Today is the 75th death anniversary of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. The first Home Minister of the country, known as ‘Iron Man’, played a big role in creating a united India by uniting 562 princely states after India’s independence. His foresight, decisive ability and spirit of communal harmony gave a strong foundation to the country. But today when we remember him, a controversy comes to the fore which continued to influence the politics and society of India for decades… Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi dispute.
Sardar Patel was born on 31 October 1875 in Nadiad, Gujarat. He belonged to a farmer family, but through his hard work he became a barrister and jumped into the freedom struggle. Patel, who was close to Mahatma Gandhi, received the title of ‘Sardar’ from Bardoli Satyagraha. After independence, he became the first Home Minister of India. He died of a heart attack on 15 December 1950. On his death anniversary, we remember his legacy, of which communal harmony is a major part.
What did Nehru have to say on the statues in Babri Masjid?
This incident created a stir in the entire country. Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru was very angry with this. Letters preserved in the Nehru Archives show that Nehru wrote several letters to the then Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, Govind Ballabh Pant. On 26 December 1949, Nehru sent a telegram: ‘I am troubled by the events in Ayodhya. Hope you will take personal interest in this matter. A dangerous example is being set there which will give bad consequences.
Nehru believed that this incident would affect the Kashmir issue and India’s image with Pakistan at the international level. In February 1950, he wrote to Pant that the situation in Ayodhya would affect the whole of India, especially Kashmir. He himself offered to go to Ayodhya, but Pant said that the time was not right. Nehru then wrote another letter to Pant in April of the same year, in which he said that the atmosphere of UP was becoming communal, and the Congress members were speaking like Hindu Mahasabha. Nehru’s stance was clear that the statues should be removed and the law should be followed.
What did Sardar Patel think?
Now let’s talk about Sardar Patel. Patel was also concerned by this incident, but his approach was slightly different from Nehru’s, more practical and balanced. His letter is recorded in ‘Sardar Patel’s Correspondence’ (Volume 9, Editor Durga Das), which he wrote to Pant. Patel wrote to Pant, ‘The Prime Minister has already sent you a telegram in which he has expressed concern over the incidents in Ayodhya. I also talked to you on this in Lucknow. I feel that this controversy has been raised at a very inappropriate time…’
He further said that major communal issues have recently been resolved consensually, Muslims are settling into the new environment, and there is little possibility of change of loyalties. Patel stressed, ‘I believe that this issue should be resolved peacefully in the spirit of mutual tolerance and harmony. I understand that there is a deep emotional element behind the step taken. But he clearly said that ‘such things can be resolved peacefully only when we take the will of the Muslim community along with us. Such disputes cannot be resolved by force. In that situation, the forces of law and order will have to maintain peace at all costs.
What was Patel’s opinion on resolving the dispute?
Patel’s stance was balanced. He understood Hindu sentiments. The mention of ‘deep emotional element’ points towards this, but he was against giving any benefit to any party. He wrote that ‘any aggressive or pressure-based unilateral action cannot be accepted.’ Patel stressed that the issue should not be “energized” and existing disputes should be resolved peacefully.
In some sources it is said that Patel was in favor of removing the statues, but it is clear from his letter that he was against the use of force, because it could lead to riots. Patel’s practicality is visible here. They knew that communal tension was at a high level after Partition, and any move could worsen the situation. To understand Patel’s thinking, look at his overall views. He was in favor of Hindu-Muslim unity.
Patel never opposed the mosque, rather he emphasized on harmony. There were differences between Nehru and Patel, but both were concerned over Ayodhya. After Patel’s death, this dispute increased, which reached the demolition of Babri in 1992. Today, on Patel’s death anniversary, we should remember his teachings… unity, harmony and rule of law. Patel’s thinking was that religious disputes should be kept away from politics. His views on the Ayodhya dispute teach us to respect sentiments, but not to take any action without consent. Today, when the Ram Mandir has been built, Patel’s legacy reminds us that peace is the only permanent solution.
