A perennial feature of our public and political life today is the relentless debate over the devious misreadings of our past. The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and its cohorts in power are obsessed with a historical insecurity – a complex of sorts – arising from the fact that their ideological and organisational ancestors were mute spectators during the freedom struggle. They were, in effect, collaborators and partners of the British, often even working to weaken the nationalist upsurge. Seventy-five years after freedom dawned in 1947, this complex continues to haunt these pseudo-nationalists.

When confronted by their political adversaries over their past, these so-called nationalists use the time-tested divide-and-rule tactic: they pit one nationalist leader against another. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, one of the seniormost leaders of the Congress party and India's first home minister, is repeatedly set against Jawaharlal Nehru on several imaginary pretexts arising from within the RSS fold. All those who indulge in this disparaging distortion must be oblivious to the fact that both leaders had serious differences on many issues – as all thinking people are expected to have – yet held each other in immense respect.

Those who hardly have an icon with which to associate our history have no choice but to exploit the fautlines within their rival, the Congress party, to find a foothold among the nationalist pantheon. In this narrative, Sardar Patel, the 'Iron Man' of the Congress, is cast as a victim, while Jawaharlal Nehru is projected as an usurper of the position of first prime minister – as if chosen by Mahatma Gandhi while ignoring the rightful claimant.

But this manufactured victimhood is undone when we read Patel’s letter to Nehru on August 3, 1947, written a mere 12 days before the latter became prime minister. Patel writes, “Our attachment and affection for each other and our comradeship for an unbroken period of nearly thirty years admit no formalities. My services will be at your disposal, I hope, for the rest of my life and you will have unquestioned loyalty and devotion from me in the cause for which no man in India has sacrificed as much as you have done. Our combination is unbreakable and therein lies our strength.”

Also read: To Say That an Indian Nation-State Existed in the Ancient Past Is Historical Manipulation

There is much more in the historical record to dispel any manufactured untruths about the Nehru-Patel relationship, but Patel's own evocative lines clearly convey the comforting and caring spirit of their bond.

Before we come to the latest controversy – Patel's position on the accession of Kashmir – we must recall the demography of the three princely states that were to be integrated immediately after Independence. They were: Hyderabad, a Hindu-majority state ruled by a Muslim ruler; Junagarh, also a Hindu-majority state ruled by a Muslim nawab and Kashmir, a Muslim-majority state ruled by a Hindu king.

Now, our prime minister claimed last week that Patel wanted “all of Kashmir” to be united with India, but Nehru “did not let his wish be fulfilled”. But the historical facts tell a completely different story. As historian Rajmohan Gandhi, grandson of Mahatma Gandhi, notes in Patel: A Life, that “Vallabhbhai was not quite sure that he wanted the Kashmir apple” while “Kashmir, the beautiful land of his forbears, was an apple that Jawaharlal [Nehru] did not want to lose.”

The last British governor-general of India, Louis Mountbatten, visited Kashmir between June 18 and 23, where he told maharaja Hari Singh, “... if Kashmir joined Pakistan, this would not be regarded as unfriendly by the Government of India.” He also categorically told Hari Singh that he had “... firm assurance on this from Sardar Patel himself”. Notice that Mountbatten was citing Patel, and not Nehru.

Rajmohan Gandhi, citing V. Shankar’s My Reminiscences of Sardar Patel, adds to this, explaining how Patel even said, “... if the Ruler [Maharaja of Kashmir] felt that his and his state’s interest lay in accession to Pakistan, he would not stand in his way”.

Other available documents, including letters exchanged on the Kashmir issue, reveal that the blame for what followed needs to be shared by all the players involved – politicians as well as civil servants. History is complex and collective, and must be understood in its details rather than seen as a series of individual failings. The challenges of leadership in those unprecedented circumstances fell on many shoulders, rather than any one person alone.

This pattern of shared responsibility becomes even clearer when we turn to the partition of India. Here, too, Nehru is constantly painted as the culprit – the man in a hurry to become prime minister, even at the cost of the tragic division of our country. However, those who make these claims about Nehru do not realise, or refuse to acknowledge, that the partition project was set in motion by the British in 1905, when Bengal was divided on communal lines. It was an event that set a precedent for British divide-and-rule, shaping the challenges India faced both during Partition and in its aftermath.

At the time of the freedom struggle, this politics of divide and rule paid dividends to the British by allowing Muslim and Hindu sectarian nationalisms – both patronised by the imperial rulers – to challenge our composite nationalism. It was a collaborative project between the communal forces and the British that continued until 1947, and it became increasingly complicated as the struggle for independence intensified, with rising communitarian tensions, and the competing agendas of the nationalist leadership and the communal groups.

Also read: Politic | Fake Narratives and Prime Minister’s Credibility

Here again, no one individual should be made to shoulder all of the blame. Social-media-driven history has played havoc with our past, rendering historical facts irrelevant. This becomes even more troubling when politicians spread lies in the name of history.

In the communitarian scheme of history, Patel is projected as the sole leader who wanted an undivided India and opposed the partition – despite all the evidence to the contrary. His own words tell a different story. For instance, here is one instance of what Patel actually believed, as delivered in a speech in [erstwhile state of] Madras on February 23, 1949. In it, he categorically discusses the inevitability of partition, saying it “has come to stay".

"I honestly believe that it is good for both the new nations to be rid of a perpetual source of trouble and quarrels. In two hundred years of slavery, the administration created a situation in which we began to drift away from each other. It is good that we have agreed to partition in spite of all its evils; I have never repented my agreeing to partition. [italics mine] From the experience of one year of joint administration when we had not agreed to partition, I know we would have erred grievously and repented if we had not agreed. It would have resulted in a partition not into two countries but into several bits. Therefore, whatever some people may say, I am convinced and I remain convinced that our having agreed to partition has been for the good of the country.” [italics mine]

Patel was not alone in holding this view – the circumstances of those days forced most Congress leaders to reconcile with the idea of partition on communal lines. Indeed, it was Maulana Azad who was left, in the end, to rue the tragic division of the country alone.

All bigots who blatantly call for Hindu rashtra, undermining our secular fabric, need to be reminded that Patel, whom they claim to revere, did not agree with this idea. In 1949, referring in particular to the RSS, he said:

“They [the RSS] want that Hindu Rajya or Hindu culture should be imposed by force. No government can tolerate this. There are almost as many Muslims in this country as in the part that has been partitioned away. We are not going to drive them away. It would be an evil day if we started that game, in spite of partition and whatever happens. We must understand that they are going to stay here and it is our obligation and our responsibility to make them feel that this is their country.”

So, to truly follow Patel, one would have to give up the idea of Hindu rashtra, which, according to him, should not be tolerated by any government.

History must never be used to settle political scores, particularly not when the historical record clearly states otherwise. Our nationalist leaders took many decisions in very difficult and volatile circumstances: we can surely look at them critically, but not by discounting historical facts.

S. Irfan Habib is a well-known historian based in Delhi. He is former Maulana Azad Chair at the National University of Educational Planning and Administration, New Delhi.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.