A letter written by Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel to Jawaharlal Nehru in 1950 makes clear his view of the North-east and the Darjeeling Hills, writes Romit Bagchi

The Statesman

UNION home minister Sardar Vallabbhai Patel wrote a letter to Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru in November 1950. Written at a crucial juncture following China’s occupation of Tibet, the content is interesting as it helps us delve into the subjective domain of the redoubtable Congress leader, known for his matter-of-fact thinking that often bordered on orthodoxy. Though Nehru reigned supreme on the political horizon, Patel’s views, standing often in sharp contrast to what was known as “Nehruvian utopianism”, always carried weight in the Congress as well as in government circles.

The letter throws light on how an important faction controlling the organisation and the government viewed the North-east and the Darjeeling Hills in the context of the volatile security situation with China’s hegemonistic designs in South and Southeast Asia becoming all too apparent.

Nehru’s sympathy for the Communist regime in China prior to the latter’s incursion into India in 1962 is well-known. It is a fact, as rightly alluded to by the pragmatic Sardar Patel, that India under Nehru antagonised the Anglo-American lobby in its eagerness to espouse the cause of Communist China in the international arena. “During the last seven months, outside the Russian Camp, we have practically been alone in championing the cause of Chinese entry into the UNO and securing from the Americans assurances on the question of Formosa… In spite of this, China is not convinced about our disinterestedness; it continues to regard us with suspicion and the whole psychology is one, at least outwardly, of skepticism, perhaps mixed with a little hostility,” the letter ran.

But relevant to our purpose are those portions making clear Sardar Patel’s view of the North-east and the Darjeeling Hills against the backdrop of the fast deteriorating relations between the two countries in the wake of the Chinese occupation of Tibet.

“All along the Himalayas in the north and the north-east, we have on our side of the frontier a population ethnologically and culturally not different from Tibetans or Mongoloids. The undefined states of the frontier and the existence on our side of a population with its affinities to Tibetans or Chinese have all the elements of potential trouble between China and ourselves,” Sardar Patel wrote.
Expressing concern over the political conditions in the “potentially troublesome frontier”, he wrote, “Our northern and north-eastern approaches consist of Nepal, Bhutan, Sikkim, the Darjeeling and tribal areas in Assam. From the point of view of communications, they are weak spots. Continuous defensive lines do not exist. There is almost an unlimited scope for infiltration. The contact of these areas with us is by no means close and intimate. The people inhabiting these portions have no established loyalty or devotion to India. Even the Darjeeling and Kalimpong areas are not free from pro-Mongoloid prejudices.”

His analysis of the socio-political situations in the strategically sensitive region was crisp. “In Sikkim, there was political ferment some time ago. It is quite possible that discontent is smouldering there. Bhutan is comparatively quiet, but its affinity with Tibetans would be a handicap. Nepal has a weak oligarchic regime based almost entirely on force; it is in conflict with a turbulent element of the population as well as with enlightened ideas of the modern age. In these circumstances, to make people alive to the new danger or to make them defensively strong is a very difficult task and the difficulty can be got over only by enlightened firmness, strength and a clear line of policy. I am sure the Chinese and their source of inspiration, Soviet Russia, would not miss any opportunity of exploiting these weak spots, partly in support of their ideology and partly in support of their ambitions. In my judgment, the situation is one in which we cannot afford to either to be complacent or to be vacillating. Any faltering or lack of decisiveness in formulating our objectives or in pursuing our policy to attain those objectives is bound to weaken us and increase the threats which are so evident,” he wrote.

The situation on the north-east frontier seems to be more alarming now than what it was at the time Sardar Patel wrote the letter to Nehru, cautioning him against dilly-dallying regarding the “vulnerable” region.

Reports keep pouring in from the north and north-east regarding the Chinese army’s penetration into Indian territory. And Nepal remains mired in political turmoil with China seemingly desperate to drive a permanent wedge between Nepal and India using the Maoists as its stooges.

Chinese troops are reported to have made forays as deep as 15 km into Indian territory near Mount Gaya in the Ladakh region, violating the international border. This penetration was preceded by a helicopter incursions into Indian airspace in the same sensitive region. Such forays have also been reported into some parts of Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim and other parts of the North-east through Nathu-La and other borders. According to the Indo-Tibetan Border Police, the Chinese army has made at least 140 incursions into Indian territory in the past year.

The situation in Nepal is equally disturbing with the intensity in anti-India frenzy growing each day and the Chinese government, desperate to strategically weaken India, is trying hard to win the confidence of the present dispensation in Nepal. And, most interestingly, China is befriending Nepal as also other countries in South and South-east Asia — not by exerting pressure but by assuring economic assistance.

When bilateral relations between India and Nepal seem like looking up following the installation of the Madhav Nepal government, the desperation of the Chinese government to outpace India is becoming all too apparent. China is all set to enter into a long-term friendship treaty with Nepal on the lines of one that Nepal has with India. China has assured Nepal of providing much more economic assistance for its development than India is capable of.

Military analysts seem unanimous in their views that a repeat of 1962 is on the cards. China is apparently trying to turn the neighbouring countries into hostile territories for India in its long-term strategy of encircling India by propping up pro-China dispensations around it. And, going by what has been happening in Nepal, it can be safely assumed that the anti-India hysteria will grow stronger with the passage of time.

Face to face with such a grim scenario unfolding in the sensitive theatre, it is anybody’s guess whether the Centre will condescend enough, regarding the statehood demand when the new state will principally comprise of settlers from Nepal.

Even the British government did not evince interest in gifting the Darjeeling Hills a separate political entity, keeping in view the strategic interest of English imperialism amidst the baffling cross-currents of ethno-political equations in the volatile region.

As a matter of fact, there was not much difference in the thinking of the British imperialists and Sardar Patel as far as the assumed ethnological affinity in the Mongoloid belt and its serious implications on matters of security and integrity are concerned.

The Gorkhaland protagonists are, however, vociferous in their loyalty towards India. According to them, a separate Gorkhaland state would be in the best interest of the country, as it would stand as a bulwark of defence against the machinations of anti-India forces in what is strategically known as the “chicken neck”. And there is no reason to doubt the sincerity behind such profession of national loyalty.

Yet, the question is: will such professions cut any ice with those who are in a position to make or unmake a state? Does Pranab Mukherjee’s categorical rejection of the Gorkhaland demand smack of mere xenophobic excrescence as is being supposed by the GJMM leadership, or does it echo the apprehension regarding the region, which Sardar Patel shared with the dominant section of the ruling clique and tried to din deep into the “ideology-befuddled” mind of the romantic Nehru?