Patel was a Congressman and secular, PM says!?

Discussion in 'Politics & Society' started by A chauhan, Oct 29, 2013.

?

Which party misses Sardar Patel most?

Poll closed Nov 28, 2013.
  1. Congress

    4.3%
  2. BJP

    65.2%
  3. No one.

    30.4%
  1. A chauhan

    A chauhan "अहिंसा परमो धर्मः धर्म हिंसा तथैव च: l" Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    4,928
    Likes Received:
    4,563
    Location:
    Raipur
    If Sardar Patel were alive today he might have regretted for being in a wrong Party, 2G,Coalgate,CWG, Bofors,Heli deal etc. :lol:

    Patel was a Congressman and secular, PM says!?

    By Indo Asian News Service

    Ahmedabad, Oct 29 (IANS) Prime Minister Manmohan Singh Tuesday recalled Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel's association with the Congress and his love for secular values, soon after Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi said he wished the "Iron Man" had been India's first prime minister.

    Speaking after Modi at the inauguration of a museum dedicated to the country's first home minister, Manmohan Singh credited Sardar Patel with making a great contribution in shaping India.

    The prime minister said he felt "lucky to be associated with a party that has his legacy. Yeah you are lucky but Sardar is unlucky for being associated with you and your Congress party who have destroyed the nation.

    "It will not be wrong to say that he (Sardar Patel) has a great contribution in laying the foundation stone of the united India the world sees today. Indeed

    "I am proud and happy about the fact that I belong to a political party to which Sardar Patel was attached," Manmohan Singh added. But Sardar's soul will not be happy after hearing this.

    The prime minister was sharing the stage with the BJP's prime ministerial candidate Modi.

    The prime minister pointed out that Sardar Patel was a "secular man" and he always worked to strengthen the Congress.

    "Sardar Patel was totally secular. He believed in the unity of India. All his life he worked to strengthen the Congress," he said.

    Sardar Patel, known as the "Iron Man", was the home minister in Jawaharlal Nehru's cabinet after India became independent.

    Patel was a Congressman and secular, PM says


    Modi will give an answer to Congress and MMS on 31st Oct I guess.
     
    mikhail, TrueSpirit and kseeker like this.
  2.  
  3. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,118
    Likes Received:
    23,545
    Location:
    Somewhere
    I have been hearing various debates and it merely indicates that Patel was totally antagonistic to Nehru's policies.

    In fact, it is said that the acrimony was such that Gandhi felt the Congress be wound up & it be split in two between them!
     
  4. VIP

    VIP Ultra Nationalist Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2012
    Messages:
    4,684
    Likes Received:
    3,187
    Location:
    Gandhinagar
    Patel was true congressman and secular, I agree, but are you congis are the same ??

    Congis always remember 31st October as Indira Gandhi's demise day but never the Sardar Jayanti. That says all.
     
    TrueSpirit, iNDiAN.96, Neil and 4 others like this.
  5. A chauhan

    A chauhan "अहिंसा परमो धर्मः धर्म हिंसा तथैव च: l" Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    4,928
    Likes Received:
    4,563
    Location:
    Raipur
    What Modi said was correct, India was going to be in a different state if Patel had become the first PM of India.
     
    TrueSpirit and kseeker like this.
  6. iNDiAN.96

    iNDiAN.96 Nationalist Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1,331
    Likes Received:
    1,470
    Location:
    -
    Thanks to Modi that now every one is behind Sardar Patel. :)
     
    aragorn likes this.
  7. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,118
    Likes Received:
    23,545
    Location:
    Somewhere
    To be fair to Gandhi, notwithstanding his carefully constructed persona from a barrister to a near hermit like Swami, he was politically very astute.

    He realised that to get the best out of the British, you required an Indian, who was more British than Indian , and given the weakness of the British for class, have a bloke who had class credentials.

    Naturally, Nehru won hands down with all his British college & hobnobbing background.
     
  8. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,118
    Likes Received:
    23,545
    Location:
    Somewhere
    In hindsight, it appears that initially Nehru was the answer, but given his penchant to toe the saheb bahadur's line, as in Kasmir where to please the West, he accepted the UN brokerage of J & K, he seriously required to have stepped down

    But then, India was and is now, steeped in the art of sycophancy, ji hazoori that the Congress is legend, Nehru ruled the roost to India's disadvantage.

    One cannot cry over spilt milk!
     
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2013
  9. Ankit Purohit

    Ankit Purohit Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2012
    Messages:
    1,051
    Likes Received:
    616
    Location:
    Mumbai
    Only People of india misses Sardar Patel
     
  10. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,118
    Likes Received:
    23,545
    Location:
    Somewhere
    Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, son of Sir Ashutosh Mukherjee, a well-respected advocate in Bengal, was Minister for Industry and Supply in Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru's cabinet.

    He was a noted freedom fighter with great achievements to his credit and was widely respected by many Indians and also by members of the Indian National Congress, and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, one of its chief leaders.

    He quit the Indian National Congress party and founded the nationalist Bharatiya Jana Sangh party in 1951.

    Now, is Shayma Prasad Mukherjee a Congress person or BJP?

    In short, those who were in the Indian National Congress, before the Partition and immediately after the Partition belong to no political party. They had all joined under the single banner of Congress, irrespective of views, so provide a united front against the British for a common cause.
     
  11. dhananjay1

    dhananjay1 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2013
    Messages:
    972
    Likes Received:
    912
    Location:
    india
    Funny how Congressis are suddenly remembering Patel, watching the Congress ads on tv one might think that the whole party was a private property of Nehru-Gandhis.
     
  12. maomao

    maomao Veteran Hunter of Maleecha Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2010
    Messages:
    4,497
    Likes Received:
    4,142
    Yeah Sure, Patel was Secular and Nehru 2.0.....Con party never ceases to amaze me! But this is Maun Mohan Singh Speaker from a script written by Maino's NAC!
     
  13. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,118
    Likes Received:
    23,545
    Location:
    Somewhere
    I would not know if he was secular, but there is no doubt he was a nationalist.

    In India secularism has been so misused & corrupted that one really does not know what is meant when people use the word 'secula'.
     
    kseeker likes this.
  14. The Messiah

    The Messiah Bow Before Me! Elite Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2010
    Messages:
    10,788
    Likes Received:
    4,552
    The disputed legacy of Vallabhbhai Patel

    How justified is the BJP in claiming Sardar Patel as their own? And the Congress in contesting the claim?
    The Sangh's attempts to 'adopt' Patel are old. M S Golwalkar had tried to play Patel's anti-left instincts, urging him in letters to let the RSS help in battling the communist hold over the youth. The BJP, founded in 1980, seeks a past with a connect to the freedom struggle. Deendayal Upadhyay and Syama Prasad Mookerjee never really attained iconic status, and the projection of L K Advani as the new Lauh Purush was part of the BJP's continuing attempt to appropriate Patel. The Congress has always been a coalition, with a huge pantheon and long history. The BJP-RSS-Jana Sangh has tried to imagine an India minus the Nehru family. Setting up Patel and an imagined India had he been PM, is helpful, though not necessarily factual. In February 1949 Patel had said, "Hindu Raj is a mad idea, it will kill the soul of India."

    How did the trajectories of Patel and Nehru differ? Where did each come from?
    Their origins and personalities were very different, even though both were lawyers and extremely close to Gandhi. Nehru was an erudite Kashmiri Brahmin with very upper class credentials; Patel came from a Gujarati farming community of lesser means. Nehru was the more flamboyant and outward-looking.

    How did each see Partition?
    Patel, a staunch Hindu, helped both Hindus and Muslims, and saved many lives, a fact that even the Muslim League leader from UP, Chaudhry Khaliquzzaman, acknowledged before he left for Pakistan. Patel immediately accepted Partition as an inevitability, and helped Nehru come to terms with it. Patel also thought that the onus was on Muslims to defeat suspicions about the actions of some of their co-religionists in the pre-Partition days. Nehru was a progressive Hindu who firmly believed that India must afford the same rights to all its citizens and, if anything, the minority must be treated with greater care.

    What role did each play after Independence?
    Patel was tasked with bringing the princely states around. Patel's biographer Rajmohan Gandhi wrote, "In the six months between freedom and Gandhi's death, the Mahatma, Nehru and Patel constituted a crucial triumvirate that agreed that independent India would be not a Hindu Rashtra but one that offered equal rights to all. After Gandhi's departure and until Patel's death in December 1950, Patel and Nehru differed on several matters but not on some fundamentals. With the help of others including Ambedkar, Maulana Azad, Rajendra Prasad and Rajaji, they entrenched secularism and equality in the Constitution."

    Where did they differ?
    Nehru's sympathies lay to the left; Patel was seen to nurse a soft spot for business, and perceived to be anti-labour. Nehru believed in India's place in the world; the moral force of the non-aligned principle gave India a voice on the international podium. Patel was a practising Hindu who, perhaps by his open support for the orthodox Hindu stream in the Congress, Rajendra Prasad and Purshottam Das Tandon, raised Nehru's hackles — until Gandhi intervened and requested Patel to sink his differences with Nehru. Patel demurred, and his early death in 1950 left the field clear for Nehru to steer the Congress and India to the left. There were crucial things Patel agreed with Nehru on, such as the place of Urdu in AIR programmes; the Nehru-Liaquat pact of 1950, over which Syama Prasad Mookerjee resigned; and on the granting of the right to propagate one's religion being a part of religious freedoms.

    How did each see Gandhi's assassination and the RSS's role?
    Gandhi's assassination and the involvement of Hindu militant groups in it brought Patel and Nehru the closest they ever came. Patel banned the RSS and jailed Golwalkar. After his release that August, Golwalkar made a series of pleas to Patel, hoping to win him over. Patel finally answered in a letter dated September 11, 1948, telling him what he thought of the RSS "attacking Musalmans", and that all RSS speeches were "full of communal poison... as a result of the poison, the country had to suffer the sacrifice of the invaluable life of Gandhiji." Nehru's antipathy to the RSS was well known, and Patel backed it fully.

    How did Patel see Kashmir?
    Patel's big project was stitching more than 600 princely states into India, using a variety of tools and techniques. He viewed Kashmir as a "severe headache", and the case was steered by Nehru, due to the latter's ancestry and personal affection for Sheikh Abdullah. Patel was with Nehru in all his decisions, but Hindu nationalists feel Kashmir should have been managed in the more muscular style of Hyderabad or Junagadh.

    The disputed legacy of Vallabhbhai Patel - Indian Express
     
  15. VIP

    VIP Ultra Nationalist Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2012
    Messages:
    4,684
    Likes Received:
    3,187
    Location:
    Gandhinagar
    Can we have this thread clean from flame baiting and Nehru arse licking articles?? How conveniently article claims that RSS wanted to take over Patel and only focuses on RSS bashing while ignores the facts that Nehru was an idiot and full of inferiority complex. Article idiotically diverts the issue and tries to portay Patel some complex personality. The last paragraph of article clearly spreading a BIG FUKING LIE. Go back and see how Patel saved the rest of the Kashmir, he was never ever agree with Nehru on Kashmir matter.
     
    kseeker and dealwithit like this.
  16. Eesh

    Eesh Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    162
    Location:
    New Delhi
    And this secular took the initiative to rebuild Somnath temple, in the teeth of opposition of Nehru.
     
    TrueSpirit likes this.
  17. The Messiah

    The Messiah Bow Before Me! Elite Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2010
    Messages:
    10,788
    Likes Received:
    4,552
    distort facts + ad hominem = win ?
     
  18. The Messiah

    The Messiah Bow Before Me! Elite Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2010
    Messages:
    10,788
    Likes Received:
    4,552
    Secularism in Indian constitution means state has no religion and respects all religions equally which means appease all while in west it means dont appease any.

    If govt builds temples, mosques, churches etc then too it is secular.
     
  19. Singh

    Singh Phat Cat Administrator

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2009
    Messages:
    20,305
    Likes Received:
    8,270
    Location:
    011
    @Ray Sir, from what little I know, Sardar Patel was not opposed to any of the fundamentals of the Constitution. Nehru had support of almost all communities.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 10, 2015
  20. Simple_Guy

    Simple_Guy Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2013
    Messages:
    938
    Likes Received:
    533
    Location:
    Delhi
    Another was C Rajagopalachari who also quit the Nehru Congress and founded the Swatantra Party.
     
    TrueSpirit likes this.
  21. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,118
    Likes Received:
    23,545
    Location:
    Somewhere
    In those days everyone was a Congressman except the Communists.

    Patel had views that were opposite to many of Nehru's views, to include on manner of reunification of States, the Kashmir issue, on Tibet &so on.

    While he may not have any issues on the Fundamentals of the Cinstitution, he outrightly rejected that there should be separate Constituecies for Muslims, when the latter demanded the same. The language in which it was rejected was not flattering to the current sensibilities.



    This is what Sardar Vallabhai Paelt said:

    So far as the amendment moved by the representative of the Muslim League is concerned, I find that I was mistaken in my Impression. and if I had believed this, I, would certainly not have agreed to any reservation at all. (Hear, Hear). When I agreed to the reservation an the population basis, I thought that our friends of the Muslim League will see the reasonableness of our attitude and allow themselves to accommodate themselves to the changed conditions after the separation of the country.

    But I now find them adopting the same methods which were adopted when the separate electorates were first introduced in this country, and in spite of ample sweetness in the language used there is a full dose of poison in the method adopted. (Hear, Hear).

    Therefore, I regret to say that if I lose the affection of the younger brother, I am prepared to lose it because the method he wants to adopt would bring about his death. I would rather lose his affection and keep him alive. If this amendment is lost, we will lose the affection of the younger brother, but I prefer the younger brother to live so that he may see the wisdom of the attitude of the elder brother and he may still learn to have affection for the elder brother.

    Now, this formula has a history behind it and those who are in the Congress will be able to remember that history.

    In Congress history this is known as the Mohammad Ali Formula. Since the introduction of separate electorates in this land there were two parties amongst tile Muslims. One was the Nationalist Muslims or the Congress Muslims and the other the Muslim League members, or the representatives of the Muslim League. There was considerable tension on this question and at one time there was a practical majority against this joint electorate. But a stage was reached when, as was pointed out by the Mover of this amendment in Allahabad a settlement was reached. Did we stand by that settlement ? No. We now have got the division of the country.

    In order to prevent the separation of the country this formula was evolved by the nationalist Muslims, as a sort of half-way house, until the nation becomes one; we wished to drop it afterwards. But now the separation of the country is complete and you say, let us introduce it again and have another separation. I do not understand this method of affection.

    Therefore, although I would not have liked to say anything on this motion, I think it is better that we know our minds perfectly each other, so that we can understand where we stand. If the process that was adopted, which resulted in the separation of the country, is to be repeated, then I say : Those who want that kind of thing have a place in Pakistan, not here (Applause.)

    Here, we are building a nation and we are laying the foundations of One Nation, and those who choose to divide again and sow the seeds of disruption will have no place, no quarter, here, and I must say that plainly enough. (Hear, Hear.)

    Now, if you think that reservation necessarily means this clause as you have suggested, I am prepared to withdraw the reservation for your own benefit. If you agree to that, I am prepared, and I am sure no one in this House will be against the withdrawal of the reservation if that is a satisfaction to you. (Cheers.) You cannot have it both ways. Therefore, my friends, you must change your attitude, adapt yourself to the changed conditions. And don't pretend to say "Oh, our affection is very great for you". We have seen your affection. Why talk of it ? Let us forget the affection. Let us face the realities.

    Ask yourself whether you really want to stand here and cooperate with us or you want again to play disruptive tactics. Therefore when I appeal to you, I appeal to you to have a change in your heart, not a change in the tongue, because that won't pay here.

    Therefore, I still appeal to you : "Friends, reconsider your attitude and withdraw your amendment". Why go on saying "Oh, Muslims were not heard; Muslim amendment was not carried". If that is going to pay you, you are much mistaken, and I know how it cost me to protect the Muslim minorities here under the present condition and in the present atmosphere.

    Therefore, I suggest that you don't forget that the days in which the agitation of the type you carried on are closed and we begin a new chapter.

    Therefore, I once more appeal to you to forget the past. Forget what has happened. You have got what you wanted. You have got a separate State and remember, you are the people who were responsible for it, and not those who remain in Pakistan. You led the agitation. You got it. What is it that you want now ? I don't understand.

    In the majority Hindu provinces you, the minorities, you led the agitation. You got the partition and now again you tell me and ask me to say for the purpose of Securing the affection of the younger brother that I must agree to the same thing again, to divide the country again in the divided part. For God's sake, understand that we have also got some sense. Let us understand the thing clearly. Therefore when I say we must forget the past, I say it sincerely. There will be no injustice done to you. There will be generosity towards you, but there must be reciprocity. If it is absent, then you take it from me that no soft words can conceal what is behind your words. Therefore, I plainly once more appeal to you strongly that let us forget and let us be one nation.

    http://164.100.47.132/LssNew/constituent/vol5p9.html

    (MMS, the PM says Patel is secular. Must be.
    But surely the above does not agree with what the Congress purveys as 'secularism' these days).



    Nehru was Gandhi's choice & Indians are known for deifying Leaders and following them without question.

    I believe Gandhi (having heard of stories of those days from my parents) had acquired the status of a Demi God & India followed with Blind Faith!
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 10, 2015

Share This Page