History & Culture

There is no doubt that the Iron man of India was the most trusted lieutenant and an ardent follower of Mahatma Gandhi. History bears evidence proving the intensity of Gandhi’s influence on Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. The fellow barristers from Gujarat have always worked towards the same goal of unity and harmony. Patel’s entry into the nationalist movement, his course of actions during the freedom struggle and his decisions as a member of constituent assembly exhibits the deep-rooted Gandhian ideals in him.Thiscan be understood by a simple interpretation of Patel’s activities on three major issues at three different time periods of the nationalist movement.

Pre-Independence

The year 1918 marks the full-fledged entry of Patel into the nationalist movement through the Kheda Satyagraha in Gujarat. He was a principal figure in the absence of Gandhi, leading the farmers against unfair agricultural cess of British Raj and instilling the importance of collective action among peasants. When one tries to trace the roots of his interest and arrival in the struggle, it is evident that the Champaran agitation led by Gandhi in 1916had played the pivotal role. Similar movement like this which is considered Patel’s most famous intervention is the Bardoli Satyagraha of 1925 which earned him the title ‘Sardar’. The method used by him in this venture replicates that which was used by Gandhi along with a touch of his own strategic mind.

Patel urged the farmers of Bardoli, who were suffering from famine, to refuse tax payment to the British as an effort against the 30% increase in the tax rate. He instructed the people to remain non-violent to the incitements of British and continue their protest until the cancellation of taxes. Patel added the aspect of his strategic mind by appointing volunteers at each village to signal the arrival of tax inspectors. On hearing the signal, all the villagers hid in the jungle, thus stopping the tax inspectors from seizure of properties. The outcome of his movement was a huge success leading to cancellation of taxes and making Patel one of the important leaders in the then political arena(Singh, 2013). While analyzing this course of events, it is observable that Patel had placed huge importance on farmers similar to Gandhi which later formed a significant part of Gandhi’s Constructive Programme(M.K.Gandhi, 1948).Thus one can realize that the beginning of Patel’s political career and methodology has been the fruit of Gandhian influence.

Independence

An event that shook entire India during independence was the partition. Though Patel and Gandhi seemed to have differences of opinion in this matter, Patel was more practical in it while Gandhi was more idealistic. Patel realized that if Congress rejected the May 16 plan of the Cabinet Mission, then the Muslim League would be called to form the government which would strengthen the possibility of partition.Thus, Patel convinced Gandhi and approved May 16 plan. Later, he was outraged by Jinnah’s Direct Action, induction of League ministers in to the government and re-validation of grouping scheme in the May 16 plan by British which was earlier rejected by Congress. He was aware of Jinnah’s popular support among Muslims and the possibilities of Hindu-Muslim war. He realized that if the central government continues to be weak and divided, the possibility of a united India along with princely states would remain a dream. He had perceived the existence of a defacto Pakistan in Punjab and Bengal. Thus, he convinced Gandhi and Congress over the partition. Though Patel seemed to take double standard as he initially called Pakistan as Jinnah’s mad dream and later supported partition, we find an underlying idea of establishing the Gandhian ideals of unity, peace and harmony in either decision. He initially tried to avoid partition to uphold unity and later approved it to sustain peace and harmony though the aftermath of partition was expected by none.(Singh, 2013)

Post-Independence

After Independence, Patel had a major tussle with Ambedkar over reservation for untouchables. Patel was aware of Gandhi’s mind during Poona Pact and perceived the chances of division among Hindus. Post-independence, Patel who was the Chairman of Advisory Committee on Fundamental Rights, Minorities and Tribes made maximum opposition to all the electoral ideas of Ambedkar. He reversed Ambedkar’s idea of qualified joint electorate ensuring 20% of Dalit votes as qualifier to acquire a reserved seat. The draft constitution provided neither separate nor qualified joint electorates and as a step further, in May 1948, Patel proposed to abolish reservation citing the violent outcomes of partition and abolition on untouchability by the constitution. In this matter, we find a direct correlation of Patel’s and Gandhi’s ideas. As it is evident that Patel’s ideals have always been in tandem with Gandhi, it leads one to question if Patel was a blind disciple or a practical realist. He has followed Gandhi and his advice throughout his political career and also gave up the chance of becoming India’s first prime minister. At the same time, he has also tried to put Gandhi’s ideals, often considered idealistic, into practice which is evident in all the three scenarios considered above and was also successful to some extent. Thus, the answer to such question is left debatable.

Culture has emerged significantly as one of the tools of international politics in the contemporary time, though there are disagreements on the conceptual understanding of culture and the ways it is employed to achieve political goals. The expression of “cultural diplomacy”, however, seems an appropriate frame in understanding the intertwinity of culture and politics. Few relevant observations can be made in this context.

Culture could be the most sophisticated weapon of political influence as the artifacts of culture and the tools of politics could blend with each other with irresistible lethality. The expressions of “cultural revolution” and “culture brigade”, for instance, stand witnesses to this politico-cultural lethality. The prism of culture, in this context, is a new framework to the structured understanding of the conduct of the contemporary international politics.

One of the fundamental characteristics of the contemporary international politics is its lack of clearly defined single hegemonic order of the Cold War-type. This fundamental character of the contemporary world order creates ample space for new actors and political instruments among which culture has emerged prominently and seems to rapidly occupy the available space.

However, the recent upsurge of culture in its political context seems to coincide with what has been widely perceived as increase in terror and violence at global scale, something that was not seen at that level in the decade of the nineties after the Cold War due to emphasis on the economic aspects of transnational engagements. The contemporary instrumentality of culture therefore appears analogous to that of its ideological vitality that the competing power-blocs had deployed during the Cold War period to influence and win over the trust of their “clients”.

Understood in this context, culture was therefore ingrained as a political tool during the Cold War as well as in the post-9/11 context. Hence, the scope of culture as a political instrument spans a vast area and many issues. One may therefore take note of the varied contours of culture in order to appreciate its broadly agreed meaning as that could be conceived in different forms. However, it is the “cultural diplomacy” as a subset of the intertwinity of culture and politics that seems appropriate as a specific framework of understanding of the engagement between two or more nation-states.