Cognitive psychology is the scientific study of internal mental processes; how people perceive, remember, think, speak, and learn. It emerged during the 1950s Cognitive Revolution, when psychologists began to challenge behaviourism, which focused only on observable behaviour. Instead, cognitive psychologists studied how the brain processes information, using experiments to understand mental functions such as memory, attention, perception, and problem-solving.

Findings from cognitive psychology help us understand how people think and how they acquire, store, and retrieve memories. By understanding these mental processes, psychologists can develop improved methods to assist individuals experiencing cognitive difficulties. Cognitive psychology is the scientific study of internal mental processes.

Why I choose to write about Sardar Patel’s Cognitive Psychology?

I admire Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel’s leadership it was not merely a result of political positioning but was rooted in a distinct cognitive framework characterized by pragmatic realism, high emotional intelligence, and unwavering determination. Often referred to as the “Iron Man of India,” his mental approach to crisis management and nation-building involved a unique ability to prioritize long-term stability over short-term sentiment. I therefore chose to write about Sardar Patel’s mental makeup. I have read a large secondary data about his leadership which was risen from grass root level.    

He demonstrated a distinctive cognitive style characterized by pragmatism, emotional control, and strategic thinking. His leadership during critical moments in India’s history such as the integration of over 500 princely states and the period following Partition between India-Pakisatn reflects strong cognitive functioning under pressure. Patel realized by 1946–47 that coexisting with the Muslim League within the same government was impossible. He feared continuous communal strife and that a weak central government would lead to the country’s complete collapse. Patel aimed to prevent a “civil war” and the disintegration  of India, arguing that holding onto the entire country would result in countless smaller, disunited regions.

Key Cognitive Features in Patel’s Leadership

Please find some key features of Sardar Patel’s leadership which can be seen in the 1930s, when a plague broke out in Borsad, Gujarat, Patel did not just manage from a distance. He camped in the affected area, established an office under a tree, and personally coordinated efforts recruiting volunteers, arranging hospital beds, and distributing food despite the high risk of infection.

Often known as the “Patron Saint” of India’s civil servants, Patel’s vision went beyond merely creating the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) and Indian Police Service (IPS). He passionately defended civil servants from political attacks and firmly believed that an independent, strong bureaucracy was the “steel frame” necessary for a diverse nation to function.

Pragmatism and Realistic

Thinking: Patel’s cognitive framework focused on practical realities rather than theoretical ideals. He emphasized confronting facts directly and making decisions based on achievable outcomes rather than speculation. This reflects strong problem-solving ability and rational decision-making, core components of cognitive psychology. When Gujarati farmers struggled against middlemen to sell their milk, it was Patel who advised them to organize themselves. This guidance directly resulted in the creation of the Kaira District Co-operative Milk Producers’ Union Limited, which later became the world-renowned brand Amul.

While firm, Patel was not purely aggressive. In the case of Junagadh, despite public outcry against its accession to Pakistan, he used his “velvet glove” approach, avoiding direct military intervention and opting for a calm negotiation that led to a plebiscite.

When Pakistan invaded Kashmir in 1947, Patel immediately advocated for sending troops. He opposed bringing the issue to the United Nations, arguing that Pakistan was wrong, the accession was valid, and foreign interference should be avoided, warning Nehru against internationalizing a bilateral issue.

High Emotional Intelligence (EI)

Patel demonstrated strong self-awareness, emotional regulation, and social intelligence. He remained calm and composed during crises, even under intense political and social pressure. This relates to attention control, emotional regulation, and cognitive flexibility, which allow individuals to maintain focus during stressful situations. He had a profound commitment to the upliftment of the downtrodden, rural, and poor population of India. His actions were characterized by a focus on “honesty and kindness” alongside his administrative strength.

Born into a humble farmer’s family, Patel dedicated his life to fighting against the oppression of peasants by the British authorities. Kheda Satyagraha (1918) – He organized peasants in Kheda, Gujarat, for non-violent disobedience against oppressive tax policies during a severe famine. Bardoli Satyagraha (1928) –  He led the farmers of Bardoli to victory against excessive tax increases, leading to the title ‘Sardar’ (leader) being bestowed upon him. He organized extensive relief work during floods and famines in Gujarat, providing food and clothes, and forcing the British government to provide relief funds.

Strategic Decision-Making

Patel’s decisions were goal-oriented and solution-focused. Post-independence when negotiating with rulers of princely states, he combined logic with persuasion, appealing both to reason and emotion. He was India’s first Home Minister, he strategically appealed to over 560 princely states to join the Indian Union in 1947 by emphasizing patriotism, national unity, and shared destiny. He blended diplomatic persuasion with practical incentives, offering rulers continued privileges (privy purses) while ensuring the security of the newly independent nation. He reminded rulers that their states were geographically and economically integrated with India, making isolation impractical. This reflects advanced executive functioning, including planning, evaluation, and long-term thinking.

Resilience and Crisis Leadership

Patel showed remarkable resilience during India’s independence movement and early nation-building years. He adapted quickly to changing political conditions. This demonstrates adaptive thinking and cognitive resilience, important traits in high-pressure environments. Although Salt Satyagraha (March 1930) was led by Mahatma Gandhi, Patel played a crucial organizational role in the success of the movement. Patel travelled across villages in Gujarat, preparing farmers and communities to participate in the civil disobedience movement. He helped identify strategic locations along the route of the march, ensuring widespread public support. Patel’s ability to mobilize thousands of people in Gujarat for non-violent civil disobedience was unparalleled. Before the Dandi March, Patel was arrested on March 7, 1930, while campaigning to encourage the people of Gujarat, proving his position as a major threat to British law. After his arrest, the Salt Satyagraha intensified.

Why Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Did Not Become India’s First Prime Minister

Patel was known for discipline, efficiency, and intolerance for incompetence. From his student days, he challenged inefficiency and demanded accountability. This relates to goal-directed behaviour, attention control, and organizational thinking. Although Patel had strong support within the Indian National Congress, he did not become India’s first Prime Minister primarily due to the influence of M.K Gandhi, who supported Jawaharlal Nehru. The first ever election during the Congress party’s presidential election in 1946, Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Patel were the key contenders. Nehru was elected president despite getting just 2 votes while Patel had got 28. Nehru was M.K. Gandhi’s Preference. Gandhi believed Nehru’s international outlook and charisma suited India’s future leadership. While many provincial committees supported Patel, but Gandhi saw Nehru as a national and international figure. Patel withdrew his candidature at Gandhi’s request to maintain unity within the party. He was a real nationalist.

Conclusion

From a cognitive psychology viewpoint, Patel’s leadership illustrates effective decision-making under uncertainty, strong memory and planning abilities, focused attention during crises, emotional regulation and resilience and goal-oriented problem-solving.  These characteristics align closely with modern concepts of executive functioning, strategic cognition, and adaptive leadership.

As a firm leader, Patel might have handled the Kashmir issue differently. Often centred on his pragmatic, firm, and decisive approach to national integration compared to Jawaharlal Nehru’s preference for international mediation. While Patel focused on military action and direct, quick negotiation, disagreements and differing priorities in late 1947 prevented a swift resolution. Patel maintained stricter internal security. Considered more pro-business than Nehru, it is believed he would have empowered the private sector earlier, fostering faster industrial growth.  Supporters often cite that his clearer nationalist focus and robust national security policies would have protected against threats and strengthened India faster.

One of the famous English Novelist George Orwell’s quotes “Who controls the past, controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” This quote is so apt in case of Indian History.

History is the study of the past which is formed on collective memory. Family history is the story of who we are, where we come from, it helps us compare our present and future possibly to understand where we are headed. Nothing is more mind boggling than learning and discovering more about our ancestors, celebrating family traditions, embracing our culture, and understanding our roots.

Our national history makes us more resilient because it is essential for all of us in understanding ourselves and the world around us. There is a history of every field and topic; from medicine, music, art, education, architecture, fashion, food, religion and many more facets of life. To know and understand history is absolutely necessary, even though the results of historical study are not as visible as they are expected to be.  

Sri Adrishya Kadasiddeshwar Swami of Kaneri Mutt while speaking in Vishwa Hindu Parishad has said that history textbooks across the country did not contain the actual account of Indian history and he has urged the Union and State governments to change history books to reflect on Indian values and record the right kind of history.

Many historians say it’s a myth that India’s freedom struggle was non-violent. India’s founding story deliberates upon an unrealistic national philosophy simply for political ideology. This unrealistic story has wavered our national spirit.

Historians have manipulated the very facts; hard facts are brushed under the carpet. Wrong people are made our national heroes while real heroes are not given their due credit in our history text books. India represents a core Asian tradition as well as one of the oldest strands in the fabric of world civilization. Indian religions, philosophies, art, literature, and social systems have played a fundamental role in defining the human heritage, and they merit a proper discussion in a world history survey. Why was our rich heritage brushed aside? 

I watched Arnab Goswami’s discussion with Sanjeev Sanyal on Republic Television on 8^th Jan 2023. Sanyal is an Indian economist and a famous historian. He is a member of the Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister of India, and has helped prepare six editions of the Economic Survey of India starting in 2017.  Arnab and Sanjeev Sanyal were discussing gist of Sanyal’s recent book “Revolutionaries” published by Harper Collins.                   

He writes in his book that the history of India’s struggle for freedom is usually told from the perspective of the non-violence movement. How can we just brush off the facts of armed resistance to colonial occupation? Could it ever be possible without bloodshed? Sanyal  names Vinayak Savarkar, Aurobindo Ghosh, Rashbehari Bose, Bagha Jatin, Sachindra Nath Sanyal, Bhagat Singh, Chandrashekhar Azad and Subhas Chandra Bose who were most prominent and contributed significantly to the freedom struggle. are still widely remembered. Their story is almost always presented as acts of individual heroism and not as part of a wider movement that had any overarching strategy or significant impact on the overall struggle for Independence. Many great freedom fighters have fought, lost lives leaving little trace of their heroic deeds. We the people have forgotten many heroes and their struggles, especially among the peasant and tribal populations. 

Sanyal says that the revolutionaries were part of a large network that sustained armed resistance against the British Empire for half a century. Besides India, they created a wide network in Britain, France, Thailand, Germany, Persia, Russia, Italy, Ireland, the United States, Japan and Singapore. At various junctures, they received official support and recognition from the governments of some of these countries. Even the internal dynamics of the Indian National Congress of the time cannot be understood without the revolutionaries, who enjoyed widespread support within the organization. India’s freedom struggle was not a small-scale movement of naive individual heroism but one that involved a large number of extraordinary young men and women who were connected in multiple ways to each other and to the evolving events of their times. It was a glorious and extensive event panning over almost seven decades.

As an appreciator of history, I always feel dejected the way the Congress downplayed Sardar Patel’s struggle in implementing strategies and his stanch attempts to integrate the princely states into the Indian federation.  In true sense injustice was done to the ‘Iron Man of India.’ And I always feel India’s destiny would have changed if Sardar Patel would be our first Prime Minister because he rose from the grassroot level and he knew the nation. He was not anglicized. 

I profoundly agree with George Orwell’s quote. And, it is so obvious that the Britishers twisted history of India as a tool for demoralizing the natives. Since almost all our leaders in pre independence era were educated under the British system. The prejudiced history had tremendous impact on the psyche of our leaders such as Jawaharlala Nehru. I suppose
while learning slanted history he developed an inferior view of the country.

The British twisted the history of India by misinterpreting the outline; in a letter dated December 16, 1868 the famous Indologist Max Muller wrote to the Duke of Argyll, the then Secretary of State of India, ‘India has been conquered once, but India must be conquered again and that second conquest should be a conquest by education’. Please try to understand how Britishers planned our downfall and to a great extent they succeeded. Prof. Max Muller was not just a philosopher; he was also an examiner for the Indian Civil Service (ICS) examination. Teaching the Indian students falsified history played a great part in this ‘second conquest’. 

Conclusion

Recognising unsung heroes is an essential step towards restoring the historical narrative of India. The story of non-violence does not go well it is denialism. Ironically India’s romancing of non-violence as an effective political instrument has crimped national security policy since independence. The country felled to nonviolence during the Sino-India war in 1962. Luckily the burden of its idealistic national philosophy has changed since past decade.

Our past cannot be undone. History is not only about lauding past events or heroes. It is also about understanding why something that troubles us today has happened in a particular period and has been haunting since that period. Why we Indians allowed Mughals and British rule us for centuries? The answer is we were dominated because Hindu rulers were never united.