Claim: A viral clip of Home Minister Amit Shah claims Sardar Patel protested in 1960 during the Indus Water Talks, though he died in 1950.
Conclusion: Misrepresentation. Amit Shah was not referring to Sardar Patel’s involvement in 1960 but was referring to Patel’s role in the first Indo-Pakistan War of 1948, followed by a separate reference to the Indus Water Talks of 1960. As he was interrupted by a member, it gives an impression that Amit Shah claimed Sardar Patel protested in 1960.
Rating: Misrepresentation — 
*****************************************************************
See the complete Fact check details in video
Or Read the Fact Check
****************************************************************
Numerous posts and videos are being shared all around social media platforms, accusing Home Minister Amit Shah of lying in parliament during a speech. The video features his speech on Day 7 of the monsoon session that lasted for more than an hour and during his speech, he brought up the failure of Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Vallahbhai Patel. Several users shared this moment on social media, claiming how Amit Shah spoke of Sardar Patel protesting in 1960 even though he died in 1950.
Supriya Shrinate took to X and posted : “सरदार पटेल जी का निधन 1950 में ही हो गया था. तो फि र 1960 में सरदार पटेल जी ने विरोध कैसे किया? अमित शाह जी आज अपने ही लिखेWhatsApp फॉरवर्ड पढ़ रहे थे.”
In English it reads : “Sardar Patel ji had passed away in 1950 itself. So how did Sardar Patel ji protest in 1960? Amit Shah ji was reading his own WhatsApp forward today.”
Find the link to the post here – https://x.com/SupriyaShrinate/status/1950151018789970284
सरदार पटेल जी का निधन 1950 में ही हो गया था
तो फिर 1960 में सरदार पटेल जी ने विरोध कैसे किया?
अमित शाह जी आज अपने ही लिखे WhatsApp फॉरवर्ड पढ़ रहे थे
— Supriya Shrinate (@SupriyaShrinate) July 29, 2025
Other users have also shared similar posts, like the X user Alok Sharma who says that Amit Shah’s lie has been caught.
Find the post here -https://x.com/Aloksharmaaicc/status/1950153090834763874
सरदार पटेल जी का निधन 1950 में ही हो गया था!
तो फिर 1960 में सरदार पटेल जी ने विरोध कैसे किया?
अमित शाह जी का झूठ पकड़ा गया! pic.twitter.com/iLJVSaerAf
— Alok Sharma (@Aloksharmaaicc) July 29, 2025
In English it reads: “Sardar Patel ji had passed away in 1950 itself. So how did Sardar Patel ji protest in 1960? Amit Shah was caught lying!”
FACT CHECK
DigitEYE India decided to investigate this claim and watched the speech by Home Minister Amit Shah. We discovered that the claim was not true and a false impression had been created due to the interjection by the opposition’s question during the speech.
Find the link to the complete speech by Amit Shah uploaded by IndiaToday here:
During the 41 minute mark in the above video, Amit Shah touched upon the issue of the first Indo-Pakistan War of 1948. He mentions how the Indian army had the upper hand in Kashmir but Sardar Patel kept saying no and eventually Jawaharlal Nehru declared a one sided ceasefire.
After this, Amit Shah further addressed the Speaker and stated that he was a student of history, and added that the existence of PoK (Pakistan-occupied Kashmir) is a result of the one-sided ceasefire declared by Jawaharlal Nehru.
There was commotion in the house but Amit Shah continues to speak looking at a paper saying “In 1960….” and a member from the opposition interrupts him, stating that Sardar Patel also protested (referring to the 1948 matter), to this Amit Shah responds: “Sardar Patel took his car and went to Akashvani, refused to make the announcement and closed the doors.”
Then, Amit Shah continues his speech on the Indus Water Treaty of 1960, accusing Nehru for giving away 80% of India’s water to Pakistan. This response is being taken out of context in the claim and portrayed as if Amit Shah was speaking about Sardar Patel protesting in 1960, which is an extrapolation, but not true. He was referring to the role of Patel in 1948 and not during the Indus Water Treaty in 1960s, since Patel had passed away in 1950. The video in the claim is taken out of context and hence, inaccurate.
3 Comments