2nd point is irrelevant. First of all it is just an assumption (at which leftists are expert) and not proven fact. That assumption is as valid as saying that Gandhiji PROBABLY preferred Nehru because he was Brahmin and not Sardar because he was from the family of farmers.
Second - Even if it was true and even if Gandhiji had best of intentions it was still a disregard for democratic mandate. And Gandhiji had no right to do so. It was a discrimination against a democratically elected person because of his health conditions.
Third - Post 1947 was Sardar really in as bad health as it is being asserted here? Even cursory evidence suggests that he was actually very active. Atleast for the next 2 years. One can find on net his speeches from Madras, Kolkata and other places as late as mid 1949.
Besides in those tumultuous years even few months would have been enough to change the course of history. Jinnah himself had Tuberculosis in 1947. Sadly It didnβt prevent partition of India from happening.
And basically in the grand course of Indian history time of the demise of Sardar Patel is irrelevant. Even if he would have died next month after independence that would have been irrelevant as it would havE PROBABLY prevented India from getting addicted with Nehruvian socialism!
So yes it may make for excellent leftist historical fiction but in reality Sardar Patelβs health is irrelevant argument. And even if a short tenure it would have still changed the course of Modern Indian history
Loading suggestions...