APEX COURT'S VERDICT - A TRIBUTE TO SARDAR PATEL

Six decades later the Sardar is making the headlines again. There is suddenly a tussle for his legacy as well as to appropriate him. The question of who will be entitled to pay a tribute and the manner of the tribute is also likely to make the Iron Man wonder as to whether his memory should have even resurfaced.

At this very hour, the Supreme Court has quietly and effectively paid its tribute by handing a judgement which is touted to unshackle the bureaucrats much against the opinion of yours truly as reminding the bureaucrats of their role. Even as the epitaph of imperialism was being written in India by its Constituent Assembly, a debate raged as to whether the bureaucracy in its form needs to be retained. There were many a legendary figures who were led by their patriotic fervour over the rationale to write off the bureaucracy and put a new form of administration in place. The Sardar led the defence of retaining them by pointing to the diverse fabric of the nation and the need to have a continuous chain which could effectively administer even as the political winds change. In his own words, “There was no alternative to this administrative system….The Union will go, you will not have a united India, if you have not a good All India Service, which has the independence to speak out its mind, which has a sense of security …. If you do not adopt this course, then do not follow the present Constitution…. This constitution is meant to be worked by a ring of service, which will keep the country intact. There are many impediments in this Constitution, which will hamper us. ….. These people are the instruments. Remove them and I see nothing but a picture of chaos all round the country.”

On the same day the Sardar delivered a sterling message to Parliamentarians, bureaucrats and citizens alike which cannot be better rendered than in his own words which were , "When Mr. Hender son came here to settle this question of the Services, he had long discussions with me. He said that before the transference of power arrangements should be made to the satisfaction of the Parliament, that transference of power will take place only when guarantees are given to the members of the Secretary of States' services, each individual member of which has a Covenant with the Secretary of State for permanency and for certain other guarantees. More than fifty per cent. of the Secretary of State's services were Europeans. Britishers, and the rest were Indians. It was then suggested by him that there should be a treaty between England and India on this question. The suggestion was also made that they should begiven due compensation if they have to leave the Services because they would not like to serve in the Indian administration, and that they should be given proportionate pension. Their status, their time-scale of pay, everything was

to be settled before any question of transfer of power could be considered.

Now, I had long negotiations and it was then a joint Government of the Muslims and the Non-Muslims. It was an all-India Government at that time and these negotiations resulted in certain conclusions which were placed before the Cabinet-it was a joint Cabinet at the time-and they were accepted by them. Then those conclusions were sent to Parliament and it was accepted there.

Many of the Europeans who were in the services here have left now, but when the negotiations were going on, I told them to leave the case of Indians to us, that we shall deal with them as we deemed just, that they will trust us and we will trust them; and finally they agreed on certain conditions.

 Now, I wish to point out that hardly anybody raised any objection to the arrangements that we were making at that time, but if they had suspected us. then there was plenty of scope at that time for them to come out and get better terms from outside agencies. Even now, if you are not willing to keep them, find out your substitute and many of them will go; the best of them will go. I wish to assure you that I have worked with them during this difficult period I am speaking with a sense of heavy responsibility-and I must confess that in point of patriotism, in point of loyalty, in point of sincerity and in point of ability, you cannot have a substitute. They are as good as ourselves, and to speak of them in disparaging terms in this House, in public, and to criticise them in the this manner, is doing disservice to yourselves and to the country. This is my considered opinion.

 Now, I will give you another series of facts which will convince you why guarantees were given. You had seen what was happening in the Punjab. In the five districts where havoc was being wrought, five British officers were in power and nothingcould be done. I tried to get the District Magistrate of Gurgaon transferred. I could not succeed, and the British officer there arrested leading Congressmen when they were not at fault and put them in jail as hostages; he had the cheek to write on the application presented to him by the President of the Bar Association there to the effect that those were innocent and they should not be arrested and that they should be released immediately, that those people were being kept as hostages. This is the way he was doing this business. I was shocked and I went to Gurgaon. I saw him coming on the way and I asked him, "Have you arrested people as hostages?" He said, "No, who told you?" Fortunately, I had the document with me on which he had made that endorsement, and I showed him the endorsement. He asked, "How did you get this?" I said," That is not the question. Is this your endorsement or not?" After that, I

tried hard, I wrote to the then Governor of the Punjab, I pleaded with the Viceroy, but I found it difficult to remove him, and you know the havoc that was played in Gurgaon an these other districts. It was not in the Punjab alone; in other places also many such things were done. It was a time of touch and go and we could have lost India. Then we insisted that we had come to a stage when power must be transferred immediately, whatever happens, and then we decided to resign. It was at that time that Lord Mountbatten came.

I give you this inner history which nobody knows., I agreed to Partition as a last resort, when we had reached a stage when we could have lost all. We had five or six members in the Government, the Muslim League members. They had already established themselves as members who had come to partitions the country. At that stage we agreed to Partition; we decided that Partition could be agreed upon on the terms that the Punjab should be partitioned-they wanted the whole of it-that Bengal should be partitioned-they wanted Calcutta and the whole of it. Mr. Jinnah did not want a turncated Pakistan, but he had to swallow it. We said that these two provinces should be partitioned. I made a further condition that in two months' time power should be transferred and an Act should be passed by Parliament in that time, if it was guaranteed that the British Government would not interfere with the question of the Indian States. We said, "we will deal with that question; leave it to us; you take no sides. Let paramountcy be dead; you do not directly or indirectly try to revive it in any manner. You do not interfere. We shall settle our problem. The Princes are ours and we shall deal with them." On those conditions we agreed to Partition and on those conditions the Bill in Parliament was passed in two months, agreed to by all the three parties. Show me any instance in the history of the British Parliament when such a Bill was passed in two months. But this was done. It gave birth to this Parliament.

 You now say, why did the leaders give these guarantees? In order to allow you to have an opportunity to attack the leaders on this very point. What else? You are responsible Members of the Parliament of a huge country. The Leader of this Parliament has been invited to America, the highest honour that could be done to him. He is treated with great respect. They are giving him all honours. You here say, "Why did the leaders give these assurances?" Think of the past. Why do you forget it? Have you read your own recent history? What is the use of talking that the service people were serving while we were in jail? I myself was arrested, I have been arrested several times. But that has never made any difference in my feeling towards people in the services. I do not defend the black sheep; they may be there. But are there not many honest people among them? But what is the language that you are using? I wish to place it on record in this House that if, during the last two or three years, most of the members of the services had not behaved patriotically and with loyalty, the Union would have collapsed. Ask Dr. John Matthai. He is working for the last fortnight with them on the economic question. You may ask his opinion. You will find what he says about the Services. You ask the Premiers of all provinces. Is there any Premier in any province who is prepared to work without the Services? He will immediately resign. He cannot manage. We had a small nucleus of a broken Service. With that bit of Service we have carried on a very difficult task. And if a responsible man speaks in this ton about these

Services, he has to decide whether he has a substitute to propose, and let him take the responsibility. This is not a Congress platform."

Imagine a situation emerging within six decades wherein the bureaucrats become yes masters as well as collude against the interests of the nation. The vision of the great man was in ruins. It is a matter of tragic travesty that while his adversary on this count Nehru respected the bureaucracy leading to names of offices such as HM Patel, T N Chaturvedi, Rau amongst a host of other luminaries figuring in the list which held the nation together, it was his own daughter, Indira who chose to undo several of these institutions. The gradual corrosion combined with the stinking rot needs to be stemmed by seeking inspiration from souls who could even sacrifice the post of Premier at the altar of the interests of the nation at large. 

It is a sterling message sent out by the judges of the Supreme Court. The question is whether we are ready to receive it and abide by it will be answered in the times to come. In the meantime, let us look for innovative methods of furthering the memory of the Iron Man. Let us also bury our differences as we pay such a tribute. Furthermore, the differences amongst ourselves should not be aired at the solemn moment of paying such a tribute. These would ensure that the Sardar is not unhappy even if it does not give him happiness.