Tag: sardar patel RSS

When Sardar Patel Took on the ‘Forces of Hate’ and Banned the RSS

“All their speeches were full of communal poison, he wrote after banning the Sangh in 1948. “As a final result of the poison, the country had to suffer the sacrifice of the invaluable life of Gandhiji.”

On February 4, in 1948, Sardar Patel had issued a communique to ban the RSS and “root out forces of hate and violence”. This article, first published on October 31, 2018, is being republished on the anniversary of Gandhi’s assassination, on January 30, 2023.

While the Sangh parivar and its associates, including the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), are busy appropriating the legacy of Sardar Patel, the organisation seems to have forgotten that the ‘Iron Man’ was a staunch critic of its politics and had it banned after the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi. In fact, Patel, then the home minister of the country, wrote to RSS leaders in 1948 explaining his decision to ban the group.

In a communique issued on February 4, 1948, the Central government said it was banning the RSS “to root out the forces of hate and violence that are at work in our country and imperil the freedom of the Nation and darken her fair name”.

Also read: Why the BJP Feels It Has to Appropriate Sardar Patel

Here is the full text of the communique, available in the Ministry of Home Affairs archives:

In their resolution of February 2, 1948, the Government of India declared their determination to root out the forces of hate and violence that are at work in our country and imperil the freedom of the Nation and darken her fair name. In pursuance of this policy the Government of India have decided to declare unlawful the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh in the Chief Commissioner’s Provinces. Similar action is also being taken in the Governor’s Provinces.

As democratic governments, the Government of India and the provincial governments have always been anxious to allow reasonable scope for genuine political, social and economic activities to all parties and organisations including those whose policies and purposes differ from, or even run counter to their own, subject to the consideration that such activities should not transgress certain commonly recognised limits of propriety or law. The professed aims and objects of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh are to promote the physical, intellectual and moral well–being of the Hindus and also to foster feelings of brotherhood, love and service amongst them. Government themselves are most anxious to improve the general material and intellectual well–being of all sections of the people and have got schemes on hand which are designed to carry out these objects, particularly the provision of physical training and education in military matters to the youth of the country. Government have, however, noticed with regret that in practice members of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh have not adhered to their professed ideals.

Undesirable and even dangerous activities have been carried on by members of the Sangh. It has been found that in several parts of the country individual members of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh have indulged in acts of violence involving arson, robbery, dacoity, and murder and have collected illicit arms and ammunition. They have been found circulating leaflets exhorting people to resort to terrorist methods, to collect firearms, to create disaffection against the government and suborn the police and the military. These activities have been carried on under a cloak of secrecy, and the government have considered from time to time how far these activities rendered it incumbent on them to deal with the Sangh in its corporate capacity. The last occasion when the government defined this attitude was when the Premiers and the Home Ministers of provinces met in Delhi in conference towards the end of November.

It was then unanimously agreed that the stage when the Sangh should be dealt with as an association had not yet arrived and that individuals should continue to be dealt with sternly as hitherto. The objectionable and harmful activities of the Sangh have, however, continued unabated and the cult of violence sponsored and inspired by the activities of the Sangh has claimed many victims. The latest and the most precious to fall was Gandhiji himself.

In these circumstances it is the bounden duty of the government to take effective measures to curb this reappearance of violence in a virulent form and as a first step to this end, they have decided to declare the Sangh as an unlawful association. Government have no doubt that in taking this measure they have the support of all law–abiding citizens, of all those who have the welfare of the country at heart.

Also read: The Sardar Patel Statue is Narendra Modi’s Necessity

While Sardar Patel may have had a soft spot for the RSS before Gandhi’s assassination, he wrote strongly against the group’s activities in the aftermath of the crime. Patel wrote to Hindu Mahasabha leader Syama Prasad Mookerjee on July 18, 1948, indicting the RSS for continuing with its activities despite the ban:

“There is no doubt in my mind that the extreme section of the Hindu Mahasabha was involved in the conspiracy [to kill Gandhi]. The activities of the RSS constituted a clear threat to the existence of Government and the State. Our reports show that those activities, despite the ban, have not died down. Indeed, as time has marched on, the RSS circles are becoming more defiant and are indulging in their subversive activities in an increasing measure.”

Patel also wrote to M.S. Golwalkar in September 1948, explaining his decision to ban the RSS. He said:

“Organising the Hindus and helping them is one thing but going in for revenge for its sufferings on innocent and helpless men, women and children is quite another thing…apart from this, their opposition to the Congress, that to of such virulence, disregarding all considerations of personality, decay of decorum, created a kind of unrest among the people. All their speeches were fill of communal poison. It was not necessary to spread poison in order to enthuse the Hindus and organise for their protection. As a final result of the poison, the country had to suffer the sacrifice of the invaluable life of Gandhiji. Even an iota of the sympathy of the Government, or of the people, no more remained for the RSS. In face opposition grew. Opposition turned more severe, when the RSS men expressed joy and distributed sweets after Gandhiji’s death. Under these conditions, it became inevitable for the Government to take action against the RSS…Since then over six months have elapsed. We had hoped that after this lapse of time, with full and proper consideration, the RSS persons would come to the right path. But from the reports that come to me, it is evident that attempts to put fresh life into their same old activities are afoot.”

In November 1948, Patel met with RSS chief M.S. Golwalkar at the latter’s request. They met twice, according to a government communique issued on November 14, 1948. In the first meeting, Golwalkar said he needed time to speak to his supporters and influence them along the “right lines”. In the second meeting, however, Golwalkar reportedly said that he could not “bind himself to any change until the ban was lifted”. The Centre then contacted provincial governments, the communique states, which said that “activities carried on in various forms and ways by the people associated with the RSS tend to be anti-national and often subversive and violent and that persistent attempts are being made by the RSS to revive an atmosphere which was productive of such disastrous consequences in the past. For these reasons, the provincial government have declared themselves opposed to the withdrawal of the ban and the Government of India have concurred with the view of the provincial governments.”

After Golwalkar was told of this decision, he sought further meetings with both Patel and Jawaharlal Nehru, but Patel refused to meet him again.

The RSS chief then wrote to the prime minister and home minister, “explaining inter alia that the RSS agrees entirely in the conception of a secular state for India and that it accepts the National Flag of the country and requesting that the ban imposed on the organisation in February should now be lifted.”

“The professions are however quite inconsistent with the practice of his followers and for the reasons already explained above, the Government of India find themselves unable to advise provincial governments to lift the ban,” the government communique says.

The ban on the RSS was eventually lifted on July 11, 1949, after Golwalkar agreed to make certain promises as conditions for the ban being revoked. In its communique announcing the lifting of the ban, the government of India said that the organisation and its leader had promised to be loyal to the constitution and the flag.

“The RSS leader has undertaken to make the loyalty to the Union Constitution and respect for the National Flag more explicit in the Constitution of the RSS and to provide clearly that persons believing or resorting to violent and secret methods will have no place in the Sangh. The RSS leader has also clarified that the Constitution will be worked on a democratic basis.

…In the light of the modifications made and clarifications given by the RSS leader, the Government of India have come to the conclusion that the RSS organisation should be given an opportunity to function as a democratic, cultural organisation owing loyalty to the Indian Constitution and recognising the National Flag eschewing secrecy and abjuring violence. Indeed the Government feel that, under a Constitution embodying these principles and worked in the right spirit, no reasonable objection can be taken to such functioning.”

RSS Chief Bhagwat’s Talk of Uniformity is an Attack on India’s Unity in Diversity

His thesis of homogeneity, embodied in the statement that Hindus and Muslims are one, is a serious and calculated assault on the composite culture of India.

There has always been a wide gulf between what the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh professes and what it practices. Its historical antecedents naturally arouse suspicions regarding the contents of RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat’s recent speech delivered at the Rashtriya Muslim Manch on July 4, 2021.

None can take exception to his statement that the DNA of all Indians is the same irrespective of the religion they profess. It would be welcomed by one and all as a major departure from earlier communally charged and divisive pronouncements from the Sangh parivar clearly asserting supremacy of Hindus over all other faiths.

While reassuringly saying that all Indians have the same DNA, Bhagwat added that “Hindu-Muslim unity is misleading as they’re not different, but one”. Many might welcome this formulation but it also spells uniformity and so negates the idea of unity in diversity. In fact, his thesis of homogeneity, as embodied in the statement that Hindus and Muslims are one, is a serious and calculated assault on the composite culture of India which celebrates the delightful diversities of our country. The smothering of diversity is a surefire road to violence.

The UNDP’s Human Development Report of 2004 on the theme ‘Cultural Liberty in Today’s Diverse World’ insightfully observed, “It is not diversity that inevitably leads to conflict but the suppression of cultural identity and social, political and economic exclusion on the basis of culture that can spark violence and tensions. People may be fearful of diversity and its consequences, but it is opposition to diversity…that can polarize societies and that fuels social tensions.”

Bhagwat’s statement that Hindus and Muslims are one constitutes opposition to diversity and is highly polarising.

His other statement that Hindu-Muslim unity is misleading is very dangerous. It is the unity among Hindus and Muslims which is the fundamental prerequisite for national progress, social harmony and, above all, for promoting fraternity and dignity which are enshrined in the constitution for the cause of unity and integrity of our nation.

Also read: Is a Confused Bhagwat Becoming ‘Pseudo-Secular’? Or Is There a Method Behind His Musings?

Mahatma Gandhi, in his book Constructive Programme, incorporated 18 points and the first point was communal unity. He explained that such unity did not mean political unity which could be imposed from above; it meant the unbreakable unity of hearts by representing in one’s own person the personhood of a Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Zoroastrian, Jew, etc., i.e., every Hindu and non-Hindu. He advised everyone to cultivate personal friendship with persons representing faiths other than his own and to have the same regard for the faiths of others as he had for his own.

By claiming that there is no need for Hindu-Muslim unity, Bhagwat is subverting the idea of the unity of hearts, which is central to Sarva Dharma Sambhav (all religions equal) embodied in the concept and practice of secularism.

File photo of RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat (C) during an RSS function. Photo: PTI

While Bhagwat was pleading that all Indians regardless of faith have the same DNA and neither Hindus nor Muslims would be able to dominate India, the Haryana BJP spokesperson and Karni Sena president Suraj Pal Amu was openly alluding to Muslims by saying that “…we will not give houses here on rent to the Pakistanis” and urged people to “Remove them from this country.”

If his statement has a familiar ring to it, this is no surprise. Mahatma Gandhi  while addressing a prayer meeting on November 16, 1947, categorically stated that “…..the Hindu Mahasabha assisted by the members of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh … wish that all the Muslims should be driven away from the Indian Union”.

In the context of the RSS’s sordid record, who can give credence to Bhagwat’s statement that all Indians share the same DNA? Let us be mindful that in 2018, while speaking in Chicago on the occasion of the 125th anniversary of Swami Vivekananda’s historic address at the World Parliament of Religions, Bhagwat had famously said that Hindus have no aspirations of dominance and the community would prosper only when it worked as a society.

At the same time he very disparagingly said, “If a lion is alone, wild dogs can invade and destroy the lion. We must not forget that.” To refer to any individual or group as “wild dog” is highly uncivilised and derogatory to the ideals of dignity and fraternity proclaimed in the preamble to the Indian constitution. The use of such language smacks of domination; it identifies the “other” as an enemy and is contrary to the idea of tolerance and acceptance.

Yet again in 2018, Bhagwat stirred controversy by saying that “All people living in India are Hindus in terms of identity”.

Also read: After Seven Years of Modi and Shah, the RSS’s Fall from Grace is Total and Complete

Three years later, he is talking about the shared DNA of all Indians. By saying that Hindus and Muslims are the same and that there is no need for unity among them, he is attempting to obliterate the cultural liberty of people. Such an articulation is highly patronising in nature and scope.

By imposing a uniform identity on all Indians, it attacks their cultural liberties which flow from our diversities and are encapsulated in the constitutional framework. The imposition of one specific identity on all Indians is a negation of our pluralistic social fabric.

After the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi, when the RSS took a stand that its objective was to protect Hinduism and Hindus, Sardar Patel had cautioned that it would not be allowed to spread hatred in the name of protecting Hinduism. What Sardar said in the formative stages of our independence remains valid regardless of RSS Chief Bhagwat’s remarks that “those indulging in lynching are against Hindutva, though at times, some false cases of lynching have been registered against people”.

Instead of patronisingly telling the Muslims “’Don’t get trapped in the cycle of fear that Islam is in danger in India” Bhagwat should recall Ambedkar’s words, “If Hindu Raj does become a fact, it will, no doubt, be the greatest calamity for this country” and “must be prevented at any cost.” He should also recall Gandhi who had said while fighting for our independence “I do not want India to be wholly Hindu, wholly Islamic, wholly Christian; but wholly tolerant with all its religions coexisting and flourishing.”

S.N. Sahu served as OSD and press secretary to former President of India, K.R. Narayanan.

A Secularist, Sardar Patel Had United India In Spite of Travancore’s ‘Hindu God’ Excuse

On his birth anniversary, which is celebrated as National Unity Day, we must remember the ethos of equality that Sardar Patel communicated through his actions.

Note: This article was originally published on October 31, 2020 and is being republished on December 15, 2020 to mark Sardar Patel’s death anniversary.

On October 31, 2018, Prime Minister Narendra Modi while unveiling the statue of Sardar Patel – popularly known as the ‘Statue of Unity’ – said that had Patel not united the princely states to form the Union of India “Shiv bhakts” would have needed visas to pray at the Somnath temple, visit the lions at Junagarh or see the Charminar at Hyderabad.

He was conveniently invoking the integration of Hyderabad and Junagarh to the Indian Union because  Muslim rulers ruled  those princely states. Modi did so to convey the point with a mala fide intent. Without Sardar Patel’s historic role, Muslim rulers would not have joined the Indian Union and it would have been impossible to forge the unity of India, Modi seemed to say.

PM Modi at the Statue of Unity in Gujarat. Photo: PTI

Modi’s selective picking of princely states ruled by Muslim rulers had a majoritarian subtext in it – to drive home the point that Muslims as a whole had posed a threat to the unity of India and they need to be reminded of this all the time.

The Travancore rulers

While unabashedly pointing fingers at Muslim princely rulers coming in the way of the unity of India, Modi was deliberately (or maybe due to the lack of understanding of history) oblivious to the fact that the Hindu religion and a Hindu god was cited by the princely rulers of the Hindu kingdom of Travancore as reasons to not to join Indian Union.

Had Sardar Patel and V.P. Menon not taken tough measures to unite that Hindu kingdom, people of India would have required visas to visit what is now known as Kerala and offer prayers in the shrine of Lord Padmanabha.   

It is a lesser known fact that it was the Hindu kingdom of Travancore which became the first princely state to declare itself independent and refused to join the Indian Union in 1946 itself, before the British paramountcy lapsed over the princely rulers.

V.P. Menon in his book, The Story of the Integration of the Indian States, wrote that on June 11, 1946, the Dewan of Travancore

“…Sir C.P. Ramaswami Aiyar announced that the princely State had decided to set itself up as an independent sovereign State…that lead was followed by several others, whose attitude was naturally causing the Government of India some anxiety.”

That decision of Travancore was welcomed and supported by Muhammad Ali Jinnah. Menon documented in his book that, “The Dewan of Travancore went to the extent of announcing his intention to appoint a Trade Agent in Pakistan.”

Also read: Why the BJP Feels It Has to Appropriate Sardar Patel

It is quite revealing to note that the rulers of the Hindu kingdom of Travancore invoked Hinduism and the Hindu god Lord Padmanabha in validating their decision to not to join the Indian Union.

They asserted that the sovereignty of Travancore rested with Lord Padmanabha and He could not be subservient to the sovereignty of India.

Menon mentioned in his book that the devotion of the maharajah to Padmanabha bordered on fanaticism.

K.R. Narayanan cites example

Former president K.R. Narayanan, in a speech delivered on the occasion of the unveiling the statue of Sardar Patel in parliament on August 14, 1998, made a poignant reference to that point and said:

“When the Dewan of Travancore, Sir C.P. Ramaswamy Iyer, held out the argument that no one could negotiate a merger of the State with India as Travancore was ruled “in the name and on behalf of the tutelary deity, Sri Padmanabha”, the Sardar snapped with a twinkle in his eye “Is that so? Then please tell me how could Travancore’s rulers allow Lord Padmanabha to become subservient to the British Crown?”

He had added, “The story of the integration of the states into the Union of India is a fitting dramatic epilogue to the struggle for our Independence. The arguments and methods adopted by the Sardar were manifold and effective”. 

Also read: How K.R. Narayanan’s Fidelity to Constitutional Values Led Him to Reject Bharat Ratna for Savarkar

It was thus clear that unlike in Hyderabad and Junagarh and many other princely states of India, it was only in the Hindu Kingdom of Travancore that a Hindu god was invoked and the theory of divine right employed to counter the secular basis of the Indian Union enshrined in our constitution and constitutional values.

K.R. Narayanan. Photo: Wikimedia Commons

Even in the context of Jammu and Kashmir, a Muslim majority state, Patel, while speaking in the Constituent Assembly on October 12, 1949, said:

“In view of the special problems with which the Government of Jammu and Kashmir is faced, we have made a special provision for the continuance of the constitutional relationship of the State with the Union”. 

The leaders subscribing to Hindutva often talk of the precedence of faith over statecraft, governance and rule of law. They should be mindful of the splendid example of Sardar Patel, who being a Hindu never hesitated to foil the attempts of Travancore rulers to invoke a much-revered Hindu deity not to join the Indian Union.

The foil of Hinduism

Apart from using the Hindu god Lord Padmanabha to frustrate the attempts of Sardar Patel and V.P. Menon, the rulers of Travancore made a preposterous claim that Hinduism would be in danger if the Hindu kingdom became an integral part of the Indian Union.

In fact, Sardar Patel during his historic visit to Travancore on May 15, 1950, one year after the integration of that princely state, while addressing a massive conclave of one lakh people appealed to them not to get carried away by “the false cry of Hinduism in danger” raised by a section of people there. He assured them that Hinduism would never die in India.

He further added that upon hearing for the first time of a purported danger to Hinduism, he observed with anguish, “There was one Hindu who made a reputation for India all over the world. That was Gandhi ji. And yet it was a Hindu who killed him. Is that Hinduism? Do you preserve Hinduism by that method?…Hinduism can never be in danger in India. Shankaracharya never raised the cry of Hinduism in danger.”

Sardar’s line that Hinduism cannot be preserved by killing a great Hindu like Mahatma Gandhi assumes critical relevance now that the assassin of Gandhi is being glorified and Hindutva leaders get elected to the parliament for doing so. 

Also read: Sadhvi Pragya as BJP Candidate: How the SC Missed an Opportunity to Cleanse Politics

The current prime minister who famously said that he would not be able to excuse them in his heart of hearts did hardly anything against them. Even Amit Shah sought an explanation from those leaders and referred the matter to the disciplinary committee of the BJP. But nothing happened after that.

Is this not an affront to the legacy of Sardar Patel? 

Bhopal MP Pragya Singh Thakur. Photo: PTI

Hindutva negates Patel’s broad views

The affront continues in an intensified manner through the enactment of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, which grants Indian citizenship to people of Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan on the basis of their religion and, thereby, negates the idea of citizenship expounded by Sardar Patel on April 29, 1947, in the Constituent Assembly where he had insightfully said:

“It is important to remember that the provision about citizenship will be scrutinised all over the world. They are watching what we are doing…Therefore, our general preface or the general right of citizenship…should be so broad-based that any one who reads our laws cannot take any other view than that we have taken an enlightened modern civilised view”.

Also read: ‘Don’t Need Hindutva Certificate’: Maharashtra CM, Governor Spar Over Reopening Temples

It is instructive to note that the BJP leadership and Hindutva ideologues who try hard to appropriate Sardar Patel are absolutely silent on his secular vision and outlook which he coherently expressed on numerous occasions in his interventions in the Constituent Assembly. While moving the provision for reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the Constituent Assembly, Patel asserted in May, 1949, “They were laying the foundation of a truly secular democracy in India.”

Again on June 5, 1949, he said in the Assembly that “…a healthy secular outlook is the foundation of true democracy.”

He even invoked god in defence of secularism when he said in the Constituent Assembly, “…and now we are today with the grace of god and blessings of the almighty laying the foundation of a true, secular democratic state where everybody has an equal chance and equal opportunity. May god give us wisdom and courage to do the right thing to all manner of people as our constitution provides.”

Also read: When Sardar Patel Took on the ‘Forces of Hate’ and Banned the RSS

Celebrating ‘national unity day’ to mark the birth anniversary of Sardar Patel is to celebrate his vision of a secular India which upholds the enlightened and liberal views on citizenship, thus negating a sectarian and religion-based approach.

S.N. Sahu served as OSD and press secretary to former President of India, K.R. Narayanan.

Why the BJP Feels It Has to Appropriate Sardar Patel

The ruling party’s embrace of Vallabhbhai Patel, who openly opposed the RSS’s subversive activities, indicates the lengths to which it will go to win back the support of Gujarat’s Patel community.

This article was first published on November 6, 2017 and is being republished on October 31, 2019 to mark Sardar Patel’s birth anniversary. 

It is astounding how the University Grants Commission (UGC) could issue an order to all vice chancellors, which is beyond its powers. On October 27, it directed them to observe Sardar Patel’s birthday on October 31 and to send a compliance report with photographic evidence like some untrustworthy schoolboys. With just three days’ notice, all higher education institutions in India were to organise ‘Unity Runs’, inter-college competitions, dramas, songs, essays; design t-shirts and invite freedom fighters.

This absurd “order” signed by a bureaucrat in the UGC was so far fetched that one deduces that it was obviously meant to provoke a hue and cry from the academics and liberals, who could then be branded as ‘anti-nationals’. An earlier one had actually directed all institutions to place TV screens to hear Modi pay homage to Deendayal Upadhyaya, who was his former party boss, not any national leader. This is strange because Prakash Javadekar actually has a college degree, unlike his predecessor in the HRD ministry, Smriti Irani, and is expected to have more respect for the autonomy of educational institutions. I know him as a  reasonable minister and therefore one concludes that the pressure on him must be too much to refuse.

We need, therefore, to understand why the BJP is so desperate to prove that it alone cares for Sardar Patel. This is exactly what the prime minister said on October 31, that all previous governments had ignored Sardar Vallabhai’s legacy. He forgot that this includes Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s three governments as well. Modi must win back the estranged Patel or Patidar community of Gujarat by using India’s most iconic Patel, Sardar Vallabhai.

Apart from the crude ham-handed manner in which this regime approaches every issue, whether it be the national flag and patriotism and the mandatory Aadhaar card or demonisation and the Goods and Services Tax, this reveals something more and that is panic. After all, Hardik Patel’s dramatic agitation has weakened the BJP’s traditional hold over the Patidar-Patel community. A week ago, on October 22, the Patidar Anamat Andolan Samiti’s north Gujarat convener, Narendra Patel, suddenly claimed that he was offered one crore rupees to join the BJP and said he had proof from his “sting operation”. We do not know the facts in this case, but we do know that it was Sardar Patel who took the strongest steps to check communal forces, represented by the BJP’s forerunners and mentors, the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha and their Muslim counterparts.

Also read: The Sardar Patel Statue is Narendra Modi’s Necessity

Let us recall what Sardar Patel said and did after Gandhiji’s assassination on January 30, 1948. As deputy prime minister and home minister, he banned the RSS immediately and on February 6 he reassured Nehru that he was taking the sternest of steps and even keeping a sharp watch on the RSS open-air Gita classes to know what was being said. On February 27, he told Nehru that even “government servants in Delhi have already been arrested for RSS activities”. Sardar Patel felt, however, that “it was a fanatical wing of the Hindu Mahasabha directly under Savarkar that hatched the (assassination) conspiracy and saw it through”. He was clear that “the RSS has undoubtedly other sins to answer for, but not this one”. He records that Gandhi’s killing “was welcomed by those of the RSS and the Mahasabha who were strongly opposed to….his policy”. In a letter to Shyama Prasad on the July 18, he declared that “the activities of the RSS constitute a clear threat to the existence of government… (and that) the RSS circles are becoming increasingly more defiant and are indulging in subversive activities throughout India”.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi flags off the 'Run for Unity'. Credit: PTI

Prime Minister Narendra Modi flags off the ‘Run for Unity’. Credit: PTI

The RSS supremo, M.S. Golwalkar, repeatedly pleaded with Patel to lift the ban but he remained firm for a year and a half. Sardar Patel lifted the ban in July 1949, only after the RSS pledged to abjure violence and secret activities and, more importantly, it finally professed “loyalty to the constitution of India and the national flag” that it had been opposing. Now we understand why an excess of patriotism is being enforced and why the national flag is being bandied everywhere, including movie theatres. They need to make up now. Will these facts about the national hero that it wishes to appropriate be publicised by the BJP or will it stomach everything because the Patels constitute a solid 20% of Gujarat’s voting population?

This new game of snatching national leaders from the Congress pantheon has been necessitated also because the political right-wing is obviously starved of national leaders. The founder of the RSS, K.B. Hedgewar, had deliberately decided not to join Gandhi and the Congress in momentous movements like Quit India. In fact, home ministry records give the impression that the RSS was quite loyal to British masters and caused no problems for them. The other stream of the BJP’s ancestry, the Hindu Mahasabha, had a mercurial leader like Vinayak Savarkar who initially took some part in the freedom struggle but when he was imprisoned in the Andamans’ Cellular Jail, he begged for mercy many times. When the NDA government decided to name Port Blair airport after Savarkar, it deliberately ignored hundreds of other prisoners who suffered cruel detention but never wavered and died in the Andamans.

Savarkar was also singled out for other honours like a special son et lumiere show to smother the role of so many young brave-hearts and honour this rare participant from the Hindutva camp (Savarkar coined the term) in true Goebbelsian style. The second reason why rightists do not have any tall leader is because even after independence they remained quite self-centred and did not participate in most great political upheavals except during the Emergency. Besides, they did not have too many years in power, even in coalitions. Vajpayee obviously stands the tallest but then his angst with Modi over the Gujarat riots is public knowledge. Shyama Prasad Mookerjee is a distant figure but he is from a peripheral state and cannot excite voters either in the Hindi belt or in Gujarat. Vivekananda is often hijacked by those who see only his saffron robe but have no idea how strongly he despised communal fanatics. So the hunt to appropriate leaders goes on relentlessly. Lal Bahadur Shastri is invoked and the “raw deal” he got from the Gandhi family is agitated. But what have stalwarts like Advani, Murali Manohar Joshi or even Yashwant Sinha or Arun Shourie got from Modi? The Swarajya recently discovered Upendranath Brahmachari, whose discovery had eliminated the dreaded Kalazar disease a century ago, and suddenly realised that he was actually a ‘saint’ that Bengal has ignored.

Also read: The Shudras Want Empowerment, Not a Giant Statue of Their Iron Man

Another mediocre archeologist from the Gangetic basin brought out a cut and paste biography of Rakhaldas Bandyopadhyay, who discovered Mohenjodaro, and ticked off Bengalis for forgetting him. More such strategies will surely come before the Bengal elections. Kerala witnessed some real dramatics and every state that has not yet submitted to the Delhi sultanate, to use Modi’s favourite term, shall be undermined systematically, clumsily or with Chanakyan ruthlessness.

The hunt for heroes, both at the national and regional level, continues unabated as the Right just has to fill up the embarrassing vacuum in our national history – at any cost. It needs patriots from wherever, to promote its brand of ultra nationalism. History, however, is rather cruel in this game. Let us now return to Patel and ask the real patriot to please stand up. The statement that he made on December 17, 1948 says it all. Would this government that needs Vallabhai Patel so much and is so fond of slogans like to use his immortal words as a banner? He had said: “India is a secular country and it will be nothing else.”

Jawhar Sircar was culture secretary and CEO at Prasar Bharati. He writes on history of religion.

BJP’s Statue-Building Spree Has Given Mayawati the Chance to Call Out Its Hypocrisy 

The BSP chief has invited criticism from BJP leaders in the past for using public space to advance her political ideology.

Statues and memorials have always been integral to the politics of visual representation. This, perhaps, is also the reason why public monuments and architecture catalyse such passion and controversy. Some controversial issues are grounded in questions such as: Who are sponsoring these statues? Which communities and cultures do they represent? Are they disrupting the dominant political aesthetics of the times?

These are questions that come to mind as we watch the recent spectacles of statue building unfold before us. Soon after prime minister’s high-voltage launch of the colossal Sardar Patel statue in Gujarat on October 31, Uttar Pradesh chief minister Adityanath said his government is scouting for land to build a statue of Ram. If the BJP appropriated Patel as a symbol for its brand of nationalism, Ram has been at the centre of the Sangh parivar’s Hindutva politics for over two decades. “There will be a statue of Lord Ram here that would be a tourist attraction. Its particulars will be decided according to the land,” Adityanath said in Ayodhya on Tuesday.

Also read: Reconfiguring India’s Nationalism, One Grand Statue at a Time

The BJP’s recent penchant for building statues cannot but remind us of a different political culture around statues dominating public discourse at a different time. At the centre of that debate between 2007 and 2011 was the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) leader Mayawati. Then Uttar Pradesh chief minister, Mayawati was at the receiving end of the entire political class including the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) for her sponsoring of Dalit memorials and statues.

The memorial buildings and statues were commissioned by Mayawati during her four chief ministerial tenures between 1995 and 2012, a time when the visual aesthetic of public spaces was significantly transformed. It may be justifiably argued that these large-scale structures visually established a hitherto non-existent Dalit visibility in the state.

Mayawati, representing the communities at the lowest rung of the caste hierarchy, leveraged architecture to inspire her followers; to impress upon them their own power to achieve great things. That was at a time when OBCs and Dalits were asserting their political rights and demanding greater visibility and representation in public space and political life. The old aesthetic order of having memorials of a narrow segment of political leaders – most of them upper-caste and many from privileged backgrounds – was forced to make space for the underclass and lower caste leaders and ideologues.

Mayawati, many would agree, emblematised this important Dalit aspiration. But her detractors, particularly among the BJP, which is known to represent upper-castes, did not see merit in such a perspective. Their leaders slammed Mayawati for wasteful expenditure and for using public space to advance her political ideology. “In a democracy, if you say that you can spend the money as per your wishes, the people of the country will certainly raise their voice somewhere. I think the people of the state will surely give a befitting reply to Mayawati in the forthcoming Uttar Pradesh polls,” said BJP leader Rajiv Pratap Rudy.

Public memory is short. But some may even recall the Election Commission’s bizarre decision in 2012 to cover statues of the BSP’s election symbol, the elephant, in drapes in Lucknow on the eve of the assembly election. The idea being to not let voters set their eyes on the BSP electoral symbol. Whether or not it yielded results is anybody’s guess.

The critics then charged Mayawati for her lavish spending on building statues rather than hospitals and schools. Ironically, the BJP is now facing similar criticism for the huge expenditure on Statue of Unity. The Rs 2,989 crore, many have suggested, could have funded much-needed quality educational institutes, hospitals, irrigation schemes etc. Besides, thousands of displaced farmers and tribals have been protesting the government’s shoddy rehabilitation projects, absence of jobs and land promised to them in compensation, could be paid back using this money.

Also read: The Statue of Unity Cost Rs 2,989 Crore. Here’s What Else That Money Could Have Bought

Mayawati rebuffed her critics by citing the historic invisibility of Dalits in public representation and art. She argued that Dalit memorials and statues were undoing a historic injustice. She was making her community visible and creating spaces for them to take pride in. That controversy represented a case of dominant vs suppressed culture; a case of claiming public space where none existed before. Much of the acrimony then revolved around two monuments, the Ambedkar Memorial and the Prerna Kendra.

Bronze sculpture in front of the Ambedkar stupa. Credit: Twitter

In an essay written around these two structures, art historian Melina Belli Bose notes, “The memorials aim to empower Dalits through twin strategies, which Manuela Ciotti refers to as ‘presence in space,’ and ‘presence in time,’ both of which have been denied to the Dalit community for centuries.”

While the Ambedkar Memorial has a monumental Ambedkar stupa, the Prerna Kendra is a funerary memorial which holds within it Kanshi Ram’s cremated ashes. These two well-known architectural spaces alongside innumerable small statues of Ambedkar that came up in the inner towns and villages of Uttar Pradesh were a symbol of the BSP’s political authority.

Like Mayawati then, the BJP is now using public space to convey a sense of invincibility. But we have to dig deeper and ask the questions with which I began to get at the real differences between the controversies: Who is using the space? Who do they represent? Are they disrupting or reinforcing dominant political aesthetics?

As Modi unveiled the 182-metre tall statue last month, Mayawati had her moment of validation. The BSP leader demanded an apology from the BJP. “BJP and RSS leaders used to attack my government over the construction of Dalit memorials and statues, including of Dr Bhimrao Ambedkar, in Lucknow and Noida. Now, these leaders should tender an apology for condemning my government,” she said in a statement.

Is the BJP listening?

Watch | Statue Of Unity: Why Sardar Patel Banned the RSS

In light of Prime Minister Narendra Modi unveiling of the Statue of Unity, Arfa Khanum Sherwani breaks down the history behind why Sardar Patel banned the RSS.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi unveiled the Statue of Unity, a tribute to Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel on Wednesday, on the banks of river Narmada in Gujarat, something many see as par of BJP’s attempt to appropriate Congress icons. But as history tells the tale, Sardar Patel had, in fact, banned the RSS during his tenure.

A Statue of Unity in a Nation Increasingly Disunited

How would Sardar Patel perceive the country 70 years after Independence?

On October 31, when Narendra Modi inaugurated the massive ‘Statue of Unity’, he was fulfilling at least one promise of his government. On many other fronts, this government has floundered and failed – neither has black money come back into the country (or in anyone’s account) nor have jobs increased. Crony capitalism, poor governance, and a rank failure to bring fugitive businessmen to justice have marked the Modi government’s tenure. Add to that an inability or unwillingness to control Hindutva mobs that is going berserk and the picture is complete.

But he did say he would build this monumental statue of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and he has. The finances involved are controversial, local farmers are said to be unhappy and the Make in India slogan sounds hollow given the external panels of the statue were made in China and the CAG has raised questions about CSR money being used for the purpose, but here we are, with a structure that is the ‘tallest statue in the world’; there is nothing that we Indians love more than making it to the Guinness Book of Records and this one certainly will.

By one of those coincidences that work well for this dispensation, Patel’s birth anniversary falls on October 31, also the date on which Indira Gandhi was assassinated and which can now be totally ignored. From now onwards, all official focus on this day every year will be on Patel rather than Indira Gandhi, just like December 25 was converted into Good Governance Day and Modi had suggested that Gandhi Jayanti be celebrated as ‘Swacch October 2’; already there are demands to shift children’s day from November 14. This way, all the reviled Nehru-Gandhis and the barely tolerated Mahatma Gandhi can be sidelined.

Also read: Statue of Unity: An Open Letter to Sardar Patel by Medha Patkar

Patel has been appropriated by Modi and his parivar, not the least because he can be portrayed as the anti-Nehru, despite all the historical evidence against that assumption. The ‘he should have been prime minister’ narrative is an old one and has got a boost in recent years. That he had banned the RSS doesn’t get a mention. Patel has his uses and by promoting the ‘Iron Man’ assiduously, Modi hopes that some of the stardust will settle on him.

But what will the same Sardar who worked hard to knit the Indian union during those critical years and brought in more than 500 rulers, some of them reluctant, under one administrative unit, see when he surveys today’s India from his perch up there? How will he perceive the country 70 years after Independence, when the nation, despite all its problems, had looked with hope towards the future as a unified entity, where people of all faiths, communities, ethnic backgrounds, would live together in peace and harmony? Will he think that those dreams have been realised? Or will he see a land increasingly fractured?

In Kerala, he will see an aggressive attempt to defy a Supreme Court verdict that allows women between the ages of 10 and 50 to enter the Sabarimala temple and a warning by the boss of the ruling party that it would ‘uproot’ the Kerala government if it arrests those protesting against the Court’s order.

In Kashmir, he will see the Indian security forces shooting pellets into the crowd, blinding young children. Maharashtra, which, along with Gujarat, was part of the old Bombay state, was where Dalits were beaten up for attending a commemoration of a big event in their history. In neighbouring Rajasthan, and many other places, the Sardar will see families in mourning after a member was lynched.

Also read: Why the Statue of Unity Hasn’t Quite Generated the Euphoria BJP Craved

And of course, he will definitely notice the rising communal temperature as once again, the Sangh parivar and its affiliates rake up the issue of the Ayodhya temple, long dormant but pulled out on strategic occasions to consolidate the Hindus against the ‘enemy’, the Muslim citizens of India. This formula may or may not work this time round and the electorate may not respond in the same way as in the 1990s, but it has the potential to create great havoc.

Across India, there is ferment, caused by forces who want to impose their agenda of creating a nation of one people, one religion, one language and one thought. Others are welcome to join if they agree to submit themselves to the majority, to agree that to being second class citizens. This is not the India Sardar Patel, along with Gandhi and Nehru and so many others, fought for and went to jail for. Modi and friends have tried to hitch their wagon to Patel but no one is fooled; the RSS was nowhere in the freedom struggle and the attempt to distort history will not work.

What is the message of this statue, apart from the sheer vanity of erecting a tall edifice and boasting about its height? The symbolism is obvious – it allows Modi to assert in this election year, that India needs a strongman at the Centre to ensure the country does not slide into chaos. This is going to be a theme in the run up to the elections-the need for a decisive leader who should be given not just five but many more years to steady the nation’s ship and steer it towards its manifest destiny. Already those in the government have begun to say that. But it is Patel’s image they want, not his message – of coming down on communal forces and lawless elements who provoke violence in the name of religion, or his ability to work with other tall leaders despite his differences with them, or indeed how the Sardar banned the RSS. Modi will not  hail the great diversity of India, which is at the foundation of our unity. That is certainly not the unity he had in mind when he commissioned this statue.

Statue of Unity: An Open Letter to Sardar Patel by Medha Patkar

Your generation was aware of two vices – corruption and communalism. The spirit behind your then sermons is needed today.

Respected Sardar Patelji, Namaskar!

Wherever you may be, as our leader of the Freedom Movement, your soul, I know, rests here on the motherland whose beloved son you have always been. Your act of freeing India from the shackles of royal states and estates and of freeing the farmers from the oppressive tax laws of the British regime is unprecedented even to this day. As the first home minister of the first government of Independent India, your firm, non-communal and social approach to the unparalleled violence and the relief work thereafter, was appreciated by none else than Mahatmaji as unique, despite the controversy created by some.

You stood tall in the historical freedom struggle of India as Sardar. But you know, while throwing your legacy by the way side, a 182 meter-high statue of yours is being unveiled in a few days to be the tallest in the world! Can you imagine who has built your new avatar? Many Chinese and some local Adivasi and national labourers have worked overnight on the ‘Sadhu Bet’, a hillock with Adivasi deity of their faith. You would surely ask, on whose land would this statue stand? Whose plan was this? This land, river, forest that your avatar is going to stand on, belongs to Adivasis. The very same people your government and then leaders, Mahatma to Pandit Nehru recognised as villagers with rights, as republics and offered security through Panchsheel. The forefathers of the Indian Constitution, with Babasaheb at the helm, also granted them right to peace and good government, through the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution and later, the PESA Act towards self-reliance.

You would surely watch from the highland, the scene down into the River Narmada and its banks to the basin wide and far. Your vision will find their huts and hamlets in the hills and hillocks one of which was Varata Bawa Tekri under your feet. Do remember the days when you carried out the operation to integrate the princely states with delicacy and democracy, to make most of them sacrifice voluntarily for unity. By the way, your avatar is also claimed to be for the same goal, unity…yet with the insanity of impinging upon not just their land but also their rights. Would you ever think of using ‘force’ against these simple and least monetised, self-reliant people, as had to be done against the princely state of Junagadh then?

Sardar, these Adivasis also belong to the farming community you recognised as the contributors who feed and need to lead. Today, if only you know the reasons behind their laying life and cuddling death, you would have taken to the same task and struggle, combing villages and fields as in August 1942. But the most shocking for you, who acquired royal properties, dealt with transfers, created ‘privy purses,’ would be to know the ways and means of transferring today the life supporting resources of the very brethren you fought for, receiving acclaim for the social movement you built. Non-cooperation was the non-violent tool you exercised, under the guidance of Bapu then.

Also read: Reconfiguring India’s Nationalism, One Grand Statue at a Time

The same tool is now a weapon in the hands of the Indian rulers, practising neo-colonial ideals. They do not bring in the horses or the Sepoys or take over properties of the rich and the mighty. They take over the very life line: land, water, river, forest and fish of the weak and the marginalised. Could you ever dream of the Indian State – the ICS cadres who you were treated as the ‘Patron Saint’ of, and the cabinet members, you warned against ‘partiality and corruptibility’ and incited against a path of rectitude in your speech on April 21, 1947 – assuming itself to be powerful enough to not only tax farmers but also exploit them through low prices for the produce and extract GST from small traders and evict the market infrastructure of the poor, the hawkers, in the name of huge, gigantic infrastructure? Is your legacy at stake, Sardar? How could they tolerate suicides by lakhs of farmers?

Do please have a look on your left and you will find the six-lane highway running up to 120 km in length parallel to Narmada. Lakhs of trees, more than 100-years-old, within the last year had to make way for this highway. People of Rajpipla, once a princely state that is recorded in history for having defeated Aurangzeb’s forces are compelled to be mute spectators, having no channel to vent their Mann ki Baat.

You, Sardar, once the chairman of the committees responsible for minorities, tribals, excluded areas and fundamental rights must also know that when your avatar will be well lit and decorated, the tribal communities, being repressed and oppressed, are to be thrown into darkness. Their lands, in six villages not even legally acquired, following British law of 1894, but simply taken over, paying a paltry sum of Rs 80 to Rs 200 per acre in 1961, are now being diverted for luxurious hotels named after ‘Shreshtha Bharath’ or Swaminarayan Complex and even a museum with their own remnants.

You, who were successful in recovering the farmlands for the farmers refusing to pay the oppressive tax would come down to support these tribals who are not granted anything as per the new law of 2013, nor are gifted with alternative land but are being made to accept a Rs 7 lakh package which they too are non-cooperating with. You were at the forefront of such a struggle and having threatened to leave Congress, had made your party accept the path of non-violent yet militant battle that led you into jail in 1940 and a solid mass protest in 1942, with shutdown of none less than civil services! With your ability to organise the countrymen as also to face the onslaught of the imperialist forces, you could certainly challenge the present powers, the creators of your avatar, vouching for unity, but practising divide and rule tactics and promoting or allowing brutality, while denying diversity of creed, culture and religion.

Kripalani (L) with Sardar Vallabhai Patel and Manibehn Patel. Credit: Wikimedia Commons

Kripalani (L) with Sardar Vallabhai Patel and Manibehn Patel. Credit: Wikimedia Commons

If only you would take a step forward and downward into the valley of Narmada, you would surely be overwhelmed with the simplicity of these nature-based generations-old communities, of Adivasis, farmers and fishworkers. Many of them had already lost their lands as it was acquired by the state for the Dam, again in your name, Sardar Sarovar, without paying them compensation worth a rupee. They too walked in your steps, faced attacks, and were sent to jails. (Jail? You had called it a ‘place for peace’, in 1943, remember?) The government in 2013 issued orders and made promises to give land for land. But ultimately they are being cheated and evicted out of their balance land for tourism! Do please have an eye on these fast track operations around, as only you can stop them from further damage…only you can!

Sardar, the scale and impact of forcible encroachment upon the lives of the communities in this most ancient Narmada civilisation and the valley, can be seen by someone of your stature and perspective. No one can hold your hand today, but you could and would drag the sena/army of bureaucrats out of their villages with your ‘iron hand’ if only you witnessed their might against the toilers’ rights. Will you, our beloved leader, engage the powers that be in a thorough review and reflection? Gone are the days when yourself and Gandhiji had such a discourse on the floor of the jail and evolved a vision of swaraj and self-reliance, of agriculture and village republics. Gone are the days when you valued production by masses to ensure equity in both the economy and the social life.

I feel ashamed to tell you that there was no need to bring in 1,500 Chinese workers here while excluding local adivasis from Gujarat, your own state, many of whom are compelled to migrate and harvest sugarcane, working day and night. I feel shaken to share with you what is being planned and publicised in your name… Shopping malls, five or seven star hotels, luxurious guest houses, helipads, statewise bhavans on the river bank with all its paraphernalia the shops, markets, massive food plaza, food courts, walk ways, travelators and what not. All this when not less than 35,000 families, affected by the Dam in your name since years, are still awaiting full, fair and just rehabilitation.  They never marketised Narmada, nor its water. They are damned by the Dam but are most awed and anguished to see their sacrifice being taken as a capital for the tourism industry and as everyone knows, political tourism too. They are sad that the farmers of Gujarat, the progeny of your movements are left high and dry… while the corporates reap huge benefits.

Your contribution to the farmers and vision of India are enshrined with that of Mahatmaji and Nehru in all our memories. You accepted Panditji, and vowed for unity within Congress. The common citizens of this country have no place in this gigantic play today, Sardar. All lights will be on you, the avatar, Sardar, while throwing everything that you practised and preached is intentionally left to the dark recesses of history books and the future of the Adivasis and this country is being sealed with the new paradigm.

Your generation was aware of two vices – corruption and communalism. The spirit behind your then sermons is needed today. Your NO to communalism reflected in your appeal to the religious leaders during communal violence following the partition that was inevitable. Your speeches across India and a letter to Golwalkar Guruji against the Hindu fundamentalist vision of RSS asking them to change and get integrated, is to be read and imbibed by every citizen of the country today. Those who are hiding behind your new Avatar, and marketing you, have never engaged themselves to understand your thoughts and your action to over come violence, to move from monarchies to democracy, from monopoly and hegemony to equity and fraternity. They do not visit the families of those lynched by mobs. They do not respect the resolutions of the adivasis. They do not value agriculture or the agriculturists.  But they are staking a claim to your name, Sardar.

They hail the tallness of your Avatar while they are consumed in their own pettiness. Adivasis know all this. Evicted since 1961, the Adivasis can’t take it anymore. No Jaykaras ! No celebrations from them. They mourn, they protest, they condemn and challenge as they know their mother river, not just gods and goddesses but culture and nature, and their very life is threatened again and again. Their forefathers too had fought the British, and with their perseverance had held on to land then. They are in a new freedom struggle, asserting self-determination. They are not a part of this game in your name, worth Rs. 3,500 crores with about 200 crores illegally collected from public enterprises as CSR, as per a CAG report. What is CSR ? That will be for another letter on another day Sardar…

Your avatar shall stand tall, Sardar. In the midst of the river, on the Varata Bawa Tekri. We watch with hope that your Avatar shall watch over and stop all that is unjust, against unity, equity and sustainability. We seek the blessings and support of your iron hand for today and for ever. We look forward to having you there when adivasis raise their voice, amidst festive tourists who will gather on the 31st and everyday, with or without your legacy, but all vows for a new touristocracy. We know you alone will listen to the adi-vasis, their cry halt, inspiring them to fight for their rights and the Mother River’s too !. Narmada appeals to you, Sardar !

With respectful tribute,

Medha Patkar

Why the Statue of Unity Hasn’t Quite Generated the Euphoria BJP Craved

The BJP, despite working overtime to sell the ‘Statute of Unity’ project to the masses at an ideological level, has not got the response that it was vying for.

As Prime Minister Narendra Modi gets ready to unveil the world’s tallest statue of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel at Kevadiya in Gujarat, the Bharatiya Janata Party, through its organisation and state governments, has been working overtime to sell the ‘Statue of Unity’ project to the masses at an ideological level. The project is extremely important for the long-term political goals of the Sangh parivar.

But the project has failed to generate euphoria among the masses, something that Modi and his team have been vying for since the idea was floated. The euphoria is not just missing across the country, but even in Gujarat, where the tribals are threatening to stage a major protest on October 31, Patel’s 143rd birth anniversary, when the statue is to be unveiled.

The entire project is being viewed as yet another part of the Sangh parivar’s move not only to appropriate Patel and his legacy but to pit the ‘Iron Man’ against both Jawaharlal Nehru, whom its has vilified to a large extent, and also against Mahatma Gandhi, who was the other and more towering figure from Gujarat.

Observers have also pointed out how there is a distinct similarity between the manner in which the BJP had carried out its movement for building a Ram Temple in Ayodhya in the late 1980s and the movement for building Sardar Patel’s statue.

Also read: Why the BJP Feels It Has to Appropriate Sardar Patel

“The tools utilised were the same. There were yatras for both projects. While bricks were collected for the proposed temple in Ayodhya, this time they carried out a drive to collect iron pieces from across the country for this statue. They never came clear on the money and bricks collected for the temple. In the same way, officials in Gujarat never divulged how many tonnes of iron were actually collected. The media always shied from reporting whether this iron collection drive was a success or not,” said an Ahmedabad-based political observer.

“In both cases, the projection was to create something. But what was achieved was the destruction of another. They said that they wanted to build a Ram temple but what was carried out was destruction of Babri Mosque. In this case also the message was that a statue of Patel is being erected but in the process it is destroying Nehru and projecting Patel as someone even taller than Gandhi,” he added.

Eminent social scientist and author Achyut Yagnik points out, “Other than Gandhi, who had given up active politics, there were three stalwarts of the freedom movement – Nehru, Patel and Subhas Chandra Bose. The process is on to appropriate the latter two and then pit them against Nehru.”

Patel has been important for the BJP as well as its earlier avatar, the Bhartiya Jan Sangh, that was born in 1951 because they never had any leader in the freedom struggle as their referral point, he said.

He also agreed to the observation that the BJP or Sangh Parivar has always projected Patel as an ‘autocrat’ and not as a ‘democrat’ while playing to their support base.

Also read: Reconfiguring India’s Nationalism, One Grand Statue at a Time

The point about Patel BJP highlights the most is his role in the merger of the 562 princely states into India. But nobody brings up the fact that Patel was among the most dedicated followers of Gandhi and that he never went outside Gandhian influence.

An ‘autocratic’ image of Patel as their ideal has helped the Sangh Parivar achieve its political motives in electoral terms in Gujarat. The narrative of the leaders including Modi has always centred around that the country’s problems including the burning Kashmir issue would not have been there if Patel was made the first prime minister of the country.

Yagnik pointed out, “What is not remembered is that Patel’s image was built step by step. He was the mayor of Ahmedabad who left local politics to move to Bardoli. At the same time, his brother Vitthalbhai Patel was the mayor of Bombay.”

The politics over the appropriation of Patel and his legacy first gathered pace under the tenure of Chimanbhai Patel as the chief minister of Gujarat and further accelerated during BJP’s tenure that has lasted more than two decades.

The Statue of Unity, a 597-foot statue of Sardar Patel. Credit: PTI

Lack of euphoria

Coming back to the failure of Modi government and the BJP to generate euphoria about the project, this reporter was in for a surprise to see the Statue of Unity being promoted in the ‘Incredible India’ series of tourism promotion at a cinema hall in Himachal Pradesh. The promotional aspect, as far as a tourism destination is concerned, is fine but this is perhaps the only promotional video of ‘Incredible India’ that also promotes Modi. It also contains political overtones carrying forward BJP’s narrative on Patel with the claim that without Patel and his role in unifying modern day India, people would have to obtain a visa to go to Junagadh.

But why is the government using such a platform to promote Modi and the BJP’s political narrative in a tourism promotion video meant for mass circulation?

One simply needs to understand the opposition coming for the project from within Gujarat. About a fortnight back it was the former Chief Minister Suresh Mehta reportedly claiming that the memorial depicting Sardar Patel is ‘illegal’ and the government went ahead with the project despite protests from local tribals only to garner votes for the saffron party.

Addressing a media briefing, Mehta had said that 5,000 tribal families in 72 villages in the vicinity of the memorial would observe a day’s fast on October 31 to register their protest.

Reports say that nearly 75,000 tribals whose land was taken for the Rs 2,979 crore statue are set to observe a bandh in 72 villages and they would not cook in their house that say. In tribal tradition in eastern Gujarat not cooking is construed as mourning.

There is also a contrary point of view that the tribals have been given appropriate compensation along with fertile land in the catchment area of the Narmada river and that the protests are politically motivated.

Mehta had reportedly accused Gujarat government of violating the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act of 1996 that empowers only the gram sabhas to approve such projects.

At present there are videos in circulation showing police personnel guarding the banners put up for the October 31 ceremony fearing they might be damaged by agitated people.

Also read: BJP’s Icons Reflect How It Imagines India’s History

Sources say that Narmada district of which Kevadiya is a part has been turned into a cantonment with the authorities taking no chance of there being an embarrassment to the government. There have been many instances of posters about the event being blackened or torn by the agitators.

Sources in Bharuch said that the ceremony and participation of guests have both been curtailed by the government fearing large scale protests.

Social activist Rohit Prajapati said, “The government had never imagined that it would face such opposition from the people at the ground level and there would be no people to buy its development narrative. The people have understood that the motive is to privatise everything including their land. The masses can forget violence coming from communal riots but they cannot forget the taking over of their land. Why is the government reluctant to debate on the environmental and social issues?”

Even the two-phased ‘Ekta Yatra’ started by Gujarat chief minister Vijay Rupani to create awareness about Patel’s role in merger of 562 princely states into independent India has drawn a lukewarm response. The government plans to cover 10,000 villages through 60 ‘Ekta Raths’. This has become a matter of concern for the BJP as this yatra was meant to help gauge the public mood ahead of the 2019 Lok Sabha polls.

There have also been reports about the state government pulling up district collectors for failing to ensure the presence of villagers in the ranks of the ‘Ekta Yatra’ participants and instead filling them up with primary school children.

People are also questioning the massive spending on the Kevadiya show on October 31, which brings the total cost of the statue and ceremony to well above the reported cost of around Rs 3,000 crore for building and maintaining the 182-metre statue built on Sadhu island in Narmada river.

Reconfiguring India’s Nationalism, One Grand Statue at a Time

The current resurgence of statues and large monuments is closely linked with politics of caste, a post-liberalisation revival of religious patronage and the reconfiguration of the nation as an economic unit by the forces of neoliberal “free trade”.

On October 31, Prime Minister Narendra Modi will inaugurate the Statue of Unity, a 597-foot (182-metre) statue of Sardar Patel at Sadhu Bet, a river island near the controversial Sardar Sarovar mega-dam. Twice the height of the Statue of Liberty, this will be the tallest statue in the world – that is, until it is eclipsed in a few years by a proposed 695 feet (212 metre) Shivaji statue off the coast of Mumbai. Currently, the tallest statue is the 420-ft Spring Temple Buddha in Henan, China, completed in 2008. Most of the world’s largest statues are in China, India, Japan and Taiwan.

If Lady Liberty, donated by France as a shared symbol of Enlightenment, soon became a symbol of the US as a centre of global power, these Asian nations can be seen as using the same idiom to claim their moment in the sun. But given that the international response – if any – to such assertions is mostly one of distaste and bemusement, perhaps the Indian monumental statues’ claims to globality are best understood as ultimately addressed inwards, mediating local politics at various scales.

While statues and large monuments are ancient and almost universal forms, their current resurgence in India links up with specific recent developments: the politics of caste, a post-liberalisation revival of religious patronage and the reconfiguration of the nation as an economic unit by the forces of neoliberal “free trade”.

Big Sardar, little sardar

The Statue of Unity is commonly seen as the BJP’s attempt to insert itself into the freedom movement and its legacy by appropriating Patel as a counterpoint to Nehru. However, Modi initiated the project in 2010 not as a national initiative but to celebrate a decade as chief minister of Gujarat (albeit with an eye on the Centre), so its initial impetus was more likely to find an alternative symbol to that other son of Gujarati soil, Gandhi.

Sardar Patel, the lauh purush or Iron Man, known as India’s Bismarck, provided a far more fitting genealogy for Modi’s muscular political style than the frail, skinny, peace-loving Gandhi. Indeed, Gujaratis hailing the project as putting the state on the global map were quick to label Modi “Chhote Sardar”. These competing masculinities accompany radically contrasting models of statecraft, for the project’s early publicity associated Patel with “good governance,” a term propagated by the IMF and the World Bank, vernacularised as suraaj: similar-sounding to Gandhi’s swaraj or self-rule but quite different in its orientation to a globalised economy. Part of the agenda of World Bank-style good governance is decentralisation or fiscal devolution, which accounts for the re-orientation of emphasis to subnational units such as cities and states – hence the increased importance of chief ministers and their initiatives to lure investment to their states.

Also read: Why the BJP Feels It Has to Appropriate Sardar Patel

It was not until 2014 that the project was scaled up to the national level. The BJP’s 2014 election campaign included a ‘Statue of Unity’ movement with a nationwide drive to collect iron farming implements to be melted down for use in the statue, a ‘Run for Unity’ marathon and a ‘Suraaj’ petition for people to offer ideas for “good governance.” These efforts were not as successful as was hoped. Several states barely contributed to the drive for tools, and the iron collected was too low-grade for the statue and was therefore used “elsewhere in the project.” Nevertheless, the campaign – and Modi’s electoral success – resignified the statue as a nationalist initiative that would put India, not just Gujarat, on the global map, and justified its use of central funds.

The Statue of Unity is commonly seen as the BJP’s attempt to insert itself into the freedom movement and its legacy by appropriating Patel as a counterpoint to Nehru. Credit: PTI

As the inauguration approaches, doubtless the critiques that have dogged this project since 2014 will intensify. Rahul Gandhi recently castigated the statue as “made in China,” for the bronze plates cladding the statue were manufactured not in one of India’s 4,600 foundries employing half a million people, but by China’s Jiangxi Tongqing Metal Handicrafts – several hundred Chinese workers are currently on site. The media had already pounced on the contradiction between this and Modi’s ‘Make in India’ campaign, just as they did on the revelation that Indian public sector oil companies were being directed to channel their mandatory Corporate Social Responsibility funds to the statue.

Ironically, this was justified on the grounds that it would bring development to a “tribal” area – even though the Sardar Sarovar dam had displaced at least 25,000 Adivasi families and issues with their resettlement led the World Bank to pull its funding from that project. Adding insult to injury, a “tribal museum” is to be included in the statue complex, literally cementing actual Adivasi people’s alienation from the land and obviating their continued existence in the present. But the most common complaint against the statue is that its nearly Rs 3,000 crores ($430 million) worth of funding could be used to help those in need more directly.

Also read: Narendra Modi’s ‘Gift’ to the Nation Is Set to Submerge Lakhs of People

Statue wars

Of course, this is not the only monument building project to be criticised on these grounds. The sculptor of the Sardar Patel statue, Ram Sutar, was also responsible for the statues in Mayawati’s massive “Dalit Memorial” programme in her stints as chief minister of Uttar Pradesh between 1995 and 2012. Unlike the Statue of Unity, however, this came under vociferous attack from the Right and Left alike. Despite the notoriety of those projects, indeed, likely because that notoriety contributed to their effectiveness, statues became a major political tool in the 2000s as prominent ministers seized on this form to curry favour with their vote banks.

These “statue wars” intensified in the run-up to the 2014 elections, where the Statue of Unity was by no means the only game in town, even if it was the biggest. UPA cabinet minister Kamal Nath inaugurated a 101 ft. Hanuman in his constituency of Chhindwara (MP); Akhilesh Yadav, Samajwadi Party chief minister of UP, laid the foundation stone for a 200 ft. Maitreya in Kushinagar; late Tamil Nadu chief minister Jayalalithaa announced a “mega statue” of Tamil Thai (Mother Tamil); the Maharashtra government revived plans for its (then) 300 ft. Shivaji. Other monumental statues built in the meantime with the direct or indirect patronage of politicians had attracted little media attention beyond their immediate sphere of influence: Karunanidhi’s 133 ft. Thiruvalluvar at Kanyakumari (2000); Gujarat BJP MLA Yogesh Patel’s 111 ft. Shiva in Vadodara (2002); long-serving Sikkim chief minister Pawan Chamling’s 135 ft. Padmasambhava or Guru Rimpoche (2004) and a 108 ft. Shiva (2011) on hilltops overlooking his constituency, Namchi; the 108 and 111 ft. Basaveshwara statues (2012 and 2015) inaugurated by B.S. Yeddyurappa in Karnataka.

It is no coincidence that this resurgence of public statues in the vocabulary of politics can be traced in part to Mayawati and the Bahujan Samaj Party with its primarily Dalit constituency, initially emerging not as mega-monuments but as a proliferation of many far smaller Ambedkar and Buddha statues in designated “Ambedkar villages.” These modest statues, quite disproportionate to the often physically violent reactions they still provoke, cast a different light on the critiques of the money wasted on “merely symbolic” projects as opposed to more materially useful types of development.

The resurgence of public statues in the vocabulary of politics can be traced in part to Mayawati and the BSP. Credit: PTI

For what such critiques fail to take into account is the value and importance of social recognition in a society where caste-based discrimination still impedes the translation of economic prosperity into social mobility. Why was it, after all, that the caste Hindu dominated mainstream media across the political spectrum were united in their opposition to Mayawati’s “Dalit monuments” – historically the only ones of their kind – even though the multitude of other monuments and memorials to figures like Gandhi has taken up far greater resources and real estate? For many in Mayawati’s constituency, her monuments have been a valuable legacy of her regime: Ram Kumar of the Dalit Action Group called them “part of the battle to re-establish Dalit history,” going on to write that they “serve to inspire those who have been depressed for centuries. They give birth to self-respect and remind people of their glorious history which has all but been wiped out over the ages.”

Religious roots

Mayawati’s monuments likely emboldened other politicians to adopt this form, albeit with less justification. However, from the early 1990s, monumental icons were already being used to shore up social and economic status through religious patronage, much like building or donating to temples but with the added value of demonstrating novelty and technological prowess in the post-liberalisation economy.

Perhaps the most influential players here have been the Birlas, who in 1994 supplemented their ongoing temple building programme with a 60 ft. standing Shiva in a park across from Delhi’s airport. Made in cement using the same methods of RCC construction as concrete buildings, this deity has spawned at least eight imitations, including one at T-series founder Gulshan Kumar’s studio in Noida (1998); Kumar also built a 65 ft. seated Shiva at Dwarka (2000). Both statues were part of the way his public religiosity aided his rise from a roadside fruit juice vendor to a major player in the Bombay film industry.

Other such icons built by businesspeople include Ravi Melwani’s controversial 65 ft. seated Shiva behind his erstwhile Kemp Fort department store in Bengaluru (1995), widely seen as a land grab. A similar 123 ft. Shiva was built in 2002 by construction baron R.N. Shetty next to a temple he renovated at his tiny hometown of Murudeshwar in Karnataka: again, religious patronage that could be leveraged to consolidate social status and business networks. It was these kinds of patrons who pioneered the resurgence of the monumental statue form, along with neo-spiritual organisations including (to name just a few) the Chinmaya Mission (from a 25 ft. Hanuman at Sidhbari, 1980 to a 75 ft. Ganesh near Kolhapur, 2002), Sathya Sai International (70 ft. Hanuman, Puttaparthi, 1990), the Avadhoota Datta Peetham (Hanumans in Trinidad, 85 ft., 2003 and Mysore, 70 ft., 2012), or the Isha Foundation whose 112 ft. steel bust of Shiva at Coimbatore was inaugurated by Modi in 2017.

Also read: BJP’s Icons Reflect How It Imagines India’s History

Political patronage of both secular and religious statues ties back into this vocabulary of status-building through religious donation, even though politicians often distance themselves from the religious icons by emphasising their potential for tourism, as with Pawan Chamling’s “Char Dham pilgrimage-cum-cultural complex” with its scaled-up Shiva and scaled-down versions of the Char Dham temples. Announcing the Statue of Unity in 2010, in his blog Modi called it a “gift, one more from Gujarat to the nation and world on this joyous occasion.” Here his self-presentation as a gift giver on behalf of Gujarat mimics the way that religious patrons often accrue merit and status by making donations in the names of their children or parents.

Swaraj or suraaj?

In this sense, the Statue of Unity is old wine in a new bottle. But what kind of new bottle is this is? The international multi-firm consortium that won the bid to build the statue (following a full-page ad in the Economist in June 2011 inviting expressions of interest) includes US-based Turner Construction Company, which built the Burj Khalifa, the tallest building in the world. The project’s architect is the quintessential postmodernist Michael Graves, designer of the 1985 Team Disney Building in Burbank, CA with its famous fascia featuring the Seven Dwarfs; its engineering consultant is the Meinhardt Group, whose projects include the proposed “Aladdin City,” Dubai, with three towers designed to look like magic lamps.

The Disneyfication here is not just metaphoric, as Sardar Patel becomes the subject of a “good governance” theme park, but also quite literal. Here Patel is being appropriated as the icon of a new brand of nationalism – mediated via the global – that he might have never imagined. But such appropriations are never total or set in stone (or concrete): from 2015 the Patidar or Patel community has claimed Sardar Patel as their icon in their agitation for reserved status as an “Other Backward Class.” If Modi seeks to claim Patel as a national figure who also represents his core Gujarati constituency, the Patidar protests have now hijacked him as a representative of their caste.

In all these ways, the Statue of Unity stands as a fitting exemplar of the attempt to reconfigure Indian nationalism, as swaraj is made over by suraaj and its uneasy détente between local populisms and the neoliberal protocols and discourses of globalised “free trade.” Here, as with the jingoism around Brexit, or with Trump, his wall and the chimera of a return to the greatness of industrial America, a populist rhetoric based on national economic pride returns in increasingly hollow, paradoxical and unsustainable yet spectacular forms. For it is the tenuous status of economic sovereignty that necessitates such muscular, monumental declarations of identity and unity at various scales of the state, alongside spectacles of violence against “anti-nationals.”

The Statue of Unity encapsulates these structural tensions at the heart of national-yet-global regimes: in its multi-scalar symbolism, in its production, and in its unpredictable uptake in the political field. No amount of global engineering expertise can compensate for these stresses and torsions in its foundations.

Kajri Jain is Associate Professor of Art History and Visual Studies at the University of Toronto. Her book on monumental statues in post-liberalisation India, Gods in the Time of Democracy, is forthcoming from Duke University Press.