The legacy of Sardar Patel being contested by the BJP and the Congress is far more complex than either would like to believe.
If Patel owes his political baptism to anyone, it is to Gandhi.
Their paths crossed shortly after Patel - who broke away from his family's rustic roots in Central Gujarat to study law in England - eventually returning to a thriving practice in Ahmedabad.
Patel would spend less time in his practice, and more at the Sabarmati Ashram, from where under Gandhi's guidance he would organise a series of Satyagraha's against the prohibitive taxation of farmers.
The director of the Ashram, Tridip Suhrud says Sardar came into his own mobilising satyagrahas in Kheda, in Central Gujarat and Bardoli, near Surat.
Three years after the Bardoli satygarha, he became one of the Congress party's key organisers.
So how could someone steeped in Gandhian thought, and a Congress organisation man, come to be claimed by the Hindu Right?
That narrative is posited on the idea that Patel was not as squeamish about his Hindu identity, than say, Nehru.
This, say his admirers in the BJP, is borne out by his plain speaking to Muslims who stayed back in India.
In January 1948, he remonstrates a group of Muslims in Calcutta, saying, "The Muslims who are still in India, many of them helped in the creation of Pakistan. Fine, if they did but then how come in one night, their hearts changed? I do not understand that. They say why their loyalty is being questioned. That is not something for us to answer. We just say that alright you created Pakistan, good for you, we will not interfere. If things go bad then do not call us. Then they say Pakistan and India should become one, I plead them to not say that. That will be a loss for us, let them stay there. Let them create Pakistan."
In the same month, in the aftermath of Pakistan's invasion of Kashmir using Afghan tribesmen, he remonstrated a gathering of Muslims in Lucknow, saying, "I want to tell you frankly that mere declarations of loyalty to the Indian Union will not help you in this critical juncture. I ask you why you do not unequivocally denounce Pak for attacking Indian territory with the connivance of Frontier tribesmen. Those who want to go to Pak can go there and live in peace."
But his mentor appeared to have an insight into where these words were coming from. In a January 1948 letter, Gandhi wrote to Patel saying, "Many Muslim friends had complained to me of the Sardar's so-called anti-Muslim attitude. I was able to assure the critics that they were wrong in isolating him from Nehru and me, whom they gratuitously raise to the sky. The Sardar had a bluntness of speech which sometimes unintentionally hurt, though his heart was expansive enough to accommodate all."
Patel's biographer Rajmohan Gandhi says that Patel should be judged by his actions, not words. In his actions, there was little to fault Patel, who as Home Minister would often personally travel to communal flashpoints to ensure Muslims are not attacked.
Like in September 1947, as reports emerged of threats to those taking shelter in the Dargah of Nizamuddin Auliya in south Delhi, Patel's private secretary Shankar records Patel's response. "The Sardar wrapped his shawl round his neck and said 'Let us go to the saint before we incur his displeasure'. We arrived there unobtrusively. Sardar spent a good 45 minutes in the precincts, went round the holy shrine in an attitude of veneration, made enquiries here and there of the inmates, and told the police officer of the area, on pain of dismissal that he would hold him responsible if anything untoward happened."
Later in the same month as reports came that Sikhs in Amritsar intended to attack Muslim convoys on their way to Pakistan.
He travelled to Amritsar and famously made this appeal: "Here in this very same city, the blood of Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims mingled in the bloodbath of Jallianwalla Bagh. I am grieved to think that things have come to such a pass that no Muslim can go about in Amritsar and no Hindu or Sikh can even think about living in Lahore."
Perhaps the greatest awkwardness for the attempts by the Hindu right to champion the Sardar is his active role as Home Minister in the banning of the RSS in the aftermath of Gandhi's assassination. The February 4, 1948 communique issued by the Home Ministry said, "Undesirable and even dangerous activities have been carried on by members of the Sangh. In pursuance of this policy the Government of India have decided to declare unlawful the RSS."
The RSS had attempted to suggest that Patel admired the RSS, and was bulldozed into the ban by Nehru. The facts as always are more nuanced.
Patel disagreed with Nehru about the RSS's role in Gandhi's assassination, writing in February 1948, "It was a fanatical wing of the Hindu Mahasabha directly under Savarkar that hatched the conspiracy and saw it through."
But the Sardar made it clear in a letter to RSS chief Guru Golwalkar, dated 11 September 1948, that the Sangh created the climate that led to Gandhi's killing. He said "organizing the Hindus and helping them is one thing but going in for revenge for its sufferings on innocent and helpless men, women and children is quite another thing. All their speeches were full of communal poison. As a final result of the poison, the country had to suffer the sacrifice of the invaluable life of Gandhiji. Opposition turned more severe, when the RSS men expressed joy and distributed sweets after Gandhiji's death."
There is little to suggest then, that Patel was some sort of closet Hindutvavaadi. But equally, if the Hindu right does have a greater claim on him, it's entirely because of the gradual abandoning of the Sardar by his parent party. The BJP points out that it took the Congress 40 years to bestow a Bharat Ratna on Patel, and he has been neglected in the politics of memorialisation.
It is hard to imagine what the Sardar would make of these political skirmishes over his legacy, which do little justice to his complexity and his stature.