत्त्व के पद पर कार्य कर चुके श्री टी. आर. व्यंकटराम शास्त्री आगे आये। वे भी सरकारी अधिकारियों से मिले; फिर गुरुजी से भी मिले। उन्होंने श्री गुरुजी को बताया कि, ''संघ अपना संविधान लिखित स्वरूप में दें, ऐसी सरकार की मांग है। उसके बाद ही पाबंदी हटाने का विचार होगा।'' श्री गुरुजी ने प्रतिप्रश्न किया कि, ''हमारे पास लिखित संविधान नहीं है, क्या इसलिए हमपर पाबंदी लगाई गई थी?'' फिर भी, व्यंकटराम शास्त्री जैसे ज्येष्ठ और श्रेष्ठ व्यक्ति का सम्मान रखने के लिए संघ ने लिखित स्वरूप में अपना संविधान सरकार के पास भेजा। उसके बाद सरकार ने तुरंत पाबंदी हटानी चाहिए थी। लेकिन सरकार को लगा  कि, गुरुजी दबाव में आ रहे है, उन्हें और झुकाना चाहिए, इसलिए सरकार ने उस संविधान में कमियों के बहाने खोजना शुरू किया। पाबंदी कायम ही रही। श्री व्यंकटराम शास्त्री भी नाराज हुए और अपनी मध्यस्थता असफल होने की, लेकिन संघ पर पाबंदी हटाने की आवश्यकता है ऐसी  सूचना देनेवाला पत्रक उन्होंने निकाला। श्री गुरुजी और सरकार को सूचित किया  कि इसके बाद वे सरकार से कोई पत्रव्यवहार नहीं करेंगे। अब सरकार फँस गई। वह पाबंदी कायम नहीं रख सकती थी। जनमत भी उस पाबंदी के विरोध में हो गया था। फिर सरकार ने श्री मौलिचन्द्र शर्मा के रूप में एक मध्यस्थ चुना। यहाँ यह ध्यान में रखना चाहिए  कि, श्री केतकर और श्री शास्त्री स्वयंप्रेरणा से मध्यस्थता के लिए सामने आये थे। पंडित मौलिचन्द्र शर्मा का चुनाव सरकार ने किया था। 

पंडित मौलिचन्द्र शर्मा
पंडित मौलिचन्द्र ने पहले, कारागृह के बाहर के संघ के अधिकारियों से भेंट की। उन्होंने श्री शर्मा को स्पष्ट बताया कि, श्री गुरुजी सरकार को कुछ लिखकर नहीं देंगे। शर्माजी खाली हाथ दिल्ली लौटे। लेकिन तुरंत दूसरे दिन वापस आये। श्री गुरुजी सरकार को कुछ भी लिखकर न दे, लेकिन मौलिचन्द्र शर्मा कुछ प्रश्न पूछेंगे, उनका उत्तर, पत्र के रूप में गुरूजी लिखकर दें, ऐसा हल लेकर वे आये। और उन्होंने सिवनी के कारागृह में श्री गुरुजी से भेंट की। श्री गुरुजी ने, श्री मौलिचन्द्र शर्मा के नाम पत्र लिखकर अनेक मुद्दों पर संघ की भूमिका स्पष्ट की। पत्र 'माय डिअर पंडित मौलिचन्द्र जी' इस उद्बोधन से आरंभ होता है। इस पत्र में वहीं स्पष्टीकरण है, जो श्री गुरुजी ने दिल्ली में 2 नवंबर 1948 की पत्रपरिषद में दिया था। लेकिन तब सरकार का समाधान नहीं हुआ था। पर आश्चर्य यह  कि अब पंडित मौलिचन्द्र शर्मा को लिखे पत्र से सरकार का समाधान हुआ। वह पत्र 10 जुलाई को सिवनी के कारागृह में लिखा गया है और 12 जुलाई 1949 को संघ पर की पाबंदी हटाई गई। एक संजोग यह भी था की, जिस दिन की सुबह के समाचारपत्रों में श्री व्यंकटराम शास्त्री की मध्यस्थता असफल होने का पत्रक प्रकाशित हुआ था, उसी दिन सायंकाल आकाशवाणी से सरकार ने संघ पर की पाबंदी हटाने की घोषणा हुई।

वर्किंग कमेटी का प्रस्ताव
उपरोक्त विवेचन से यह स्पष्ट होता है कि काँग्रेस में एक प्रभावशाली समूह को संघ काँग्रेस के साथ सहयोग करें ऐसा लगता था। उसमें सरदार वल्लभभाई पटेल, पुरुषोत्तमदास टंडन, डॉ. राजेन्द्रप्रसाद का समावेश था। इस कारण ही, संघ पर की पाबंदी हटाने के कुछ समय बाद ही काँग्रेस वर्किंग कमेटी ने एक प्रस्ताव पारित कर, संघ के स्वयंसेवक काँग्रेस में प्रवेश कर सकते हैं, ऐसा घोषित किया। जिस समय वर्किंग कमेटी ने यह प्रस्ताव पारित किया, तब पंडित नेहरु कॉमनवेल्थ कॉन्फरन्स के लिए लंदन गये थे। इस प्रस्ताव से, वे स्वयं और उनके समर्थक चकित और हतबुद्ध हुए। पंडित नेहरु ने स्वदेश लौटते ही, वह प्रस्ताव पीछे लेने के लिये वर्किंग कमेटी को बाध्य किया। वह प्रस्ताव कायम होता, तो संघ में जिन लोगों का राजनीति की ओर झुकाव था, वे काँग्रेस में प्रवेश करते। वैसा होता, तो शायद भारतीय जनसंघ की स्थापना नहीं होती और काँग्रेस के बडबोले महासचिव दिग्विजय सिंह कहते है, वैसे भाजपा भी निर्माण नहीं होती। लेकिन यह निश्चित है  कि, संघ चलता ही रहता। कारण, किसी सियासी पार्टी में विलीन होने के लिये वह निर्माण ही नहीं हुआ था। संघ का उद्दिष्ट बहुत व्यापक है, संपूर्ण समाजजीवन को अपनी परिधि में लेनेवाला है। वह दिग्विजय सिंह जैसे हल्की सोच रखनेवाले, बेताल और बडबोले लोगों की आकलनशक्ति से परे है। 

सरदार पटेल की मुंबई में निकली अंतिम यात्रा में उपस्थित रहने की श्री गुरुजी की इच्छा थी और तत्कालीन मध्य प्रान्त वर्‍हाड के मुख्यमंत्री पंडित रविशंकर शुक्ल श्री गुरुजी को हवाई जहाज में अपने साथ ले गये थे, यह घटना भी यहाँ ध्यान में लेनी चाहिए। 

- मा. गो. वैद्य
नागपुर, दि. 08 - 11 -2013
... ... ...  

Sardar patel had vision to address needs of border States

Sardar Patel had vision to address needs of border States

It is tragic that 63 years later, there is still no road for the last 37 km between the McMahon Line and Menchuka (though I was told the construction may start soon). The situation is much worse in the adjoining sub-division of Menigong. From Tato, another sub-divisional headquarters to Menigong, it takes some 7/8 hours to cover 67 km, and then, there is no road going onward to the border.

 Patel would have also made a difference in the Kashmir issue. On 23 December 1947, as Deputy Prime Minister, Patel wrote a draft letter to Nehru: "Your letter of today has been received just now at 7 p.m. and I am writing immediately to tell you this. It has caused me considerable pain." Patel did want India to appeal to the UN: "your letter makes it clear to me that I must not, or at least cannot continue as a Member of Government and hence I am hereby tendering my resignation."

Tibet seen from Menchuka

My artcile Sardar Patel had vision to address needs of border States appeared in NitiCentral.-Claude Arpi

Here is the link...

It was raining and cold outside. I was sitting with my local hosts around a smokeless chula installed in the center of the main room of their house.
I was in Menchuka, the remotest large village before the McMahon Line dividing India and China, in West Siang district of Arunachal Pradesh.
After watching some cricket match between India and Australia (I don't understand anything of cricket), my hosts from the Adi community (one of the 25 main tribes of Arunachal Pradesh) switched their satellite TV to a news channel.
The Indian Prime Minister was seen with the Chief Minister of Gujarat inaugurating a large statue of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. When I asked if they were following Indian politics, my friends replied, 'of course! We Arunachalis are the most patriotic people of the country, though the leadership in Delhi seems ignorant about this simple truth'. It is true that a few minutes earlier, they had been frantically supporting the Blue Team against the Aussies.
They were now amazed by the size of the statue and kept repeating, "We need a strong leader to rule India". Though not particularly enamoured of the BJP, they believed Narendra Modi could be the 'next Iron Man' to protect them.
When I asked why they thought so, they said only an 'Iron Man' could bring roads and development to the border areas.
Menchuka, located some 50 km from the LAC (McMahon Line) witnessed the 'visit' of the Chinese 51 years ago; some old people still remember their stay for nearly one month in November 1962. I was told: "the Chinese soldiers were not aggressive; they just told us: 'You are Chinese like us, we will never harm you; you don't have long noses like the Indians, your eyes and skins are similar to ours'"; today Beijing still calls the area 'Southern Tibet'.
It is a fact that while in Menchuka, the PLA did not take food or disturbs the local tribal Adis or Membas; despite this, the local population has remained loyal to India; unfortunately Delhi does not often acknowledge this.
The declaration of Narendra Modi: "Every Indian regrets Sardar Patel did not become the first Prime Minister. Had he been the first Prime Minister, the country's fate and face would have been completely different," rang true in this remote administrative Circle of Arunachal Pradesh (it takes 9 hours by car to reach Menchuka from Along, the district headquarters).
Warming up around the chula, the famous letter sent Sardar to Jawaharlal Nehru, five weeks before the Deputy Prime Minister prematurely passed away, was constantly present in my mind.
For the people of the border areas, it would have indeed been different if Gandhi had not interfered in the democratic process (Patel had been elected to lead the Interim Government in 1946, but Gandhi preferred 'the Haddows Boy') and if Patel had become Prime Minister.
On November 7, 1950, a month after Tibet was invaded, Patel told Nehru: "I have tried to peruse this correspondence [between K.M. Panikkar and the Communist government in Beijing] as favorably to our Ambassador and the Chinese Government as possible, but I regret to say that neither of them comes out well as a result of this study."
The 'Iron Man' added: "The Chinese Government has tried to delude us by professions of peaceful intention. My own feeling is that at a crucial period they manage to instill into our Ambassador a false sense of confidence in their so called desire to settle the Tibetan problem by peaceful means. …the action of the Chinese, in my judgment, is little short of perfidy."
Patel's conclusion was: "from the latest position, it appears that we shall be not be able to rescue the Dalai Lama." It was already too late.
Panikkar was not only "at great pain to find an explanation or justification for Chinese policy and actions", but Nehru did not even have the courtesy to acknowledge Patel's letter which suggested to review:

•  A Military and Intelligence appreciation of the Chinese threat to India both on the frontier and internal security.

•  An examination of military position and such redisposition of our forces as might be necessary…

•  An appraisement of strength of our forces …A long-term consideration of our defense needs.

•  The question of Chinese entry into UNO.

•  The political and administrative steps which we should take to strengthen our Northern and North-Eastern frontier.

•  Improvement of our communication, road, rail, air and wireless in these areas and with the frontier outposts.

It is tragic that 63 years later, there is still no road for the last 37 km between the McMahon Line and Menchuka (though I was told the construction may start soon). The situation is much worse in the adjoining sub-division of Menigong. From Tato, another sub-divisional headquarters to Menigong, it takes some 7/8 hours to cover 67 km, and then, there is no road going onward to the border.

Ironically, during my visit to Menchuka, the Chinese announced the opening of a highway linking Metok, 'the last roadless county in China' with neighboring Bomi town, located just north of the McMahon Line.

The Communist Party said that 117-km highway, costing 155 million U.S. dollars will make the border town accessible for 8 to 9 months a year.
My local friends kept repeating with some envy in their voices, 'the Chinese are very much in advance on us'.

To come back to Patel's 'clairvoyant testament', it is not well-known that it was based on a Note prepared by Girja Shankar Bajpai, the Secretary General of the Ministry of External Affairs.
Does this Note still exist? I was recently told that some of the Bajpai Papers may have followed the fate of the CoalGate files.

Why did Nehru, then Foreign Minister not act on his Foreign Secretary's Report while it was Patel who was concerned by the issue of having an "unscrupulous, unreliable and determined power at the doors"?
It is not difficult to answer this question. Nehru saw China as India's best friend, if not brother.
Another reason why Patel would have made a difference is that he would have surrounded himself with efficient down-to-earth officers like Bajpai and not glamourous, worthless collaborators like K.M. Panikkar.

A few years later, Bajpai compared the protests of Panikkar with Neville Chamberlain's disapproval of Nazi Germany entering Czechoslovakia in 1938, he said: "Our Ambassador has allowed himself to be influenced more by the Chinese point of view, the Chinese claims, the Chinese maps and by regards for Chinese susceptibilities than by his instructions or by India's interests."
Nehru did it again in 1962 when he listened to an arrogant Corps Commander, ignoring the Army hierarchy's sounder counsels.
It is not enough to be a strong man; a leader of worth should be able to surround himself with wise advisors. Patel showed, at the time of the integration of the Indian States (with V.P. Menon) or later in the case of Tibet (with G.S. Bajpai), that he was more than an Iron Man, he was also able to find and listen to knowledgeable collaborators.

A small post-scriptum: Patel would have also made a difference in the Kashmir issue. On 23 December 1947, as Deputy Prime Minister, Patel wrote a draft letter to Nehru: "Your letter of today has been received just now at 7 p.m. and I am writing immediately to tell you this. It has caused me considerable pain." Patel did want India to appeal to the UN: "your letter makes it clear to me that I must not, or at least cannot continue as a Member of Government and hence I am hereby tendering my resignation."
Gandhi asked Patel to withdraw his resignation. The rest is painful history.
It is unfortunate for India that history cannot be rewritten. But one can at least learn from history.

What sardar patel spoke in Constituent Assembly

Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel, Minorities & Reservations

 

In the view of this outrageous debate on current version of Congress Party solely staking claim to Sardar Vallabhai Patel's legacy, I came across this excellent debate in the then Constituent Assembly of India* on the issue of Minority rights, wherein the Sardar proved why he was a visionary and a well wisher of India.

*(The Constituent Assembly Of India discussed all aspects of our constitution before it was adopted on January 26, 1950 replacing the colonial era Government of India Act, 1935 )

This debate and views expressed provides an insight on how those visionaries laid the foundations of Modern India. Needless to say, I don't see even an inch of what was said on August 27, 1947 in the act/s of the current version of Congress Party led UPA government.

The Morley-Minto reforms of 1909 brought about limited increase in the involvement of native Indians in the governance of Colonial India.

As demanded by the Muslim leadership the British established a policy of religion based separate electorates through the Indian Councils Act, 1909 wherein Muslim community were granted following concessions:

·         That Indian Muslims be allotted reserved seats in the Municipal and District Boards, in the Provincial Councils and in the Imperial Legislature;

 ·         That the number of reserved seats be in excess of their relative population (25 percent of the Indian population); and,

 ·         That only Muslims should vote for candidates for the Muslim seats ('separate electorates').

These concessions were a constant source of strife 1909-47. British statesmen generally considered reserved seats as regrettable in that they encouraged communal extremism as Muslim candidates did not have to appeal for Hindu votes and vice versa. As further power was shifted from the British to Indian politicians in 1919, 1935 and after, Muslims were ever more determined to hold on to, and if possible expand, reserved seats and their weightage. However, Hindu politicians repeatedly tried to eliminate reserved seats as they considered them to be undemocratic and to hinder the development of a shared Hindu-Muslim Indian national feeling.

It was in this back drop that the Report on Minority Rights was tabled in the then Constituent Assembly of India on August 27, 1947 ( Read entire debate here : http://164.100.47.132/LssNew/cadebatefiles/C27081947.html )

The Advisory committee that drafted this report saw heated debates as Muslim members strongly advocated continuation of the colonial policy of separate electorates, while the Hindu element who strongly believed this policy to be the root cause of the two nation theory, Un democratic and above all communal.

Thankfully, the amendments proposed by the then Muslim leadership advocating continuing colonial policy failed to pass the muster of the constituent assembly on that day.

On request of then President Dr. Rajendra Prasad, Sardar Vallabhai Patel moved for consideration of the report on minority rights prepared by the Advisory committee.

The Preliminary remarks by all the speaker/s are noteworthy what caught my eye was the speech by Dr. P.S. Deshmukh representing the Central Provinces & Berar & Sardar Vallabhai Patel representing then Bombay Presidency :

I have listed few takeaways from Dr. Deshmukh's speech:

1. In my opinion, there is no more monstrous word in the history of Indian politics than the word " minority"
2. Even since India emerged out of its political infancy, the demon of the interests of minorities and their protection stood before us and appeared to bar the progress of the country.
3. That this monster should at long last have been shorn of its terrors is an achievement worthy of note.
4. The Members of the Advisory Committee have in this respect a great achievement to their credit.
5. First and foremost, they have discontinued separate electorates. Secondly the none too just system of weightages has been given up.
6. The composition of Cabinets is not going to be hampered by insurmountable difficulties of taking minority representatives as of legal and constitutional right nor are our percentages of recruitment going to be worked up to the second decimal as would certainly have been the case had the various representatives of the minorities insisted upon reservation in those spheres also.
7. Some of our Muslim friends, mostly as a result of the British policy, painted us as tyrants and majority-made oppressors.
8. I have never found any justification for such an accusation, but an unjust and untrue charge was repeated ad nauseum and somehow sustained throughout the last so many years.
9. It is upon those false foundations that Pakistan was demanded and conceded
10. Rather than tyrannize the minorities, the fact was that in most places the minorities tyrannized the majority.
11. The Muslims have almost everywhere enjoyed privileges far in excess of what may be called just or fair.
12. I am content that no minority is going to try any more to deprive others of what legitimately belongs to them.
13. Pressed by political considerations, microscopic minority interests have been advocated by the greatest of democrats.
14. They enjoyed posts and privileges which they had no right to enjoy. It is self-evident that if anybody enjoys more than he deserves, he must of necessity deprive someone else of his legitimate share

Shri. B. Pocker Sahib Bahadur(Madras) moves amendment to the motion insisting on the separate electorate :

"That on a consideration of the report of the Advisory Committee on minorities, fund mental right etc., on minority rights this meeting of the Constituent Assembly resolves that all elections to the Central and Provincial Legislatures should, as far as Muslims are concerned, be held on the basis of separate electorates."

This is followed by a excellent debate by members who oppose the amendment.

President Dr. Rajendra Prasad then calls upon Sardar Vallabhai Patel to reply to  Shri. B. Pocker Sahib Bahadurif he wishes to and the Sardar rises to the occasion with an excellent speech, do read:

The Honourable Sardar Vallabhbhai J. Patel : Sir, I will not take much time I was sorry to learn that this question was taken seriously because when this question came before the Advisory Committee there was not so much debate as I heard here today. My friends of the Muslim League here who moved this amendment and supported it took it for granted that they had a duty to perform in a sense. They had been pressing for separate electorates and enjoying it for a long time and felt that they should not leave it all of a sudden, but just move the motion and have the vote of the House. But when I heard the elaborate speeches I thought that I was living in the ages in which the communal question was first mooted. I had not the occasion to hear the speeches which were made in the initial stages when this question of communal electorates was introduced in the Congress; but there are many eminent Muslims who have recorded their views that the greatest evil in this country which has been brought to pass is the communal electorate. The introduction of the system of communal electorates is a poison which has entered into the body politic of our country. Many Englishmen who were responsible for this also admitted that. But today, after agreeing to the separation of the country as a result of this communal electorate, I never thought that that proposition was going to be moved seriously, and even if it was moved seriously, that it would be taken seriously. Well, when Pakistan was conceded, at least it was assumed that there would be one nation in the rest of India-the 80 per cent. India and there would be no attempt to talk of two nations here also. It is no use saying that we ask for separate electorates, because it is good for us. We have heard it long enough. We have heard it for years, and as a result of this agitation we are now a separate nation. The agitation was that "we are a separate nation, we cannot have either separate electorates or weightage or any other concessions or consideration sufficient for our protection. Therefore, give us a separate State". We said, "All right, take your separate State". But in the rest of India, in the 80 per cent of India, do you agree that there shall be one nation ? Or do you still want the two-nations talk to be brought here also ? I am against separate electorates. Can you show me one free country where there are separate electorates ? If so, I shall be prepared to accept it. But in this unfortunate country if this separate electorate is going to be persisted in, even after the division of the country, woe betide the country; it is not worth living in. Therefore, I say, it is not for my good alone, it is for your own good that I say it, "forget the past. One day, we may be 'united. I wish well to Pakistan. Let it succeed. Let them build in their own way, Let them prosper. Let us enter into a rivalry of prosperity, but let us not enter into that rivalry that is going on today in the land of Pakistan. You do not know that we are sitting in Delhi on a volcano. You do not know the strain that is being put on us because of what is happening near about. My friend the Mover of the amendment says the Muslim community today is a strong-knit community. Very good; I am glad to hear that, and therefore I say you have no business to ask for any props, (Cheers). Because there are other minorities who are not well-organised, and deserve special consideration and some safeguards, we want to be generous to them. But at the same time, as you have enjoyed this to a certain extent for a long time and you may not feel that there is discrimination, we agree to reservation according to population basis. Where is that kind of reservation in any other free country in the world? Will you show me? I ask you. You are a very well-organised community. Tell me, why do you behave like a lame man ? Be a bold and a strong man, as you are well-organised and stand up. Think of the nation that is being built on this side. We have laid the foundation of a nation. From now, under this new constitution, Chaudhuri Khaliquzzaman says the British element is gone, and therefore forget the suspicious. The British element is gone, but they have left the mischief behind. We do not want to perpetuate that mischief. (Hear, hear). When the British introduced this element they had not expected that they will have to go so soon. They wanted it for their easy administration. That is all right. But they have left the legacy behind. Are we to get out of it or not ? Therefore I say, and appeal to you. "What are you doing"? Think about it. Do you expect any one man in this country outside the Muslim League who will say 'Let us now also agree to separate electorates' Why do you do this? If you say "We want now to have loyalty" on this side to this nation", may I ask you "Is this loyalty?" Are you provoking response of loyalty from the other side ? I have no intention to speak on this, but when the Mover of this amendment talked such a long time and it was supported by the Leader, then I felt that there is something wrong again still is this land. Therefore, my dear friends, I ask you "Do you want now peace in this land? If so do away with it; you can do no harm either to Pakistan or India or anything, but only you will have all over the country what is happening in this country near about us; if you do want it, you can have it." But I appeal to you "Let us at least on this side show that everything is forgotten" and if we want to forget then let us forget what has been done in the past and also what is responsible for all that is happening today. Therefore, I once more appeal to you to withdraw the amendment and let us pass this unanimously so that the world outside will also understand that we are united. (Cheers).

"All elections to the Central and Provincial Legislatures will be held on the basis of joint electorates."

The motion was adopted.

--

: Radical Islam : Terror is the tool

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Manmohan Vaidya " <mmohanngp@gmail.com>
Date: 1 November 2013 6:07:48 AM IST
To: <mmohanngp@gmail.com>
Subject: FW: Radical Islam : Terror is the tool

 

Radical Islam : Terror is the tool 

Radical Islam and terror will continue to feed on each other unless the leaders of the society get down to the business of unraveling  the conditions which make educated minds irrational.

By Anand K Verma, Former Chief of R&AW

Time has arrived for the unspoken to be spoken i.e. Radical Islam is at war with India.

The objectives of the war are to destroy India as a nation, with a composite culture and multi-ethnic society and replace it with a phenomenon which began in an enclave in Saudi Arabia in the 7th century and has already enveloped a good part of the globe

Its spread so far is a proof of its inherent strength. In its historical march to its present expanse, it has destroyed empires, countries, religions, culture and people. It is continuously making inroads into territories where it was earlier unknown. Those who fail to comprehend its dynamics, do so at their own peril.

Radical Islam is what Prophet Mohammed is believed to have given to the citizens of Medina after his flight from Mecca. He outlined an ideology, couched in religious terms, from which an escape was next to impossible.

The ideology offered no accommodation except on its terms, ruled out all compromises, and demanded an allegiance with any violation of what was declared blasphemous, inviting instantaneous annihilation.

As Radical Islam spread far and wide beyond Mecca and Medina, often in the shadow of the sword, it did encounter powerful ideas which  mellowed it and sometimes led to the emergence of new sprouts.

Sufi Islam was one such product which toned down the hard features of the original  concepts and introduced new ones. Sufi Islam conditioned the Islamic mindset to the acceptance of co-existence with other cultures and religions. Although, principally, it was Radical Islam which made its first forays into India in the middle and early mid centuries, the one that settled down was not so Radical. Its core was impacted by Hindu philosophy, bhakti movements and new strains within it such as Deen-e-Ilahi of Akbar. The result was a broad based coexistence of Islam with all  other religions in India.

The purists were not amused by what they saw as contamination of Islam. Their brigade was led by the contemporary Ulemas. The one who struck an abiding blow to Radical Islam was Shah Waliullah (1703-62), celebrated in history as a Muslim reformer or a hardliner. Waliullah held that the essence of the scriptures i.e. Koran, Sunnah and Hadith could not be diluted and the purpose of Islam must remain synchronous with the Prophet's vision. Two generations later, Waliullah's followers founded the Deoband seminary of theology. The seminary was not just a Madrassa for religious teachings but its instructions were inspired by a larger purpose of avenging the1857 defeat by the British of the Muslim empire.

The seminary was the first Mujahid enterprise in the country. Its part of themes remained the same throughout the later history, camouflaged cleverly through theological dissertations, disseminated through a network of Madrassas which quickly sprang into existence, primarily in Muslim heartlands of India. Unrestrained and uninterrupted supply of Wahabi funds from foreign sources has provided oxygen to their  activities and to their take on Islam.

This school and its indoctrinations have had a legendary influence over the Muslim world. The Taliban of Afghanistan is the product of Deoband thinking as it evolved in Pakistan after partition. The Wahabis and the Salaifis of Saudi Arabia can be counted as clones of the Talibanised mindset.

Osama bin Laden given another push to Radical Islam by crafting the International Islamic Front in 1998. Student Islamic Movement of India(simi) and Indian Mujahaideen(IM) are the present day practitioners of Waliullah's mantra.

Al Qaeda and five extremist organizations from Pakistan like Lashkar-e-Taiba, Harkat-ul-Mujahiddeen and Hizbul-e-Jihad-e-Islami, among others from other Islamic countries, became the founding members of the Front, with Christian and Jews as its targets.

Its ideology spawned a Pan Islamic thrust. It emphasized that a Muslim's first loyalty was to his creed, not his nation; any means of violence could be employed including weapons of mass destruction to achieve political and other aims; and belonging to one Ummah a Muslim could participate in any struggle worldwide where Islam or its believers were being victimized.

With this ideology, drawn from scriptures, a Muslim was freed from the need of having any further organizational guidance from the Front. The result was that many Muslim groups in many parts of the world, started thinking and acting on identical lines.

There was an upsurge in fundamentalism  and terror worldwide.  Later the list of enemies was expanded to India to include Hindus.

The Pakistani members of the Front, guided by ISI of Pakistan, had narrower aim i.e., India, though they were also used by ISI to support Pan Islamist ambitions of Pakistan. Their imprints were found in all major regions of Islamic upheaval such as Bosnia, Chechnya, Xingjian, Philippines etc.

Today, the heightened profile of Radical Islam all over the world is giving sleepless nights to many governments including some in the Islamic world. Many of these governments believe that the Islamists will sooner or later be able to lay their hands on a nuclear device, causing mass destruction or disorder somewhere.

Rise of Radical Islam has placed a Muslim in a deep predicament in the western countries. While he cannot give up his Islamic identity, he does not quite understand how to manage his other multiple identities created by his citizenship, education and existence in multi culture societies.

Secularism and alternate systems of governance are theologically unacceptable in the Muslim scriptures. A reformist Muslim thus, becomes an anathema to Islam.

Without reforms, the hard dogmas will continue to rule out the Muslim mind and feed the hatred and animosity on which Radical Islam thrives. This amounts to a non-win situation leaving thereafter a class of people, having no respect for the laws and the others.

This has caused some to leave the pale of Islam and come out publicly against the contradictions of Islam and its outright rejection of values which are now universal in vast parts of the world. Two such individuals Wafa Sultana of LA, USA, and  Irshad Manjhi of Canada have almost become either a hate figure or an example of revolutionary bold articulation. They are deeply reviled in Muslim circles.

Tariq Ramadan, a Swiss Muslim who teaches religion at Oxford, constitutes a different category. He, while retaining the Muslim identity is struggling for a balance between this identity and of the integrated society in which many like him reside. Such people are looking for internal peace but are continually being tormented by the world they have been eager to leave. Their efforts to fashion new avenues of discourses appear quite unwelcome to the people whom they want to address.

This is a problem with which India is well aware. Scriptures lay down that Islam and the Prophet are not open to discussion.

Prophet also remains as the most admired individual for a large number of his followers. For such people, no debate can be ever opened up whether Islam should be more inclusive . Essentially, this leads to an uneasy co-existence, though at the surface, a certain smoothness based on a superficial give and take may be prevailed.

As Radical Islam  aided by incentives from across the border and fueled by like-minded activities elsewhere races further, the Indian State seems to be at a loss on  decision. Contrary voices begin to rise in the Government. Division of powers between the Centre and the States are adding to the difficulties by preventing firm policy and action. But time and tide wait for none. There is a perception in some quarters that the nation is sliding towards anarchy. On good authority it can be said that one responsible Muslim voice within the portals of governance, holds the view that India is on its way to a civil war which will be fought on every street including every village and the town.

Today, we are going through hard times.  Day by day increasing level of awareness, expectations and education are making this hardship even more confounded. Solutions cannot be found by putting the problems under the carpet. The problems need to be identified sincerely and dealt with squarely but with prudence, compassion and understanding.

Further polarizations must be prevented as the levels are touching the danger mark. It is unusual to see a Vice Chancellor coming ahead for assisting two of his students legally, who are not charged with a campus or institution related crime but with terror causing deaths. How many times has the VC come forward in the past when his students got the wrong side of the law, and he is not the alone  in distrusting the facts of the terror incident of September 13th in New Delhi. Large segments of population living in the area and some leaders of the community expressed distrust of the police motivation and investigation.

A more stringent anti-terror law or creation of federal investigation agency is not an adequate antidote to the deeply growing depths of mistrust and despair. Terrorism must be combated at the ideological level and the battle must be against hatred and the sustained belief system. The real enemy exists not only physically but is in the metaphysical realm of dogmas that in turn are subjected to misinterpretations.

Radical Islam and terror will continue to feed on each other unless the leaders of the society get down to the business of unraveling  the conditions which make educated minds irrational. There is no moment to be lost to abort the advent of the suicide bomber or the truck bomb.

Robert CLIVE CRUSHED HINDUISM

> ROBERT CLIVE CRUSHED HINDUISM
> THE SACRED ANIMAL
> Cows are the most sacred animals to the Hindus and this is not without any
> reason. Hindus believe that all Gods and Goddesses live inside a Cow
>
> COW SLAUGHTER IS A CRIME
> Cow slaughter and slaughterhouses are banned even today in Nepal. In
> India, very few are aware of the fact that Article 48 of the Indian
> Constitution (Directive Principles of State Policy) says clearly that the
> government must protect the cow, its progeny and other cattle used in
> agriculture, not just because the cows are sacred to Hindus but because
> Cows have been the backbone of Agriculture and milk production in this
> country ever since the dawn of civilization. To millions of poor families
> in India, even today Cow's milk is the only source of nutrient to their
> kids and babies.
>
> NEHRU AND GANDHI FAILED
> Both Mahathma Gandhi and Pandit Nehru had declared before Independence
> that they would ban Cow slaughter in India after Independence. Obviously
> they did not impose it. Why?
>
> THE FALSE BELIEF
> Thanks to Robert Clive who had converted the Indian Muslims into believing
> that beef eating was their religious right. Cow slaughter had become a vote
> bank issue So Robert Clive decided to break the backbone of agriculture in
> India – the holy cows have to be targeted. And thus was opened the first
> slaughterhouse of cows in India in 1760 by Robert Clive at Kolkata. It had
> a capacity to kill 30,000 cows per day. And anyone can guess within a
> year's time how many cows would have been killed. And within a century
> India had very little cattle left to sustain its agricultural needs.And
> Britain as an alternative started offering artificial manure, and in this
> manner urea, phosphate etc started getting imported from England.
>
> ROBERT CLIVE AND THE WRONGS
> Guess what, till 1760 most of India had banned not only cow slaughter, but
> also prostitution and drinking wine was banned as well. Robert Clive made
> all three legal and removed the ban.
>
> THE SUICIDE
> Guess what happened to the man who started all this? Robert Clive became a
> opium addict and later committed suicide by stabbing himself with a pen
> knife after being unable to withstand the pain caused by the illness that
> had resulted from opium addiction.
>
> THE BRITISH AND THE FRENCH
> Clive first arrived in India in 1743 as a civil servant of the East India
> Company; and later returned to England in 1753. Meanwhile, in Bengal, where
> the British and the French were contesting for supremacy, the Company
> required the services of an able commander. Clive was eager to return to
> India; and soon the summons came. He arrived in India in 1756 and by the
> end of 1760 he lifted the ban on cow slaughter which was his first step
> toward his suicide.