A grateful nation recently marked the 150th birth anniversary of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel as National Unity Day. This towering leader united 562 princely states—large and small—that ruled about 40 percent of pre-partition India, bringing them into the Indian Union. Among these states were some tiny territories, but also powerful ones like Hyderabad, which surpassed many European nations in wealth and had a budget comparable to Belgium’s. Patel used every possible means to achieve this goal. As author John Zubrzycki, who chronicled the integration of the princely states, noted, Patel’s success stemmed from “his commanding personality and his mix of firmness and persuasion.”
Patel and Jawaharlal Nehru often differed in their outlook. Nehru openly disliked kings and princes, while Patel maintained cordial relations with several rulers. Yet, when it came to the integration of Hyderabad and Junagadh, Patel showed no hesitation. Junagadh’s merger was achieved through the mere threat of force, while Hyderabad’s required military action. Ultimately, the Nizam was compelled to surrender.
It is unfortunate that Sardar Patel received his due recognition so late. While Nehru was awarded the Bharat Ratna in 1955 and Indira Gandhi in 1971, Patel received the honor only in 1991—forty-one years after his death, in the same year as Rajiv Gandhi and Morarji Desai. Many believe this delay was because the Nehru-Gandhi family, who held power for decades after independence, downplayed Patel’s contribution. This, too, has been a source of political controversy.
While paying tribute, Prime Minister Narendra Modi remarked that Patel had wanted all of Kashmir to join India but was stopped by Nehru. In response, Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge reminded that Patel had once banned the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). Both statements carry some truth. Regarding Kashmir, Patel’s biographer Rajmohan Gandhi writes that Patel was initially unsure whether India should even pursue the state’s accession since it had a Muslim-majority population and Srinagar was far from India’s borders. V.P. Menon, then Secretary in Patel’s Ministry of States, also recorded that Mountbatten told Maharaja Hari Singh that India “would not consider it an unfriendly act if Kashmir chose to join Pakistan”—a statement he attributed to Patel, not Nehru.
For Nehru, Kashmir was personal—it was his ancestral homeland and one he could not imagine losing. Gandhi, too, wanted Kashmir to join India. Patel, however, had no emotional attachment and once remarked that if the ruler believed joining Pakistan served his people best, he would not object.
Patel’s stance changed dramatically in September 1947, when Pakistan accepted Junagadh’s accession. From that moment, he reasoned that if Pakistan could try to absorb a Hindu-majority state ruled by a Muslim ruler, India had every right to integrate a Muslim-majority state led by a Hindu ruler. Kashmir and Junagadh then became Patel’s top priorities. He opposed taking the Kashmir issue to the United Nations, preferring decisive action instead. But since Kashmir was under Nehru’s charge, he did not interfere—and the matter has remained unresolved ever since, with one-third of the territory still under Pakistan’s control. As Modi pointed out, had Nehru not insisted on his approach, it is possible that all of Kashmir might have ended up across the border.
As for the ban on the RSS, it was imposed just weeks after Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination on January 30, 1948. Patel received reports that some RSS members had celebrated the killing. Acting on those reports, he concluded that the organization had been involved in “dangerous activities,” leading to a nationwide ban. However, Patel and Nehru differed sharply in their assessment of the RSS. Nehru saw it as deeply complicit, calling Gandhi’s murder part of a broader RSS conspiracy, while Patel believed the act was carried out by an extremist faction of the Hindu Mahasabha, not by the RSS itself. He described the group as “misguided but patriotic.” Sixteen months later, Patel—then Home Minister—lifted the ban himself.
Patel earned the title “Sardar” long before independence. During the farmers’ Satyagraha in Bardoli, Gujarat, he was hailed as the “Sardar of the Farmers,” and the name stayed with him. Mahatma Gandhi, deeply admiring him, once wrote, “May Sardar live long to fight many battles,” and described him as having “the heart of a lion.” Gandhi often expressed gratitude for Patel’s companionship, calling himself fortunate to have such a steadfast ally.
Patel, in turn, regarded Gandhi as his guide and moral compass. As Rajmohan Gandhi wrote, “To Vallabhbhai, Gandhi was three men in one—a saint, a soldier, and a teacher.” Patel once said, “Having walked with him, I am convinced that India’s freedom can only be won by following his path.” Freedom fighter K.M. Munshi also observed that Patel sought no personal credit; he only wanted to serve as Gandhi’s instrument.
In recent times, some voices have sought to undermine Gandhi’s legacy while praising Patel. Such people fail to realize that Gandhi and Patel were inseparable. Likewise, it is misleading to portray Patel and Nehru as enemies. They had disagreements—on Kashmir, China, the RSS, and the princely states—but both were bound by a shared devotion to India’s unity and freedom. Their deep respect for each other became evident after Gandhi’s assassination. Nehru arrived moments after Patel at the scene; both men broke down in grief. Nehru placed his head on Patel’s lap, weeping like a child.
In the days that followed, they supported each other through the nation’s sorrow. Nehru wrote to Patel on February 3, 1948: “After Bapu’s death, it is our duty to face this crisis as friends and companions.” Patel replied warmly, “Your affectionate letter has touched me deeply. We have been comrades all our lives in a common cause.” The day before, Patel had addressed Nehru as “my leader” in a Congress meeting—a rare gesture of humility and grace.
Despite being the more senior figure, Patel never resented Gandhi’s decision to make Nehru Prime Minister. He accepted it quietly, perhaps understanding Gandhi’s reasoning. Gandhi likely preferred Nehru because Patel’s health was failing; he suffered from chronic intestinal illness even during his imprisonment. Gandhi wanted a younger, healthier man to lead independent India. Patel passed away just three years after independence, while Gandhi himself had been assassinated. The burden of leading the newborn nation fell entirely on Nehru’s shoulders.
Though mistakes were made, as they are in any great endeavor, Nehru’s leadership helped lay the foundation of modern India. The nation was indeed fortunate to have this remarkable trio—Gandhi, Nehru, and Patel—guiding it through its birth and early years. Rarely has history produced such individuals, and none of their kind have since returned.
