Comrades in nation-building: Nehru and Patel, beyond the myth of rivalry

Few relationships in modern Indian history have been as misrepresented — and as vital — as the one between Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. The two men were not antagonists locked in ideological combat but collaborators who carried different temperaments and complementary visions into the crucible of nation-building. To reduce them to opposites — Nehru the dreamer, Patel the doer — is to flatten history into political propaganda.

Today, when partisan narratives pit the 'Iron Man' against the 'Idealist Prime Minister', it is essential to revisit their own correspondence, public statements, and the scholarly record preserved by Rajmohan Gandhi, Sarvepalli Gopal, V.P. Menon, A.G. Noorani, Srinath Raghavan, and Ramachandra Guha. Together, these sources reveal a relationship not of rivalry, but of mutual respect, principled disagreement, and shared devotion to the Indian experiment.

Both Nehru and Patel were Gandhi’s foremost lieutenants — one a Cambridge-educated internationalist drawn to socialism and humanism; the other, a pragmatic nationalist rooted in discipline and administrative realism. Their differences were of method, not mission.

As Rajmohan Gandhi writes in Patel: A Life, “They were bound by affection and trust, not by agreement on every issue. Their differences were never disloyalty, nor their loyalty ever blind.”

Nehru represented India’s future as a democratic, pluralist, and industrial power. Patel embodied its foundations — unity, stability, and order. In Sarvepalli Gopal’s words, “They were the two hands of the same body politic.”

When independence dawned, Gandhi chose Nehru to lead free India not because he distrusted Patel, but because Nehru’s mass appeal and modernist vision could best secure India’s standing in the world. Patel accepted the decision with grace and loyalty, knowing the movement’s unity mattered more than personal ambition.

The correspondence between Nehru and Patel before and after independence dispels the myth of enmity. On 1 August 1947, Nehru wrote to Patel inviting him to join the first Cabinet of free India: 'Since some formalities are necessary, I am writing to invite you to join the Cabinet. This letter is of no consequence, as you are a strong pillar of the Cabinet.'

Patel’s reply two days later affirmed his deep trust: 'Given the affection and love we have for each other and our unbroken friendship of almost thirty years, there is no place for formality. You will have my pure and complete loyalty and devotion… No one in India has made such sacrifices as you have. Our unity and cooperation are unbreakable.' (Nehru–Patel: Agreement Within Differences, National Book Trust, 1992)

Barely six weeks before his death, Patel reiterated his loyalty. Speaking at Indore on 2 October 1950, he declared: “Now that Mahatma Gandhi is no longer with us, Nehru is our leader. Bapu appointed him as his successor… I am not a disloyal soldier.” (Sardar Patel’s Correspondence, 1945–50, Navjivan Publishing House)

Such words belie the modern narrative of estrangement. Their friendship, forged in decades of struggle, survived every disagreement.

The ideological friction was real, but not destructive. Patel’s conservatism valued administrative continuity; Nehru’s socialism sought structural transformation. Patel emphasised efficiency and order; Nehru championed planning and progress.

Yet, as Ramachandra Guha observes in India After Gandhi, “The relationship between Nehru and Patel was not of rivals competing for power, but of partners negotiating the birth pangs of a new nation.”

Patel’s insistence on retaining the Indian Civil Service — a decision Nehru initially opposed — ultimately stabilised India’s bureaucracy during the chaos of Partition. Nehru’s faith in industrialisation complemented Patel’s focus on governance. Their cooperation, not conflict, sustained India’s early statehood.

A frequent distortion in contemporary political rhetoric is the claim that “Patel wanted to merge all of Kashmir with India, but Nehru did not allow him.” This assertion collapses under archival scrutiny.

According to V.P. Menon in The Story of the Integration of the Indian States (1956): 'Until the Instrument of Accession was signed, we had no legal right to send our forces to Kashmir. Sardar Patel, firm though he was, accepted this position.'

Both Nehru and Patel agreed that India could not militarily intervene before accession. As Srinath Raghavan notes in War and Peace in Modern India (2010), 'Patel and Nehru shared a strategic understanding — force would follow legality, not precede it.'

Rajmohan Gandhi further records that Patel initially regarded Kashmir as “a natural fit for Pakistan”, but after the tribal invasion of October 1947, “he became resolute that Kashmir must remain with India”. Patel’s December 1948 letter to Nehru confirmed his 'complete faith in your handling of the Kashmir issue'.

After Gandhi’s assassination in January 1948, Patel’s condemnation of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) was categorical. In a letter to Dr Syama Prasad Mukherjee dated 18 July 1948, Patel wrote: 'As a result of the activities of the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha, an atmosphere was created in which such a ghastly tragedy became possible. The activities of the RSS constituted a clear threat to the existence of the State.' (Sardar Patel’s Correspondence, 1945–50, Vol. 10)

To invoke Patel today as an icon of the very forces he once disciplined is to invert his legacy. Patel’s nationalism was civic, constitutional, and plural — not sectarian. His unity was forged through reconciliation, not polarisation.

The notion that Nehru 'erased' Patel’s memory is also unfounded. It was Nehru who laid the foundation stone of the Sardar Sarovar Dam in 1961, calling it “a tribute to Sardar’s monumental role in uniting India”. Institutions such as Sardar Patel University (Gujarat) and the Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel National Police Academy (Hyderabad) came up during or soon after his tenure.

An oft-recounted anecdote from Bikaner (1959) captures Nehru’s respect. When invited to inaugurate a medical college named after his father, Motilal Nehru, he declined, saying: “If you name it after Sardar Patel, I will come.” The college was renamed, and Nehru attended the ceremony.

These gestures underscore the genuine affection Nehru held for his comrade.

When Patel died on 15 December 1950, Nehru mourned deeply: “In the passing of Vallabhbhai, I have lost a comrade and colleague of many years. He was a great captain of our forces in the struggle for freedom. His name will live in history.”

After his death, the Congress tilted towards Nehruvian socialism, and Patel’s brand of pragmatic centrism faded from prominence. But as Guha reminds us, “Both Nehru and Patel were indispensable to the making of India; each was incomplete without the other.”

Patel provided the architecture of unity; Nehru infused it with democratic idealism. Their partnership was the dialogue of two minds bound by one destiny: the creation of an inclusive, modern India.

The contemporary attempt to weaponise Patel against Nehru — by resurrecting selective myths or social-media distortions — is an affront to both men. Patel would have been the first to condemn such misuse.

As Rajmohan Gandhi concludes, “To pit Patel against Nehru is to misunderstand both — and to wound the very idea of India they built together.”

Their partnership remains a timeless lesson in democratic leadership: that argument need not mean animosity, and dissent need not mean division. In their unity of purpose lies the blueprint for India’s plural and enduring democracy.

Hasnain Naqvi is a former member of the history faculty at St Xavier’s College, Mumbai. You will find more of his writing here

References
1. Rajmohan Gandhi, Patel: A Life (Navjivan Publishing House, 1990)
2. Sarvepalli Gopal, Jawaharlal Nehru: A Biography (Harvard University Press, 1976)
3. V.P. Menon, The Story of the Integration of the Indian States (Orient Longman, 1956)
4. Ramachandra Guha, India After Gandhi: The History of the World’s Largest Democracy (Macmillan, 2007)
5. A.G. Noorani, The Kashmir Dispute: 1947–2012, Vol. I (Oxford University Press, 2013)
6. Srinath Raghavan, War and Peace in Modern India (Permanent Black, 2010)
7. Nehru–Patel: Agreement Within Differences (National Book Trust, 1992)
8. Sardar Patel’s Correspondence, 1945–50 (Navjivan Publishing House, multiple volumes)
9. Constituent Assembly Debates, Vol. III (Government of India, 1947–48)