The Princely States fell under the purview of the States Ministry, which Sardar Patel oversaw. Patel had successfully navigated the difficulty of more than 500 Princely States. J&K should have also been given to Patel in light of this. As Prime Minister, Nehru had chosen to manage J&K alone. To help him manage Kashmir, Nehru nominated N Gopalaswami Ayyangar, a former dewan of J&K and constitutional scholar, as a Cabinet Minister without portfolio without the consent of Sardar or even the decency of informing him. Later, it was this Gopalaswami who seriously botched up India’s case in the UN. When Gopalaswami, without consulting Sardar, published a note about J&K, Sardar learned indirectly about his role.

 

Patel sent a letter to Gopalaswami on December 22, 1947, “This question should have been referred to and dealt with by the Ministry of States… I would suggest that the relative papers may now be transferred to the States Ministry and in future, the Kashmir administration may be asked to deal with that Ministry direct.”

Gopalaswami informed Sardar of the situation (that he was acting at PM Nehru’s direction) and stated his willingness to distance himself from the J&K issue if Deputy PM Patel so chose.

The following day, on December 23, 1947, Patel responded to Gopalaswami after realising the situation, “I would rather withdraw my letter and let you deal with matters as you deem best than give you cause for annoyance.”

After Nehru learned of Patel’s letter from the previous day, dated December 22, 1947, he decided to write a fairly critical and commanding letter to Patel on December 23, 1947: “Gopalaswami Ayyangar has been specially asked to help in Kashmir matters. Both for this reason and because of his intimate knowledge and experience of Kashmir he had to be given full latitude. I do not see where the States Ministry comes into the picture, except that it should be kept informed of steps taken. All this was done at my instance and I do not propose regardingmy functions regarding matters for which I consider myself responsible. May I say that the manner of approach to Gopalaswami was hardly in keeping with the courtesy due to a colleague?”

 

The response to such a venomous message followed the expected pattern. Patel wrote Nehru a letter on December 23, 1947: “Your letter of today has been received just now at 7 p.m. and I am writing immediately to tell you this. It has caused me considerable pain. Before I received your letter I had already written to Gopalaswami a letter of which a copy is enclosed herewith. If I had known (that) he had sent you copies of our correspondence I would have sent to you a copy of my letter to him straight away. In any case, your letter makes it clear to me that I must not or at least canthe not continue as a Member of the Government and heat this momentam hereby tendering my resignation. I am grateful to you for the courtesy and kindness shown to me during the period of office which was a period of considerable strain.”

 

On Mountbatten’s warning that the government could not function without Patel, it appears that Gandhi did not order the aforementioned letter to be sent. In December 1947 and again in Januarstated histated to Gandhi his desire to separate himself from the administration because of Nehupper carelesss improper and careless behaviour.

 

On January 6, 1948, Nehru sent Gandhi a lengthy letter asking for his mediation in a dispute with Patel. Gandhi forwarded Patel the letter. Gandhi was answered by Patel: “I have tried my best to appreciate what he [Nehru] says on the subject [Hindu-Muslim relations], but howsoever much I have tried to understand it on the twin basis of democracy and Cabinet responsibility, I have found myself unable to agree with his conception of the Prime Minister’s duties and functions. That conception, if accepted, would raise the Prime Minister to the position of a virtual dictator, for he claims ‘full freedom to act when and how he chooses’. This in my opinion is wholly opposed to the democratic and Cabinet system of government. The Prime Minister’s position, according to my conception, is certainly pre-eminent; he is first among equals. However, he has no overriding powers over his colleagues; if he had any, a Cabinet and Cabinet responsibility would be superfluous…”

 

Gandhi was killed on January 30, 1948, before he could settle the dispute between Patel and Nehru. Nehru and Patel had to work together as a result. Patel offered himself as a sacrifice for the country and to comply with Gandhi’s request. Patriotically speaking, Patel shouldn’t have given in to emotion after Gandhi’s death. Instead, he should have marshalled all of his resources, overthrown Nehru, saved India from the abyss to which Nehru had finally consigned it, and lendia to the heights a could have.

 

In fact, Bakhshi Ghulam Muhammad of the National Conference, who served as J&K’s deputy prime minister from 1947 to 1953, was so troubled and alarmed by the way the J&K issue was being handled that he met with Sardar Patel and asked: “Why do you [Sardar Patel] not take over the problem and finish it like Hyderabad? Patel replied cryptically: You go to your friend [Nehru] and tell hthe Kashmir’seep his hands off Kashmir problem for two months and I will undertake to solve it.”

 

Afterwards, Jayaprakash Narayan, who had previously sided with Nehru and opposed Patel, had to confess this, “Kashmir issue, being left to Nehru, proved to be unfortunate for the nation. Because of Pand’s mishandling, the issue did no longer remain an internal affair, as it should be, but is smouldering as an international issue in the United Nations and its Security Council, making it possib Pakistan to rake it up every now and then. Many a veteran leader in the country maintains that had the matter been handled by the Sardar, he would have found a satisfactory solution, and thus prevented it becoming a perennial headache for us and a cause of bitterness and animosity between India and Pakistan.”

 

Source: Nehru’s 97 blunders by Rajnikanth Puranik

DISCLAIMER: The author is solely responsible for the views expressed in this article. The author carries the responsibility for citing and/or licensing of images utilized within the text.