Not history

Without proper annotation or background information on the contexts, The Diary often gives a distorted picture of Sardar Patel and the complex processes in which he was involved, says RAJMOHAN GANDHI.

IF they had been annotated, translated well and placed in context, these entries from the Gujarati diaries of Maniben Patel, the Sardar's daughter, would have been of interest to scholars for some time to come. They might also have helped in filling gaps in historical knowledge, for Maniben, who was present at many of her father's interviews, often jotted down salient points made by or to him.

Sadly, however, this book is worse than a disappointment. The title is misleading, for on their own the diary entries do not and cannot tell the "inside story of Sardar Patel". Worse, the translation is pathetically poor, the editing poorer, the proof- reading appalling and the annotation non-existent. All this, minus even an index, for merely a 1,000 rupees. (Well, five rupees less than a 1,000.) That the volume is a translation is not stated on the cover or the title-page. The fact of translation and the translator's name lie concealed in a dense paragraph in the chief editor's introduction.

What a way to do justice to an extraordinary man whom the Indian establishment neglected for several years! This is a book that gives us "Kamaraja", "Ambedekar", "Handerson" (American ambassador Loy Henderson), "Jamshed" (for the Jamsaheb), "Misraji" (D.P. Mishra, father of Brajesh), "Linlithgon" (Linlithgow), "Sri Prakash" (Sri Prakasa) and a few hundred other misspellings.

Gandhi is turned into a padre on p. 432, with the Gujarati Pujya Bapuji becoming "Rev Bapuji". Someone had "collided (colluded) with the League" and someone else had made "an object apology" (p. 425). Some men, believe it or not, are "behaved to be Jayanarayan aides" (p. 430), but who Jayanarayan is, is not explained. In fact no name, incident, episode or issue is explained on any page. I feel sad writing all this, for I know the toll that editing or translating takes, yet standards ought to match the material worked upon.

The blurb's opening sentence speaks of "the hitherto unknown diary of Sardar Patel's daughter". Unpublished as a collection maybe, but "unknown"? Researchers have known and used the diaries for years. When, in 1987, Babubhai Patel, the chairman of the Sardar Patel Memorial Society, asked me if I would attempt a Vallabhbhai biography, he particularly mentioned the existence of the diaries. They of course proved to be of considerable value for my research, and the biography that resulted, first published by Navajivan in 1990, quotes numerous entries from them.

Noting in my biography that Maniben's entries show the Sardar speaking of Nehru as an "autocrat" with an "ego" and of "a great estrangement" between them, I added that such "hard words describe only a facet of the Patel-Nehru relationship" and that "taken in isolation they distort the truth".

The Patel who had used sharp language for Nehru was also the one who had written to Jawaharlal in August 1947: "My services will be at your disposal, I hope, for the rest of your life and you will have unquestioned loyalty... from me... Our combination is unbreakable and therein lies our strength."

On February 4, 1948, after the Mahatma's assassination, Vallabhbhai, the Deputy Prime Minister who was 14 years older than Nehru, called Jawaharlal "my leader" in a speech before Congress MPs and added: "I am one with the Prime Minister on all national issues. For over a quarter of a century both of us sat at the feet of our master and struggled together for the freedom of India. It is unthinkable today, when the Mahatma is no more, that we should quarrel."

That such an agreement and unity existed, and that it survived until Patel's death in December 1950, will not of course be believed by any who only read Patel's stark comments about Nehru in the diaries as presented in the volume under review. No doubt Maniben only recorded what she heard, but in this volume the remarks are presented without reference to their contexts. (Moreover, the editing is such that in many cases it is impossible to make out whether a barbed remark is Patel's or that of his visitor, or where the remark was made).

The Patel-Nehru conflicts are well known. At the end of 1949, when the first President for the Republic had to be found, Nehru wanted Rajaji but after an initial ambivalence Patel supported Rajendra Prasad, who was chosen. In August 1950, the Sardar was again on the winning side, and Nehru on the losing, when Purshottam Das Tandon won a contest for the Congress presidentship, defeating Acharya Kripalani, whom Nehru had backed. Bitter words marked both contests but the relationship did not break.

If unaware of other facts, the reader of these diary entries will believe that over Kashmir, Hyderabad and the Indo-Pak Pact of 1950, the Nehru-Patel differences were unbridgeable. But were they? While disliking the reference of Kashmir to the U.N., Patel went along with the removal of Hari Singh, the empowerment of Sheikh Abdullah and the provision of Article 370.

As for the Nehru-Liaqat Pact of April 1950, over which Syamaparsad Mookerjee resigned from the Union cabinet, Patel pledged his "whole strength and energy to making a success of the Agreement and vindicating the stand of the Prime Minister," and he also pointed out that "ugly and deplorable incidents from our side" had "weakened our position".

On his part, though unsure of the timing of Patel's Hyderabad operation, Nehru went along with it. Historically, which is more remarkable - the Patel-Nehru differences, which were undoubtedly important, or the fact that the two stayed together? Those riveted only by the differences have to face some ambiguities. Thus in the Diary, Patel says conflicting things about Kashmir. While on July 23, 1949 he seems to want to do "battle for the whole of Kashmir" (p.291), on September 27, 1950 referring to Kashmir, the Sardar tells R. K. Patil, "Now how long can India bear this burden?" (p. 425).

Questions about what Patel "really" thought on an issue cannot be resolved by referring to the Diary. Other contemporary documents, and especially Patel's own letters and statements, may throw equal or greater light. As far as Kashmir is concerned, Jayaprakash Narayan was probably right when shortly after Patel's death he commented on the difficulty of knowing how the Sardar would have tackled it.

If well-edited, a diary of this sort would obviously help the researcher. Still, a diary is not history. A diary by a leader's loyal, observant and candid companion - a son, daughter or aide - would doubtless reveal the leader's private face, his or her slang, biases and style. (Sadly, the bluntness and colour of the Sardar's Patidar Gujarati are wholly missing in this translation.) It might interestingly sum up individuals and situations. Such a diary could also reveal any contradictions between the leader's private and public views.

Yet the question remains, which would contain more truth, the remarks noted down at the time by a devoted and enthusiastic daughter, or the father's public utterances made at the same time, and the letters he wrote? Was his real feeling in the former, and were the latter the result of political constraints? Or did the former represent his first reactions and the latter his considered ones? Is the Patel we hear in these diaries the "final" or "real" Patel (if there is such a thing), or is he in a reflecting or bargaining process? To get good terms for a deal that a leader intends to make, he (or she) encourages supporters to fight, and this is done by using blunt words and showing a stern front, not by leaking a willingness to compromise.

The candid Patel that Maniben recorded and the Nehru he found so difficult represented different Indian realities. Where various views, interests and communities exist, a dictatorial leadership can privilege a single standpoint or interest. But a democratic movement or nation needs to reconcile several viewpoints and interests. In India, from 1919 to 1947, the reconciliation was largely achieved by Gandhi's personality and leadership, and in the opening three years of independence it was mainly the result of the Nehru-Patel duumvirate.

Complementing each other in abilities, influence and perspectives, and speaking honestly to each other about their views, Patel and Nehru ran a successful duumvirate for more than three years. The exercise was not pleasant or easy for either but it was part of their commitment. The two provided an impressive example of accommodation despite disagreements, and despite ardent "seconds" and media partisans who pushed for a break.

Documents that clarify the intricacies in the oft-stormy Patel- Nehru relationship would mean much, and a properly annotated version of the Maniben diaries could of course do that. The volume under review does not, not by a long shot.

Inside Story of Sardar Patel: The Diary of Maniben Patel, 1936- 50, chief editor: P. N. Chopra, editor: Prabha Chopra, Vision Books, New Delhi, Rs. 995.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Features
Next     : Tackling communalism