New Delhi, April 17: A series of letters exchanged between Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and Jawaharlal Nehru in May 1950, as documented in the book Sardar Patel’s Correspondence, suggest that Patel expressed concerns to Nehru regarding the use of the ‘National Herald’ for fundraising purposes. These letters indicate that Patel cautioned Nehru about “the potential misuse of government influence in financial dealings” and advised against accepting contributions from “questionable” sources.

The old correspondence between Sardar Patel and Jawaharlal Nehru has resurfaced at the heart of political debate, following the Enforcement Directorate’s chargesheet against former Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi. The charges, tied to alleged money laundering in the National Herald case, have brought renewed attention to Patel’s early warnings about financial misconduct linked to the publication—warnings that now seem strikingly relevant.

In fact, The National Herald has been entangled in controversy since the early days of independent India. Letters exchanged between Sardar Patel and Jawaharlal Nehru in 1950 are frequently referenced to point out that questions around the paper’s financial conduct and political misuse were being raised even then.

In 1950, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel explicitly warned Jawaharlal Nehru about dubious fundraising tactics and the ‘misuse’ of government machinery to prop up the National Herald. These serious concerns revealed Patel’s clear discomfort with the ethical and political implications of such actions. Despite the gravity of the warnings, Nehru apparently chose to brush them aside.

Are Sardar Patel’s decades-old warnings proving to be prophetic? The question is echoing across political debates following the Enforcement Directorate’s chargesheet against Sonia and Rahul Gandhi, accusing them of orchestrating a “criminal conspiracy” to usurp properties worth Rs 2,000 crore belonging to Associated Journals Ltd (AJL), the publisher of the National Herald. What began as a stern caution from one of India’s foremost statesmen in 1950 has, according to political analysts referencing Patel’s letters, now spiralled into an allegedly full-blown scandal that “underscores a legacy of alleged misuse of power and political entitlement”.

Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel raised the red flag in a series of pointed letters to Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. On May 5, 1950, Patel wrote to Nehru expressing grave concern over a Rs 75,000 donation to the National Herald from two individuals associated with Himalayan Airways. The airline had reportedly obtained a government contract for night air mail services by circumventing objections from the Indian Air Force. Observers say that it was an early sign of “political favouritism and backroom dealings”.

Patel didn’t mince words. He highlighted that one of the donors, Akhani, was already facing multiple charges of bank fraud. Even more damning was Patel’s accusation that Union Minister Ahmed Kidwai was abusing his official position to collect funds for the Herald, including money from controversial businessmen in Lucknow such as J.P. Srivastava.

Nehru’s reply, sent the same day, was “vague and dismissive”– attempting to pacify Patel without allegedly addressing the core concerns. He mentioned having asked his son-in-law, Feroze Gandhi, then General Manager of the Herald, to look into the matter. According to an analyst, Nehru’s tone as reflected in the letter was non-committal, brushing the issue aside as though it were an unfortunate misunderstanding.

Patel, undeterred, responded the very next day, May 6, 1950. He saw through the deflection as he wrote to Nehru in detail, explaining how certain private companies and their shareholders were involved in the process. Sardar Patel noted, “Some contributions did not come from those involved in running the department. Otherwise, to my knowledge, the number of contributions received was sufficient and involved other individuals as well. The transactions I have referred to are of a different nature. There is no element of charity in them.”

In his follow-up, Nehru again “tried to distance himself from the paper and its finances”, claiming he hadn’t been involved with the National Herald or its fundraising for three years and had passed the responsibility to a woman named Mridula. He admitted “some mistakes may have occurred” but continued to what was seen by many as his attempt to “justify” the questionable transactions as part of a legitimate business proposition, even calling it a matter of “loss and profit” — not charity.

This point was highlighted by BJP national spokesperson Sudhanshu Trivedi who stated that on May 6, 1950, Jawaharlal Nehru wrote a letter to Sardar Patel saying, “Herald is a good business proposition and its preference shares and debentures are not a bad investment.”

It was said during Nehru’s time that the investment made in the National Herald could be profitable. This is a good business investment, so its shares or debentures cannot be considered harmful, said Trivedi referring to correspondence.

The direct implication is that from the very beginning, this investment was linked to profit, business, and property, he added. “Today, the Congress party should be asked this ethical question: when this was always a business plan, how can it suddenly be linked to charity or donations given during the freedom struggle?” he said.

This was the breaking point for Patel.

In his final letter dated May 10, 1950, he made it clear that the issue was about integrity, accountability, and the misuse of political power. As Home Minister, he expressed deep concern over the ‘dishonesty’ surrounding the Herald’s funding and the dubious individuals involved.

He rejected Nehru’s defence outright, calling out the rot at the core of what was being portrayed as a freedom movement legacy.

Sardar Patel wrote, “In light of these events, I do not think there is any benefit in pursuing this matter further. I have already told you how I view these activities, and I doubt that if this happened in any other province and I had any connection to it, I would not accept this situation.”

According to Trivedi, this clearly means that he had become disillusioned and did not want to talk about it again. “Now, Congress should explain what kind of sacrifice and dedication this was,” Trivedi asked.

According to political observers, Patel’s firm stance exposed a deeper malaise — a troubling pattern of entitlement, favouritism, and ethical compromise that would resurface decades later. His warnings, largely ignored at the time, now seem eerily prophetic.