Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel in his iconic speech delivered at Kolkata in January 1948 busted the endured Nehruvian Secular state led Ganga- Jamuni Tehzeeb. One of the core tenets of the ideology of ‘Ganga-Jamuni Tehzeeb’ is that Indian Muslims in 1947 chose ‘secular India’ over the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The word ‘chose’ here has completely changed the goal post. One of the serious repercussion is the birth of appeasement politics in India. 

‘Myth-making’ is an intrinsic feature of the establishment of any Republic. In order to legitimise its existence and its hold over power, the ruling establishment of every country creates certain myths that helps it further entrench itself in the corridors of power and justify its ideology. A similar phenomenon has also been observed with the establishment of the Nehruvian Secular state in in India with its ideology of ‘Ganga-Jamuni Tehzeeb’.

One of the core tenets of the ideology of ‘Ganga-Jamuni Tehzeeb’ is that Indian Muslims in 1947 chose ‘secular India’ over the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and consequently, all manners of minority appeasement is justified and whitewashing of Islamic radicalism is encouraged and even glorified. This obvious lie has permitted radical Islamic leaders such Asaduddin Owaisi, whose brother is often found threatening Hindus with violence, to walk away with atrocious demands by asserting that they ‘chose’ India over Pakistan.

While it has now become almost unforgivable to question the core tenet of Nehruvian Secularism, the political stalwarts of the Independence era were well aware that Muslims had not chosen to remain in India because they rejected the philosophy of an Islamic State. Sardar Patel, in his iconic speech in Kolkata in January 1948, gave voice to sentiments that would appal our ‘secular’ leaders to day.

Sardar Patel said, “The Muslims who are still in India, many of them helped in the creation of Pakistan… Has their nation changed overnight? I don’t understand how it changed so much. They now say that they are loyal and ask why their loyalty is being questioned. So I reply why are you questioning us, ask yourself. This is not something you should ask us.”

“I said one thing, you created Pakistan, good for you. They say that Pakistan and India should come together. I say please refrain from saying such things. Let Pakistan become heaven itself, we will enjoy the cool breeze coming from it (audience breaks out into raucous laughter),” he continued. It wasn’t the only time that Sardar Patel would speak of Indian Muslims having loyalties towards Pakistan.

In his letter to G.B.Pant, the then Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, on the 9th of January 1950, days after Murthis of Ram Lalla and Mata Sita had magically manifested themselves within the Babri Masjid, Sardar Patel wrote among other things, “The prime minister has already sent to you a telegram expressing his concern over the developments in Ayodhya. I spoke to you about it in Lucknow. I feel that the controversy has been raised at a most inopportune time both from the point of view of the country at large and of your own province in particular. The wider communal issues have only been recently resolved to the mutual satisfaction of the various communities. So far as Muslims are concerned, they are just settling down to their new loyalties.”

The hallowed myth has also been coming apart as the edifice of Nehruvian Secularism is crumbling apart after six years of Narendra Modi as the Prime Minister of the country. Sharjeel Imam, a beloved ‘intellectual’ of the Left accused of playing a pivotal role in the violence that erupted in the national capital in the aftermath of the passage of the Citizenship Amendment Act, has written and spoken extensively on the matter.

Sharjeel Imam believes Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the creator of Pakistan, to be an Indian leader and said that there are lots of lessons Indian Muslims could learn from him. According to him, Jinnah was an Indian Muslim leader fighting against the forces of Hindu revivalism. Most significantly, however, he said that Muslims did not choose India due to ideals of ‘secularism’. He said that Muslims remained in India due to their property and other reasons.

Thus, from Sardar Patel’s own words and those of an Islamist hailed as an ‘intellectual’ by the Indian Left, it is clear that ‘Muslims chose secular India over Islamic Pakistan’ is an enduring myth of the ideology of ‘Ganga-Jamuni Tehzeeb’ of the Nehruvian Secular State. However, this myth, along with many others, is destined for the dustbins of history.

Iron Man Sardar Patel's 'Operation Polo', which compelled the Nizam of Hyderabad to bow down

Sardar Patel’s argument is still relevant in the current political situation. Does this makes him anti- Muslim? Was Patel ‘a total communalist’ as Nehru taunted him once? The answer is no. Political correctness was not Patel’s forte, honesty was. His intuitive discernment pierced through the guiles of those who would do India harm and laid bare their true intent. Viewed objectively, each of his ostensibly prejudiced actions is a natural act of humanitarian intervention. For example, his decision to order ‘police action’ against the Nizam’s Hyderabad in 1948 which earned him the title of ‘a total communalist’. It was in direct response to the reign of terror unleashed by the Razakars against the Hindus. Similarly, in 1950, when thousands of Hindu refugees poured into Calcutta from East Pakistan, Sardar Patel took up cudgels on their behalf and warned Pakistan. 

This resulted in the Liaquat-Nehru pact. The historical context here makes it clear where does this forced concept came into being. India’s freedom struggle was guided by the vision of Hindu nationalism and not by constitutional patriotism. The Congress brand of nationalism was but a subset of this broader Hindu nationalism with the Congress itself as the pre-eminent Hindu party. The Muslim question forced the Congress to adopt a more tempered language and symbolism later and to weave the myth of Hindu-Muslim unity. But it failed to prevent the Partition of India. The Congress was taken over by Left-leaning secular Page 1 denialists under Jawaharlal Nehru who, instead of confronting reality, pretended it did not exist. 

After centuries, Hindus were the dominant power. The misleading secular-communal debate blinded us to the obvious; the Republic of India is a Hindu reformist State. Hindu nationalism has never been fringe; it is Nehruvian secularism that was the fringe. And with the fall of the old English-speaking elites, the system they created is also collapsing along with accompanying myths like Ganga-Jamuni Tehzeeb and Hindu-Muslim unity. In the name of secularism, the wolf has worn the skin of the sheep, thus the predator has adopted eternal victimhood. 

The story always is about Indian Muslims stayed back in India out of choice, allegiance and love for India and thus, casting aspersions on their patriotism or even their “tolerance” of the Hindu faith is unfair. Even as the threats by Muslims threw thick and fast, the narrative that was peddled was that “secular” India was being unfair to Muslims. This hypocrisy is a concrete evidence of highlighting the selective side of the story according to the convenience of the circumstances. If the Muslims willingly stayed back in India, is it a favour on the Indian state? One of the most obvious question that arises is that if Muslims wanted a separate Islamic State and voted overwhelmingly in its favour, why did so many Muslims stay back? The argument made essentially made by the intelligentsia in order to defend is that 1946 elections, based on the Sixth Schedule of the1935 Government of India Act, had a limited franchise, which means that only a small percentage of adults those with money and property were eligible to vote.

Why did the complete transfer of the population did not happen, when several political stalwarts were in favour. Essentially, Jawaharlal Nehru scuttled the de facto population exchange with the 1950 Accord. After the Accord was signed, Muslims, who had left West Bengal, returned and Nehru ensured that their property was restored to them. However, the travesties heaped on the Hindus continue to this day, unabated in Islamic Nations like Pakistan and Bangladesh. Is it the Hindu ‘majority’ who unleashed atrocities on the ‘minority’? The evidences are indicating otherwise.

Partition was solely done on the basis of RELIGION! as the two entities were unable to coexist, happen to have different set of ideologies, social customs, upbringing and literature, et al. This itself questions the veracity and the relevance of the Ganga-Jamuni Tehzeeb. Vallabhbhai Patel was a true nationalist who was candid and clear on his thoughts. He was pragmatic about the Hindu-Muslim issue. He knew the ground-reality and was not shy to confront them, thus by questioning the so-called Hindu-Muslim unity, a prism on which the Nehruvian Secularism propagates the agenda is finally exposed.

References:

organiser.org - VEDIKA ZNWAR
opindia.com - OpIndia Staff