A biographer is inevitably dependent on papers left behind by her subject — diaries, correspondence, aide de memoire and so on. These are the principal sources based on which she reconstructs the life that she has chosen to portray. But these “private papers” as they are called in the historians’ trade need to be read with — and sometimes even against — other sources that are available for the period and for specific incidents.
It is the evaluation of various types of evidence that informs the craft of writing a biography and is also at the heart of history writing. The trap before the biographer is to take what her subject wrote at face value and as her only source. Such an approach often leads to a distorted perspective or an erroneous version of an event or incident. In spite of being a trained historian, Narayani Basu, occasionally falls headlong into this trap.
Root of a controversy
It is this propensity to depend on one kind of source — most often what V.P. Menon himself recorded or remembered — which is at the root of the controversy that is stalking this book and perhaps pushing up the sales figures. The latter will keep the publishers happy but Basu’s handling of the concerned incident does no good to her reputation as a historian. The incident is the formation of the first cabinet of independent India under Jawaharlal Nehru.
It is Basu’s claim that Nehru did not want Vallabhbhai Patel in that cabinet and that the latter was included only after V.P. Menon alerted Lord Mountbatten who spoke to Gandhi. According to Menon, as quoted by Basu, Patel’s name was included “as a sop”. All this is based on an interview Menon gave to H.V. Hodson and on Hodson’s recollections. Basu makes no effort to read this evidence — or check it against other available evidence.
Nehru and Patel
Evidence contrary to Menon’s claim and Hodson’s remembrance of that claim is easily accessible. Srinath Raghavan, one of the finest historians of modern India, presented this evidence in an article published immediately after the launch of this book. (‘Nehru never excluded Patel from the Cabinet List’, The Print , February 12, 2020) As Raghavan shows, Patel was directly involved in the formation of the first cabinet and that Mountbatten noted this in a report dated August 1.
As further evidence of Patel’s involvement on July 30, Raghavan cites Nehru’s letter to Patel in which he informed the latter that he had persuaded Ambedkar to join the cabinet as law minister. There is also a letter dated August 1, 1947 from Nehru to Patel in which he formally invited Patel to join the cabinet and described Patel as “the strongest pillar of the cabinet.” Patel replied: “Our attachment and affection for each other and our comradeship for an unbroken period of nearly 30 years admit of no formalities. My services will be at your disposal, I hope, for the rest of my life and you will have unquestioned loyalty and devotion from me in the cause for which no man in India has sacrificed as much as you have done. Our combination is unbreakable and therein lies our strength.” Patel’s name was on top of the list that Nehru sent to Mountbatten on August 4. Patel would also be the deputy prime minister.
Nothing of the above finds mention in Basu’s telling of the incident. She glibly accepts Menon’s version of things without checking it with the existing available evidence. This doesn’t speak highly of her as a historian. She wanted to create a sensation by making the utterly incorrect claim that Nehru wanted to exclude Patel, and included him only under pressure for which her subject – V.P. Menon -- was responsible.
Apart from the sensationalism, there is also Basu’s prejudice against Nehru which is evident throughout the book. It is a prejudice that she inherits from V.P. Menon on whose papers she is so completely dependent. To give one example: On p.413, Basu writes, “In the weeks following Gandhi’s assassination, there were calls for Patel to resign, and Nehru wearily told Krishna Menon that it was perhaps for the best if Patel stepped down.” She proceeds to support her statement by quoting what Nehru wrote to Krishna Mennon, “He [Patel] has rather changed in the past few months. He has been the target of many attacks, more especially in regard to the assassination of Gandhiji and he has become rather nervous on certain subjects. Any express or implied criticism in this context upsets him.” Where in these lines penned by Nehru is there even the suggestion that he would prefer Patel to step down? This is an example of a very tendentious reading of a letter.
Painstaking research
These examples are unfortunate because this book is the product of very painstaking research into a treasure trove — the papers of Menon. The over dependence on these papers makes for a flawed biography and on occasion very poor history. This is a biography that needed to be written and Basu must be complimented for having taken on this project. Menon rose from humble beginnings to be an outstanding bureaucrat and the confidante of some of the great and the mighty. He remained true to his ideological convictions and spent the twilight years of his life with the Swatantra Party and the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan. He played a sterling role in the integration of the princely states into the Indian republic. Without his work with Patel, the Indian republic would not have acquired the shape that it did. It is also true that Menon’s work has not always been recognised. Thus the word ‘unsung’ in the subtitle is justified. But ‘architect of modern India’? Does modern India consist of only the integration of the princely states? Biographers should be careful about what claims they make for their subject.
Basu is also badly served by her publishers because the book has no index. This is an appalling omission in a book of this kind.
V.P. Menon: The Unsung Architect of Modern India; Narayani Basu, Simon & Schuster, ₹799.
The reviewer is Chancellor and Professor of History, Ashoka University.
