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

Prison Diaries/Writings : Remembering Mridula Sarabhai

From an article ‘Squeezing the Olives’, in the Frontline magazine by K. Satchidanandan, I came to know of the diverse writings that have been done by various people while incarcerated. http://www.frontline.in/columns/K_Satchidanandan/squeezing-the-olives/article6464702.ece

Many Indian freedom fighters like Mahatma Gandhi, Pandit Nehru, Rajaji, etc feature in this article along with several other eminent people from around the globe; who have written on various issues from within the confines of a prison. It was this article that made me curious and I wanted to know if the several Indian women freedom fighters  maintained a diary/wrote while imprisoned during the freedom struggle or not.

It was only when I accidentally came across a book ‘Rebel with a cause’, on Mridula Sarabhai, by Aparna Basu that I came to know in the chapter ‘In Prison’, the following (the book is not easily available in print now and I reproduce some excerpts here):

“...Mridula’s first experience of jail life was in 1930 when she, her mother and Khursedben were arrested picketing shops selling foreign cloth. They were put in Sabarmati jail for three weeks. She kept a jail dairy in Gujarati...”

Mridula Sarabhai. Photo Source: www.mkgandhi.org

[On another occasion] “...Mridula, the fourth in line was arrested on 8^th January 1932, and taken once again to Sabarmati jail. She was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment and fined Rs 300...Mridula, together with Lilavati Desai and Vijyalakshmi Kanuga was put in ‘B’ class , whereas Maniben Patel and Mithuben Petit were made ‘C’ class prisoners...Twenty days later, Mridula and sixteen of her fellow women prisoners were removed from Sabarmati jail to an unknown destination...From Sabarmati, they were moved to Yeravada prison, Poona...Within five days there was an order, once again transferring her, together with six of her fellow women prisoners, from Yeravada jail to Belgaum...in one of the rooms for ‘B’ class prisoners were Kamaladevi Chattopadhyaya, Naju Wadia, Jhaverben Jamnadas, Brijkumari and others. In the other room were Nanduben Kanuga, Lilavati Desai, Maniben Patel, Lilavati Munshi, Manorama Joshi, Mridula and Devyani Desai with her small daughter...She [Mridula] was released on 22^nd June 1932. These six months were indeed an important phase in her life..."

"...She was released but the satyagraha was going on and she could not keep away for long...on 17^th February, she was arrested again and produced before the district magistrate and kept in Sabarmati jail till 3^rd March...after being detained for some weeks in Sabarmati jail, she was shifted to Belgaum where the home secretary to the Government of Bombay, N.W. Maxwell, issued an order directing her to reside and remain within the limits of Belgaum city...As was to be expected, she violated this order by picketing outside a cloth shop in Belgaum and was immediately arrested and sentenced to six months’ simple imprisonment and fined Rs.500...Mridula was eventually released on 26 September. Her next imprisonment was in December 1938 when a satyagraha was launched in Rajkot by the Praja Parishad...

“...Mridula was arrested as a dangerous person within forty-eight hours of her arrival in Rajkot and was sentenced to five weeks’ imprisonment. She and Maniben were kept in Tramba Darbar’s bunglow...”

“... [Later] She [Mridula] was arrested on 20^th August and taken to Arthur Road Jail, Bombay. She vividly described the period of her detention: [and Mridula Sarabhai writes] ‘I was arrested at Bombay on 20^th August 1942...It took more than ten days to arrest me. Soon after my arrest, I was lodged in the Arthur Road Jail, Bombay. Thereafter, I was transferred to Yeravada Jail, Poona and finally to Belgaum Jail. Nobody was allowed to meet me for six to eight months...The most heartening thing for me was that Maniben Patel, daughter of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, was my companion...I was told by the British authorities that I would be released on parole provided I don’t meet any Congressmen. I did not agree to this condition. I retorted that I do not have acquaintance with anybody except Congressmen. I was released unconditionally in December 1943 on the day I was to be operated upon’... This was her last imprisonment before independence [writes Aparna Basu in her book]. ”

The book by Aparna Basu also accounts for Mridula Sarabhai's relentless public work in most difficult of circumstances during the time of partition and in the work of rescue operations as well as rehabilitation of refugees after independence. She also worked to restore peace when riots broke out in different parts of the country. What is interesting is that while many of the freedom fighters, particularly men, took position of high power and authority in the Indian Government after independence, Mridula Sarabhai did not do so. 

Mridula Sarabhai continued to remain an activist, many times critical of Government polices and was also jailed post independence for her outspoken views and actions. About Mridula Sarabhai, Aparna Basu further writes, “...From 1953 Mridula devoted herself to Kashmir and stood by Sheikh Abdulla and his supporters even when they were accused of treason, as a result she had to resign or leave every organization she was connected with...her phone was tapped, CID watched her house...She was dismissed from the  Congress party in 1958 and was finally detained under the Prevention Detention Act in Tihar Jail from 8 August 1959 till 6 August 1959 and later put under House detention in her home in Ahmedabad under Defence of India Rules...”

It is indeed surprising that so little is known of a person like Mridula Sarabhai. This is particularly intriguing because many other women from the Sarabhai family and their contribution to the society is fairly known.  

In her paper ‘Archiving the Nation- State in Feminist Praxis: A South Asian Perspective’, Uma Chakravarti too acknowledges that not much is known about Mridula Sarabhai as follows: “When I look back on the last years of Mridula’s life, I am struck by the fact that I was already then a teacher, and had close friends among the socialist network who espoused the cause that she had been fighting for; some of these socialists had even taken on the Kashmir issue in a mediating capacity and yet there was little public recognition of Mridula’s long struggle in support of Kashmir in the media, or even in ordinary conversation that was happening around me. Both Gandhi (symbolically) and Nehru whom she cited as her mentors, still dominated the public sphere in the 60’s and 70’s and yet no one talked of Mridula. All I can recall is a hazy connection of her name being associated with some kind of a ‘bee in her bonnet’ about Kashmir.”

In her paper, Uma Chakravarty explains, “Resistance to a blind nationalism and the demands of loyalty from its citizens by a nation-state in South Asia in the post colonial period was indeed a madness if it was the position of a single individual, and that too a woman...”

This certainly is one of the reasons why Mridula Sarabhai does not hold a place of eminence in public discourse. However I also feel that there are other reasons. Mridula Sarabhai was a non conformist woman, critical of Government policies, polices of her own party, the Congress and many of the Congress men in power.  But most importantly the role and the exemplary work of not just Mridula Sarabhai but most of the women freedom fighters of the country, continues to remain less known even today because this space is to a great extent occupied by a few male personalities. The dominance of few names in India’s struggle for freedom I believe is also one reason why it eclipses many others, particularly the names of the women. Thus the scores of women who have played commendable role in India’s struggle for freedom continues to remain less known. 

I have been trying to locate if Mridula Sarabhai’s prison diaries are available or published but in vein. The other memoirs written from within the confines of a prison are by Dr. Sushila Nayar titled, “Mahatma Gandhi’s Last Imprisonment”. Sushila Nayar’s book, “ Kasturba: A personal Reminiscence”, also details the last days of Kasturba and her passing away  while jailed at the Aga Khan palace by the British.Sushila Nayar was also in jail with Gandhi and Kasturba.

end