The struggle against the Sardar Sarovar Project and the history that is less known

It is natural for having been an activist of the Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) and subsequently a resident of the Narmada valley, to be happy at the following Statement of Professor Shiv Visvanathan in his article in The Hindu dated 6-August 2015: “If you were to ask a middle class person today what the most significant act of history in the India of the last 20 years is, most would say this — the rise of Narendra Modi. But to me, the most important historical event of the last two decades has been the battle over the Narmada dam.” 

 

Mass program at Kasravad, Narmada Bachao Andolan. Photo: Shripad Dharmadhikary

 

At the same time however, I would like to express my concern that much of the media reportage and other documentation have focused on either the issues, or major events or the handful of prominent faces of the movement. The role, contribution and the vision of the local leaders, activists and the common people who have formed the backbone of the struggle have hardly been recorded/reported.One other problem is that while much is known or written about the more recent developments of the Narmada movement, the history of its origin and evolution as also its early years is not fully known. What is not known well is that the earliest resistance against the project dates to 1961 when the foundation stone of the project was laid by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. From then onwards the Narmada valley has seen protests and movements around the project, some spontaneous and unorganized, others more structured and organized. These protests prepared the ground for the emergence of the subsequent struggle in the form of the NBA. Thus the protests against the Sardar Sarovar Project have a history that spans over five decades and has many players.

Senior Adivasi leaders of the NBA (L-R):  Vesta, Kemat, Raniya daya, Noorji. Source of photo: From the collection of Shripad Dharmadhikary.

In India it is often the case that a mass movement/people’s resistance increasingly gets identified with handful of names. It is often that the more articulate middle class leaders become the public faces of a movement and many times at the cost of the local leaders who are farmers, adivasis and from the marginalized communities. The sustained struggle of the marginalized communities and their resilience against great odds against powerful forces are less noticed as compared to the dramatic acts of a few personalities. As a result sometimes a powerful people’s movement with a vibrant collective leadership and an awe inspiring struggle of the masses turns into a personalized crusade. What is worrying is that the marginalized communities that are fighting the battle of their own survival every single day of their lives often turn into mere faceless- nameless followers or crowds. Worse still, they are deprived of a rightful place in the history of their own resistance/movement/struggle. 

Senior leaders of NBA: L to R- Poonjabhai, Bhurikaki, Mahesh Patel, Ambaben , Bhagvatibhabhi, Mansarambhai and Vaniya. Photo source: From the collection of Maheshbhai Patel

 

Senior leaders of NBA in talks with the Government (L-R): Muljikaka, Vaniya and Mahesbhai. Source: From the collection of Shripad Dharmadhikary.

In the article “I am Sharmila’, by Kalpana Sharma in the Hindu dated 16 March 2013, she writes- “In India, we elevate individuals and forget the cause. We need heroes and heroines, more so at a time of visual media. But in fixing on individuals, the issue, the cause, the reason for protest sometimes gets forgotten, or under-played.” I would further add here that by creating icons in a mass movement, we do a disservice by not recognizing the strength of the collective and undermine the power of mass resistance. By focusing on individuals, we make it easy for the adversaries and those sitting on a fence to dismiss the cause as a matter that concerns only a few persons and not the masses. 

The movement in the Narmada Valley that began in the year 1961 when the foundation stone of the project was laid by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru has grown and sustained for over five decades precisely because of the fierce and sustained resistance by the people of the Narmada valley and a diverse and collective leadership. It is time we unfold this history of the struggle in the Narmada valley and of its people that is less known.

End

Struggle around Hathmati dam, Sabarkatha, Gujarat

There have been many struggles around the issue of Dams in Gujarat. While the struggle against the Sardar Sarovar Project (SSP) is well known, there are others like the struggle for riparian rights around the Dantiwada and Sipu dams, the struggle against the Lalpur dam, etc. One such struggle around the Hathmati dam in Sabarkatha district brought to the fore important issue concerning the rights over the draw down cultivation and lands that open up after the waters of the dams recede for a few months in a year. The following excerpts from a write up By Shri Harshad Desai titled, “Bhanu Adhvariyu: Vanchito na hami- Karmashilona prerna strot”, in the book “Rudra Veena no Jankar”, which is a compilation of articles by Bhanubhai Adhvariyu himself, gives details of the struggle as follows (translated from Gujarati by me): 

  

The Hathmati dam. Photo Source: http://guj-nwrws.gujarat.gov.in/mediafiles/image/hathmati.jpg

“...In the year 1979, he (Bhanubhai Adhvariyu) saw the landlords cultivating the draw down land (the land that opens up for a few months when the reservoir water recedes) of the Hathmati reservoir and he immediately realized that the deprived are being subtracted from the developmental projects. In response to this, with the help of a Dalit activist Shri Karsanbhai Parmar from the nearby village Mau, he established the ‘Shramjeevi Samaj’ in the year 1980. The GR (Government regulation) of the year 1966 clearly states that the draw down lands of the reservoir should be given to the landless people from villages on the banks of the reservoir for cultivation. However that GR was buried under the dust of the Secretariat and forgotten. With the help of the commissioned officer Shri C. M. Joshi, he (Bhanubhai) found that GR. That same year in September, about 580 landless people belonging to the backward classes from the area of the reservoir undertook Khed Satyagraha. The landlords tried several tricks but finally at the end of 12 months, the landless got approximately 1500 acres of land to cultivate for the first time on a yearly basis. During the entire struggle, Jeenabhai Darji’s support was received on a continuous basis.  During the initial years of the Shramjeevi Samaj, it not only received support from Gujarat Khet Vikas Parishad but also its familial warmth. Moreover during this initial phase financial support was received from Jaiprakash Amrutkosh...”

In an article by Bhanubhai Adhvariyu dated 4-9-84, titled “Garudi ane Mau: Bandh Vishe Andh Rahe nahi Chale”, (Garudi and Mau: It will not do to remain blind about dams), published in the same book brings to light more problems related to dams in Gujarat as follows:  “In the village Garudi of Modasa Taluka, five people including one woman died in firing. The Government has declared a judicial inquiry into this incident. That is, whether the firing was appropriate or not will be decided by the inquiry commission. However it is necessary to discuss here the reason for such an incident to have taken place and its fall out. 

“As per the news that has been published, those whose lands were going in a dam being built nearby were given the Gauchar land (grazing land) for resettlement. This was opposed by the village people. As per the orders by the Government when the oustees came to cultivate the land, a dispute arose and as a result the incident of firing took place... the other issue is that of proliferation of dams being built. Particularly in Sabarkatha, a dam is being built at every third step. It is a matter of research as to who really benefits from such dams and to what extent. It is a question as to whether the Government will at all recover even at the end of fifty years the expenditure incurred on the dams. In many dams the recovery is not enough to cover even the maintenance cost that is incurred. Actually, many in the irrigation department have established vested interest in building dams. That is the reason why they keep planning new projects. 

“In every dam, some villages submerge and the issue of their rehabilitation somewhere else comes up. This issue is no longer as simple as it was before. Land available earlier is no longer available. The central Government has prohibited the allocation of forest land to the displaced people. Under such circumstances it is not proper to commence in every taluka of northern area, four to five medium or large irrigation projects. The Government should rethink about this. 

Incidents such as in Garudi and other villages are the signs of future.”

The Government of Gujarat did not rethink about such dams as warned/advised by one of its senior and distinguished activists like Shri Bhanubhai Adhvariyu and went ahead with yet another mega dam - the SSP on the river Narmada. However, what Bhanubhai had predicted and had  cautioned as signs of times to come - way back in 1984 has come true. Due to the fierce struggle by the people of the Narmada Valley,  the SSP that was supposed to be completed in the year 1997- remains incomplete even today.

end

Response to Rajmohan Gandhi's critique of Arundhati Roy's "The Doctor and the Saint".

This is my response, published in EPW dated June 6, 2015, to Rajmohan Gandhi’s critique of Arundhati Roy’s essay ' The Doctor and the Saint’:


http://www.epw.in/discussion/reading-arundhati-roy-out-context.html

Since EPW has edited my response slightly, those who wish to read the full and unedited text may read the response as follows ( The portions highlighted in yellow have not been carried in the EPW): 

Rajmohan Gandhi’s article ‘Independence and Social Justice’- Some Issues

Rajmohan Gandhi’s article ‘Independence and Social Justice’ (EPW, 11 April 2015) is a response to Arundhati Roy’s essay ‘The Doctor and the Saint’. Gandhi’s (RG hereinafter) main thrust in his response is that Roy has attacked Mahatma Gandhi and that her attacks violate key principles of historical debate, namely, that statements made 50 or 100 years ago should be seen in  the context they are made, and that pertinent information is not scissored out. He proceeds to layout several quotations and events to justify his criticism of Roy. However, his arguments are not convincing, and indeed, RG himself is guilty of reading events and statements out of context.

I want to illustrate this with two points that RG has tried to make. 

At one place, he tries to discredit Roy’s argument by saying she has not provided any sources for her information. RG writes:

“...Roy has this comment on Ghanshayamdas Birla, who often hosted Gandhi. In 1915, when Gandhi returned from South Africa, says Roy, Birla ‘organised a grand reception in Calcutta...became Gandhi’s chief patron and paid him a generous monthly retainer...Gandhi’s arrangement with G D Birla lasted for the rest of the days’. Roy does not provide any sources for this assertion”.

It is astonishing that RG says this, for Roy has clearly annoted this assertion (Endnote 165), giving a journal article by Leah Renold as the reference. A perusal of the said journal article provides more than ample evidence of the assertions made by Roy.

What is equally baffling is that RG chooses to take a fact that is quite well-known and acknowledged by many people including RG himself, and requires Roy to “provide sources” for this. 

After saying that Roy has not provided any sources, RG goes on and also quotes Birla himself as saying “… I informed him that I would …send him [Gandhiji] a monthly donation…”.

Given that it is quite well-known that Birla and several other businessmen and industrialist were closely associated with Gandhiji and provided considerable financial support to his work, and RG’s own acknowledgement of the same, it is clear that RG does not doubt that Birla financially supported Gandhiji. Then his questioning Roy’s assertion of “a generous monthly retainer” seems nothing but semantic quibbling. 

If anything, this shows that RG is ignoring the broader context of the relationship between Mahatma Gandhi-Birla (and other industrialists). Material available on record (for example, the extensive records of Mahadevbhai’s diaries) confirms beyond doubt that this relationship certainly included financial support, but went much beyond it.Top businessmen like G. D. Birla and Jamnalal Bajaj were so close to Gandhiji that they were consulted by Gandhiji and matters of national importance discussed with them. Many of them held crucial positions in the institutions Gandhiji was actively involved with. G. D. Birla was the founding president of the organisation that Gandhiji held dear, the Harijan Sevak Sangh and remained its president from 1932 to 1959. 

Mahadevbhai records a letter from Birla to Gandhiji (Diary Volume 19, Year 1934-35) and quotes it as “Dear Reverend Bapu...You [Gandhiji] have asked [me/Birla], ‘how much interest you will take in this new organisation, have you thought of giving some support [to the organisation]?...we all three [Birla] brothers are in agreement that we do not wish to hoard wealth for our children... now about giving. What is there to ask in this? I have made an understanding that I will remain your treasurer as per my ability. Whatever you ask I will send. I hope you will not have any hesitation in asking. If it is so do please write that clearly so that I can decide on my own...so consider my budget as public and do not hesitate in asking...” (Translated from original Gujarati by this author).

G.D Birla himself, in his book, ‘In the shadow of the Mahatma’, “...Whatever sum he [Gandhiji] asked from me (and he was as he put it, an inveterate beggar for the cause he worked for) he knew that he would get, because there was nothing I could refuse him...”

----------

Coming to the second point, RG asks readers to be “hugely sceptical” when “Roy suggests that Gandhi was soft with the Tatas”. Here again, RG has tried to question Roy on something that is quite well-known and recognised, and rather than Roy, he himself is guilty of ignoring the broader context.

The point is with reference to Gandhiji’s stand and support to the struggle of the Mulshi dam affected people. Roy quotes a letter of Gandhiji dated 5 April 1924 and says that it reveals Gandhiji’s approach to big dams in which “he advised villagers who faced displacement by the Mulshi dam, then being built by the Tatas…to give up their protest.”

RG then says that Roy has suppressed Gandhiji’s “remarkably strong and public words to the Tatas regarding the Mulshi dam…” Here, he is referring to, and quotes, a piece Gandhiji had written in April 1921 in Young India.

It is true that Gandhiji did appeal to the Tatas to not take recourse to the legal mechanism of compulsory Land Acquisition Act, and that whatever Tatas do should be in consultation with the people. However, this is the only evidence RG brings out to show that Gandhiji took a strong stand on the Mulshi dam and that he was not soft on Tata. Here, unfortunately, RG is guilty of taking an isolated, single instance and not only is trying to draw out a generalisation about Gandhiji’s stand on Mulshi dam, but is also doing it in the face of mountains of other evidence that is to the  contrary. In other words, he interprets that letter of Gandhiji in isolation of Gandhiji’s acts of commission and omission in the matter before and after the letter. 

Again, there is ample evidence available that clearly shows how Gandhiji held the Tata’s in high esteem and publicly praised the Tata’s on several occasions- both before and after Mulshi Satuyagraha. For example, Mahadevbhai’s dairies note how he praised Tata (and the entire Parsee community) during his visit to Navsari, recollecting the Rs. 25000/- that Tata had sent in support to the struggle in South Africa. (Vol. 7, Year 1924-25). In another instance, Mahadevbhai notes Gandhiji’s glowing praise for Tata’s during his visit to Jamshedpur. (Vol. 8). This praise does not seem to have taken cognisance of a brutal firing in which 13 striking workmen had been killed at the plant some years earlier nor of the fact that the Mulshi dam was built against the wishes of the displaced people and without proper rehabilitation and that the appeal Gandhiji had made to the Tata’s concerning the dam was ignored. Should not publicly showering glowing praise on the Tata’s then be seen as “being soft”? So why is RG asking readers to be sceptical of Roy? 

The only reason RG offers for readers to doubt Gandhiji’s softness towards Tata is that appeal in Young India, referred to above. But the real test of softness or otherwise is not just in the appeal Gandhiji made to the Tata’s. It must be tested against whether Tata’s accepted it (they did not), and if not, what was Gandhiji’s reaction. The fact is, that after the Tatas went ahead in forcibly acquiring the lands, not only did Gandhiji not take up the matter with Tatas, he did not castigate them, nor did he intensify his support to the movement. On the contrary, he continued to praise Tata’s and asked the Mulshi stayagrahi’s to give up their struggle.

RG tries to justify this last action of Gandhiji by mentioning that after Gandhiji’s strong appeal to Tata’s he (Gandhiji) was incarcerated, and when he came out, the dam was half complete, many people had accepted compensation and the leader of the satyagraha no longer espoused non-violence. But these arguments are specious.

First of all, Gandhiji was not in jail for the entire duration of the Mulshi Satyagraha. Even in jail, he could have made further appeals to Tatas to stop work or could have appealed to the Indian National Congress to support the struggle and make it a pan India issue. At one point in time, Mulshi satyagrahis were Gandhiji’s co-prisoners and he knew the plight of the satyagrahis and the struggle outside and could have come out strongly against the Tatas. That some people had taken compensation is not reason enough to not support the struggle. It is well known that often people end up taking compensation not because they are in support of the project but because they are terrified of the power of the law and police, because of the inevitability of the project and the looming threat of submergence. Last, but not the least, even if Gandhiji had felt that he could not support the stayagraha because its leadership believed in violence, he still could have pressurised the Tatas for going ahead with consultation with the people – for admittedly, not everyone had taken compensation. Even if he had not wanted to do any of this, he could at least have made known his displeasure with the Tatas for not following his appeal of 1921. He did not do any of these things and continued to publicly praise Tata.

Thus, it’s rather far-fetched to deny Gandhiji’s softness towards Tatas based on one letter. Indeed, that letter probably strengthens the doubt that Gandhiji did not support the Mulshi dam struggle because he was close to Tatas. For it is obvious that the Tata’s conduct was greatly in contradiction to Gandhiji’s wishes expressed in that appeal, wishes that he himself often publicly articulated as the core of his vision and developmental philosophy.

All this certainly makes the question – was Gandhiji lack of support to the Mulshi struggle due to his softness towards Tatas – a very legitimate question.

Rajendra Vohra in his well researched book in Marathi titled ‘Mulshi Satyagraha,’ raises this very issue, and implies it’s veracity. He says: “Gandhiji never came to support the people of Maval or the volunteers of the Mulshi Satyagraha; similarly he never met the Tatas on behalf of the Maval people... In fact, his relations with the Tatas went back a long way...In short it can be said that Gandhiji never took this struggle seriously at all...” (Page No 155.)

Later, the problem of the Mulshi dam displaced people aggravated with the raising of the wall and yet Gandhiji did not do anything to ensure that displaced people were properly rehabilitated [which they were not].

 

The Mulshi satyagraha had brought to the fore momentous issues concerning dams, modus operandi of companies like the Tatas, issues of land acquisition, displacement and rehabilitation. But these were not given the attention they deserved, either by the Indian National Congress or Gandhiji.This most certainly cost India and its underprivileged dear. The argument that the lack of support to the satyagraha was due to the close association (whether one calls it softness or anything else) of Gandhiji and other leaders with the industrialist is certainly a well-founded one with strong grounds. It is difficult to question this argument – and Roy’s credibility - with nothing more than one letter, as RG has tried to do.

Had the Mulshi satyagraha been given the place it deserved, Nehru would not subsequently have called such dams as temples of modern India and India would possibly have gone ahead with a different vision of “development”.

Nandini Oza.

Date: 4-May-15.

Disclosure: The author is an independent writer and a social activist, previously with the Narmada Bachao Andolan and currently with the Zindabad Trust set up by Arundhati Roy. She maintains a blog titled History less known.

Mridula Sarabhai: The struggle within- Part-1

Many of the popular books on Indian history do not have in-depth information on the significant role women have played during India’s struggle for freedom and/or soon after. One has to proactively seek out information even on eminent women to get a fair idea of their work and contribution. For example while one does get some idea of the role Mridula Sarabhai has played in India’s struggle from freedom from books noted below; it is only on reading Aparna Basu’s – ‘Mridula Sarabhai: Rebel with a cause’, that one gets to know the many struggles Mridula Sarabhai had to wage to make room for herself and her work within the organisations she was working/associated with. 

Mridula Sarabhai with Mahatma Gandhi. Photo credit: Old Indian Photos website.

References to Mridula Sarabhai in some of the books on Indian History: 

1. Historian Bipan Chandra in his book ‘India’s Struggle for Independence’ refers to Mridula Sarabhai as follows: “...15^th August 1947, dawned revealing the dual reality of Independence and Partition. As always, between the two of them, Gandhiji and Nehru mirrored the feelings of the Indian people. Gandhiji prayed in Calcutta for an end to the carnage taking place. His close follower, Mridula Sarabhai, sat consoling a homeless, abducted 15-year-old girl in a room somewhere in Bomabay...”

2.  In the book ‘India after Independence’, by Bipan Chandra, Mridula Mukherjee and Aditya Mukherjee, the reference to Mridula Sarabhai is as follows: “...Besides, the freedom struggle since the twenties and especially since the thirties, had partaken amply of the creative energies of Indian women. Gandhiji’s statement in the mid thirties to Mridula Sarabhai, a valiant fighter for his causes of women and freedom, ‘I have brought the Indian women out of the kitchen, it is up to you (the women activists) to see that they don’t go back,’ was no empty boast and no thoughtless exhortation...”
 
3.  Ramchandra Guha in his book ‘India after Gandhi’ makes the following references to Mridula Sarabhai: “...On the Indian side, the operation to recover abducted women [after partition] was led by Mridula Sarabhai and Rameshwari Nehru. Both came from aristocratic homes and both had sturdily nationalist credentials. Their work was encouraged and aided by Nehru, who took deep personal interest in the process. In a radio broadcast to the refugees, the prime minister spoke ...” and then again as follows: “...Like the integration of princely states, the rehabilitation of refugees was political problem unprecedented in nature and scope...The refugees who came to India after independence numbered close to eight million. This was greater than the population of small European countries...Yet both tasks were, in the end, accomplished. Notably, the actors in this complicated and tortuous process were all Indian...Thus it came to be that the heroes remembered in these pages were all Indians- whether politicians like Nehru and Patel, bureaucrats like Tarlok Singh and V.P. Menon, or social workers like Kamladevi Chattopadhyaya and Mridula Sarabhai...” 

4. Achyut Yagnik and Suchitra Sheth in their book ‘The Shaping of Modern Gujarat’, make the following references to Mridula Sarabhai: “...Women In Gujarat were greatly empowered by the Salt Satyagraha and leaders like Mridula Sarabhai, niece of Anasuya Sarabhai, were concerned that ‘women who have been energised and awakened’ should not ‘relapse into apathy and go back to be confined to their homes’. Gandhi wrote to her: “Our women joined the salt satyagraha they came out of their homes. It is now your duty to see that they should not be imprisoned within the four walls of their homes.” 

Later in the book “...More women began to enter public domain and this was reflected in the large participation of women in the Quit India movement in 1942. Later Mridula Sarabhai and her associate Kamlaben Patel worked to rescue and support women abducted during Partition...” and later “...To restore communal harmony Gandhi suggested the formation of Shanti Sevak Sangh...in Ahmedabad...two women members of the newly founded Sangh, Mridula Sarabhai and Indumati Chimanlal went to the affected areas and spread the message of peace and harmony...”

  5. Arun Gandhi in his book ‘Kasturba a life’, makes the following references to Mridula Sarabhai: “In 1938, spontaneous uprisings against arbitrary rule by local princes began erupting across India...But not until protests broke out in Rajkot did the crises reach its climax...and one of the first woman demonstrators to be hauled off to the Rajkot jail was Vallabhbhai Patel’s daughter Maniben...Kasturba was especially disturbed, for Maniben was one of her favourites among younger women in the independence movement...Kasturba, in fact, had left for Rajkot- having hurriedly arranged for another dedicated woman, Mridula Sarabhai...to accompany her... on February 3, 1939, she [Kasturba] was summarily arrested and...was taken to Tramba to be confined... [later] Ba [Kasturba] was not only released from solitary confinement, but her companions Maniben Patel and Mridula Sarabhai, detained separately in Rajkot jails, were brought to Tramba to share her captivity in the royal bungalow...”

"  "...On March 5, the Thakore’s deputies...freed Kasturba Gandhi from her imprisonment...and escorted her to her husband’s bedside in Rajkot...Ba returned to Tramba that evening at her own request. The guards obliged by taking her in for the night, but next morning Kasturba, Maniben and Mridula were all released...”

From the various books, it is clear that the role Mridula Sarabhai played during the freedom struggle and thereafter was significant. However, in spite of her important contribution, it seems that it was not always easy for Mridula Sarabhai to hold on to positions in the institutions she was associated with. Not just Mridula Sarabhai, but it also seems that women in general who otherwise played important role in public life did not easily get positions of significance in the committees/ institutions/organisations they were associated with as can be understood from Aparna Basu’s book as follows (the book is not easily available in print now and I reproduce some excerpts here):

“ In 1936 Jawaharlal Nehru, as president of the Congress, included in his new Working Committee three Congress Socialists...He did not, however, include any woman. Sarojini Naidu who had been previously a member of the Working Committee was dropped. Mridula was deeply disappointed that, of all persons, Jawaharlal should have done this and she wrote: You have not been able to select even one woman member for your Cabinet. None of us had imagined that such a situation will arise under your Presidentship. Not only was I surprised at such an omission but I was also pained...I have always hoped that we women who are struggling for our development would get blessings from at least Bapu and yourself.’ She [Mridula Sarabhai] made women members of the Gujarat Congress write to Jawaharlal, protesting against the exclusion of women from the Working Committee and the Parliamentary Committee...”.

“...Kasturba Gandhi passed away as a prisoner of the British Government in the Aga Khan Palace Jail, Poona on 22^nd February 1944. A plan to raise fund in her name was thought of by Shri Narandas Gandhi...In all, about 100 persons of all shades of public opinion put their signatures to this appeal...A target of collecting seventy-five lakhs of rupees was envisaged by 2^nd Oct, 1944...In fact a crore of rupees was collected before that date...On his release from jail on 6^th May 1944, Gandhiji was requested and prevailed upon to accept the chairmanship of the Kasturba Gandhi National Memorial Trust (KGNMT) ... Among the persons he [Gandhiji] nominated as trustees was Mridula. For better administration and smooth running, the Board of Trustees resolved to have an executive committee with Mahatma Gandhi as chairman, Sir Purshottamdas Thakurdas as vice-chairman, A.V. Thakkar, popularly known as Thakkar Bapa, as secretary. Mridula was a member of this committee also. At the meeting of the Board of Trustees held in November 1944, Mridula was appointed organising secretary by Gandhiji...Differences developed between Mridula and Thakkar Bapa regarding their method of working, their attitude towards women, the location of the office and generally about the aims of the organisation. According to Mridula, while Thakkar Bapa emphasised relief work, KGNMT’s aim was to create a ‘new’ woman. This ideal he did not share. He was old fashioned, traditional and could not appreciate strong, independent, self-willed women. She wrote to Gandhiji that as long as Bapa was the general secretary, women were not going to be allowed to be in command or take policy decisions...the first clash occurred regarding the appointment of the office secretary. Thakkar Bapa wanted to appoint Shyam Lal, who was serving as secretary of the Harijan Sevak Sangh at Delhi, as he felt that only a man could handle this work. Mridula did not agree and wanted Pupul Jayakar for the post. Thakkar Bapa however was not prepared to appoint Pupul Jayakar. He wrote to the vice-chairman of the Trust, Purshottamdas Thakurdas that Gandhiji wanted Shyam Lal appointed as full-time secretary in the central office of the Trust. The trustees thereupon decided to appoint Shyam Lal. In order not to offend Mridula’s feelings, Gandhiji suggested that Pupul Jayakar could be requested to work in an honorary capacity, and she agreed to do so...”

“...Differences between Thakkar Bapa and Mridula however continued and so she submitted a letter of resignation to Gandhiji in July 1945...He [Gandhiji] held that it was wise for her to resign since she and Thakkar Bapa could not pull along as they were temperamentally so different and he felt that Thakkar Bapa was necessary for the organisation...Mridula continued to take interest in the work of KGNMT. In October 1949, she invited Madam Aung San, the widow of the first prime minister of Independent Burma, to Sevagram to attend the tenth KGNMT meeting...her continuing interest in the work of the Trust despite the fact that she was removed as its organising secretary, reflects her lack of pettiness and her genuine concern for the work which the Trust had undertaken...”

End