See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233160443

A river of no dissent: Narmada Movement and coercive Gujarati nativism

Article in South Asian History and Culture · October 2010

DOI: 10.1080/19472498.2010.507023

CITATIONS READS

7 1,810

1 author:

Mona G Mehta
Ahmedabad University
19 PUBLICATIONS 54 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mona G Mehta on 18 August 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [Mehta, Mona G.]
On: 7 February 2011
Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 928145708]
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

South Asian History and Culture

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t911470578

A river of no dissent: Narmada Movement and coercive Gujarati nativism

Mona G. Mehtaa
a
Department of Politics and International Relations, Scripps College, Claremont, CA, USA

Online publication date: 15 October 2010

To cite this Article Mehta, Mona G.(2010) 'A river of no dissent: Narmada Movement and coercive Gujarati nativism',
South Asian History and Culture, 1: 4, 509 — 528
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/19472498.2010.507023
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19472498.2010.507023

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 South Asian History and Culture
Vol. 1, No. 4, October 2010, 509–528

A river of no dissent: Narmada Movement and coercive Gujarati

nativism
Mona G. Mehta*

Department of Politics and International Relations, Scripps College, Claremont, CA, USA

This article examines the Narmada Movement in Gujarat to illuminate the enduring
modes of politics and collective identifications it engendered in the state. It shows
how the movement engaged the instruments of democracy to forge a popular consen-
sus around a coercive Gujarati nativism that became the touchstone of political action
and helped consolidate a politics of Hindutva at the turn of the twenty-first century. It
Downloaded By: [Mehta, Mona G.] At: 23:36 7 February 2011

concludes by reflecting on the conundrum of democracy in Gujarat posed by this coer-

cive nativism, namely, democracy’s complicity in and vulnerability to popular support
for exclusionary politics. This analysis elucidates the regional particularities of poli-
tics in Gujarat while also revealing the contradictory relationship among democracy,
participatory social movements and exclusionary politics more generally.
Keywords: democracy; dissent; coercive nativism; Gujarat; Hindutva; Narmada
Movement

The Gujaratis, regardless of ideology or political affiliation, stand as one behind the dam. The
unanimity is complete, and sinister.
–Ramachandra Guha1

In May 2006, several parts of Gujarat erupted in spontaneous protests against the release
of a Bollywood film called Fanaa. Angry demonstrators, including members of Gujarat’s
ruling BJP and opposition Congress parties, called for the film’s boycott by burning posters
of the film and its hero on the streets. Despite getting approval from India’s Central Board
of Film Certification, theatre owners in Gujarat refused to screen Fanaa out of fear that
their theatres would be attacked by protestors. Interestingly, the demonstrations had noth-
ing to do with the content of the film itself but the political views of its lead actor, Aamir
Khan. The protests were against Khan’s public statement calling for the speedy rehabil-
itation of those displaced by the construction of Gujarat’s biggest dam on the Narmada
River. In bringing up the issue of rehabiliation, the actor had touched upon an emotionally
and politically fraught issue of the Narmada dam, popularly regarded by Gujaratis as the
‘lifeline of Gujarat’ or ‘Gujarat ni jivadori’.
The protestors interpreted Khan’s concern for rehabilitation as an anti-Gujarat position
and demanded an apology for hurting the sentiments of the people of the state. Khan was
not against the dam and he refused to apologize by claiming: ‘All I have said is that people

*Email: mmehta@scrippscollege.edu

ISSN 1947-2498 print/ISSN 1947-2501 online

© 2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/19472498.2010.507023
http://www.informaworld.com
 510 M.G. Mehta

should be rehabilitated. I am only repeating what the Supreme Court has said.’2 In response
to this refusal, film bookies decided to join the boycott of the film, voluntary citizen squads
prepared to seize pirated CDs from street corners and Honda car dealers withdrew adver-
tisements with photos of the Bollywood actor. ‘Gujarat needs water and not films’, said a
BJP youth leader.3
In a spectacular act of protest, a young man immolated himself while chanting pro-
Narmada dam slogans on the premises of the only private theatre in Gujarat that was
showing the film.4 Gujarati newspapers hailed the man as a martyr who had given his life
for the sake of Gujarat’s pride. The president of the Gujarat Multiplex Owners Association
clarified that there was no political pressure on them to boycott the film’s screening.
According to him, the actor ‘has hurt the pride of the Gujarati public. We have to sup-
port them’.5 Without an official endorsement from the state government, the film Fanna
faced a near total boycott in Gujarat even as it played successfully in theatres in the rest of
India. It was a boycott made effective not by the force of law, but by the power of public
consensus about the Narmada dam.
The anti-Fanna protests reveal the widely held opinion in Gujarat that the Narmada
Downloaded By: [Mehta, Mona G.] At: 23:36 7 February 2011

dam is at the core of the state’s economic interests and regional pride. This view became
the basis of one of Gujarat’s most influential social movements, popularly known as the
Narmada Movement,6 which has dominated public debate in the state since its inception
in 1960 to the present. The movement was marked by a sustained campaign that linked
identifiable claimants, goals and a public in a common relationship. Its mobilization had
a rich repertoire of contention that included demonstrations, public statements, lobbying,
letter writing, marches and sloganeering.7
In this article, I examine the Narmada Movement to illuminate the enduring modes of
politics and collective identifications it engendered in Gujarat. I argue that the movement
engaged the instruments and rhetoric of democracy to forge a popular consensus around
a coercive Gujarati nativism marked by ideas of victimhood and an adversarial ‘Other’.
This nativist consensus became the touchstone of political action and played a catalytic
role in consolidating a politics of Hindutva in the state at the turn of the twenty-first cen-
tury. I conclude with some reflections on the conundrum of democracy in Gujarat posed
by the rise of this coercive nativism, namely, democracy’s complicity in and vulnerability
to popular civic support for exclusionary politics. My analysis of the Narmada Movement
elucidates the regional particularities of politics in Gujarat while also revealing the contra-
dictory relationship among democracy, participatory social movements and exclusionary
politics more generally.8

Constructing the ‘lifeline of Gujarat’

Insufficient rainfall, repeated droughts and famine-like conditions in large parts of Gujarat,
particularly in the regions of Kutch and Saurashtra, have historically caused great hardship
to the livelihood of people in this relatively prosperous state. At 1312 km, the Narmada
is India’s fifth-longest and Gujarat’s longest river. It originates in the northern Vindhya
mountain ranges in Madhya Pradesh and flows south west through Gujarat towards the
Gulf of Khambhat. In 1959, the Narmada Valley Project was proposed as a solution to
western India’s water crisis.9 Conceived as a mega river development scheme, it consisted
of building 30 major, 135 medium and 3000 small dams on the river and its tributaries.
The project involved the three states of Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Gujarat (the
Narmada flows through all of them). However, the responsibility of building the biggest
and most controversial dam – the Sardar Sarovar Project (SSP)10 – went to Gujarat, as
 South Asian History and Culture 511

did its largest benefits. These were also the heydays of the post-independence Nehruvian
era when Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, famously said that ‘dams are the temples of
modern India.’ Nehru, in fact, laid the foundation stone for the Narmada dam11 in Gujarat,
on 5 April 1961.
The earliest debates about the Narmada dam took place among the three affected states
and concerned the sharing of the river’s waters.12 The Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal
(NWDT) was set up in 1969 to look into the grievances of the three states. During these
years, the Gujarat government’s official discourse hailed the Narmada project as vital for
the state’s prosperity and portrayed the neighbouring states as its rivals on this issue. On
the day the Narmada Tribunal gave its final judgment, an editorial in the leading Gujarati
newspaper, Gujarat Samachar, called for the speedy implementation of the Tribunal’s
award.13 The editorial criticized the neighbouring states for delaying the project for all
these years, as a result of which ‘tons of the river’s precious water had wastefully flown
away into the sea’.
These publicly articulated positions on the dam reveal the early ‘frame’ of the Narmada
debate. A movement’s frame is ‘an interpretive schemata that simplifies and condenses
Downloaded By: [Mehta, Mona G.] At: 23:36 7 February 2011

the “world out there” by selectively punctuating and encoding objects, situation, events,
experiences, and sequences of actions within one’s present or past environment’.14 The
Narmada Movement’s frame perceived Gujarat as the object of external persecution and
identified an oppositional ‘Other’ that was believed to impede the state’s interest. Over
the years, this category of the ‘Other’, which was first occupied by Gujarat’s neighbouring
states, would shift to include particular individuals, groups and political viewpoints.
There was initial opposition and contentious public debate about the human costs of the
Narmada dam between the Gujarat government and local non-governmental organizations
(NGOs) working at the dam site. Soon after the early construction of the dam began in
1980, these NGOs began to question the government’s negligence towards rehabilitating
100,000 people (across the states), mostly tribals and small farmers, who were going to
be displaced by the project. Landless tribals knew almost nothing about the project or
the official compensation and land owners were served land acquisition notices with little
information about where they would be resettled.15 An elected minister in the Gujarat
government was quoted as saying that ‘the government didn’t have to move a finger to
resettle the tribals, who would [automatically] leave their habitat like rats from their holes
when the water would rise’.16
Many NGOs started raising awareness among the dam-affected populations about their
rights of resettlement. Simultaneously, activists lobbied the government to improve the
compensation policy mandated by the Tribunal. They also moved the courts on several
occasions to stop the construction of the dam till the issue of fair resettlement was worked
out. These efforts succeeded in temporarily stopping the work on the dam and persuading
the Gujarat government to engage in negotiations. The NGOs also made petitions to the
World Bank, a key funder of the project, arguing that the government was violating the
Bank’s own guidelines for rehabilitation. This put pressure on the government to review its
policies if it wanted to ensure the continued financial support of the World Bank.
The lobbying by the NGOs, the media coverage and fear of the World Bank’s loan
withdrawal finally compelled the Gujarat government to review its Resettlement and
Rehabilitation package (R and R). In December 1987, the government announced com-
pensation to all families displaced, irrespective of whether they previously owned land.
The government’s new R and R package was hailed by most NGOs in Gujarat as a land-
mark and laudable compensation effort. These early agitations of the Narmada Movement,
marked by antagonism between the state and ordinary citizens led by NGOs, fit the classical
 512 M.G. Mehta

conception of social movements as ‘sustained challenge to power holders’.17 To some

extent, this initial phase of the movement expanded democracy in so far as it increased
government accountability towards citizens on the issue of rehabilitation. However, the
movement’s trajectory from here onwards did not deepen democracy, even as it involved
more and more ordinary Gujaratis into the thick of the debate about the dam.

Split in the left movement and new alliances

The Gujarat government’s newly announced Relief and Rehabilitation package triggered a
realignment of civic and political groups that would have far-reaching consequences for the
politics of the state. An analyst sympathetic to the dam described this post-R and R phase
in the Narmada Movement as ‘a golden chapter of co-operation between the state and the
people, its governments and NGOs’.18 In 1988, soon after the new resettlement package
was announced, NGOs who espoused the cause of the displaced populations split into two
camps – the ARCH-Vahini (Action Research in Community Health and Development)
and the NBA (Narmada Bachao Andolan, or Save the Narmada Movement). The ARCH-
Downloaded By: [Mehta, Mona G.] At: 23:36 7 February 2011

Vahini, which had worked most actively with the tribals to pressure the government, was
now persuaded that the Gujarat government had finally agreed to a rehabilitation pack-
age that was the best any government had offered in the third world.19 Moreover, the
ARCH-Vahini felt a sense of ownership towards the new package and decided to hence-
forth work with rather than against the Gujarat government to ensure the implementation
of the package.
In contrast, the NBA was convinced that the new R and R package would not be hon-
estly implemented and its activists turned against the very idea of the dam on environmental
grounds. The NBA activists declared that ‘the tribals would prefer to be drowned by the
rising waters of the dam, rather than give a tacit approval to this destructive scheme by
agreeing to shift.’20 The NBA’s anti-dam stance puzzled ARCH-Vahini activists, because
the former was not against the dam initially and had worked with the other groups to
bargain for a better resettlement policy.21
Through the new resettlement package, the Gujarat government had successfully won
the support of a section of its staunchest civil society critics in the ARCH-Vahini. However,
the dam managed to divide the left movement in Gujarat and rendered the issue of reset-
tlement beyond the domain of democratic debate. This split was especially consequential
given the already weak political clout of communist and socialist groups in the state. The
new political alignment of groups resulted in strong ties between the state and civil soci-
ety in ways that reconstituted earlier regional and ideological loyalties. The activists of
the ARCH-Vahini and the NBA, hitherto comrades in the larger left movement and deeply
committed to the rights of the displaced and marginalized, now began to view each other
as adversaries. This division was ironical because together the NBA and the ARCH-Vahini
had fought against the Gujarat government’s repressive Official Secrets Act that prevented
the media and civic activists from accessing the development plans of the dam site.22 The
NBA continued to oppose the dam but relocated to the two neighbouring states where the
numbers of displaced tribals were greater and the governments were less enthusiastic about
the terms of the project.
Although the state played an important role in the Narmada mobilizations, the par-
ticipation of non-state actors across Gujarat’s civil society was central to the movement’s
tremendous strength. The ARCH-Vahini slowly receded into the background and hundreds
of new civic groups entered the scene. Three successive years of severe drought from 1985
to 1988 caused much suffering and strengthened public perception of the dam as the only
 South Asian History and Culture 513

solution to the state’s water crisis.23 Many social service organizations that had worked
for drought relief among rural communities and pastoral animals started actively lobbying
for the dam.24 A large number of ideologically diverse NGOs came together to launch an
umbrella organization called the Narmada Abhiyan (Narmada Campaign). This coalition
consisted of social service NGOs, civil rights activists, former bureaucrats and ministers,
caste associations, Gandhians, journalists, religious gurus and sects, artists and business
people.
By the early 1990s, social activist Medha Patkar emerged as the public face of the NBA
and the staunchest opponent of the Narmada project. Patkar became an iconic figure of the
anti-dam movement – clad in her crumpled cotton saris, braided salt and pepper coloured
hair and a fist raised above her head as she led demonstrations. Later, she was joined by
other prominent activists such as Baba Amté. The NBA’s powerful mobilization skills and
ability to forge alliances with environmental movements across the globe led the Narmada
project to make headlines and become more hotly debated than any other World Bank–
funded project.25 The Gujarat government responded to the NBA’s transnational media
campaign with its own lobbying at home and abroad. Turning to Gujarat’s prosperous and
Downloaded By: [Mehta, Mona G.] At: 23:36 7 February 2011

populous diaspora, the then chief minister of Gujarat, Chimanbhai Patel, addressed large
groups of expatriate Gujaratis in New York, New Jersey and London to enlist their material
and emotional endorsement for the Narmada project.26 Back at home in Gujarat, support
for the pro-dam movement continued to strengthen.

Rally for the dam, rally for Gujarat – a new Gujarati nativism
By the early 1990s, one NGO27 began organizing music festivals, plays, poetry readings
and widely distributing booklets in support of the Narmada project. The group used the
popular festival of Navratri (meaning ‘Nine Nights’), when people participate in commu-
nity dancing in praise of the Hindu goddess Durga, as a platform from which to reach mass
audiences. It printed booklets of Gujarati folk songs called garba, which are traditionally
sung during Navratri. Special garbas were written to include the movement’s messages.
For instance, the following two garbas put forward specific arguments for the dam:

Now please come soon28

Mother Narmada, now please come soon
Our hearts are restless, we are going towards ruin
Mother Narmada, now please come soon
Our hearts are restless and some people are hurting us
When the floods come we lose lives and property . . . Mother Narmada
Without you our fields are going dry
Without you the animals are restless
Without you our people are sad . . . Mother Narmada
Many villages are anxiously waiting for you
The animals are sighing in your anticipation
Without your presence the farmers are despondent
Despite this why are you sulking from us?... Mother Narmada
Mother Narmada, giver of life29
Narmada, O Narmada, my mother!
You are everyone’s life giver
A sea of human feelings is overflowing for the sake of your waters
Four crore Gujaratis enduring drought,
Are waiting patiently for your arrival, O mother Narmada!
Mother earth has ceased to give milk
 514 M.G. Mehta

And the rivers have dried up

Give us the strength to recreate your pleasure garden, O mother Narmada
Reside in the heart of glorious Gujarat and flow away,
Give us unlimited strength to inculcate the right values in the children of Gujarat . . . O
mother Narmada!

In these politicized garbas, praise that is traditionally sung to goddess Durga was
replaced with an invocation and propitiation of the river goddess Narmada, who was
described as a life-giver. These songs emphasized the dire necessity of the dam as the
only way to quench the parched lands of Gujarat and bring prosperity to the state. By refer-
ring to the ‘four crore Gujaratis’, the garbas spoke in the name and on behalf of everyone
in the state as common sufferers and hence supporters of the dam.
These symbolic speech acts – songs of pining for the dam, stories of drought-induced
collective suffering and articulating a vision for a prosperous future – were affective
elements that constituted what theorists have called the ‘movement culture’. Emotions
are integral to transformative actions and form an important aspect of why people join
movements.30 Twenty-two thousand printed booklets consisting of similar folk songs were
Downloaded By: [Mehta, Mona G.] At: 23:36 7 February 2011

circulated at Navaratri dance venues, schools, hospitals, public libraries, reading clubs,
universities and a host of other civic organizations.31
In 1991, a series of events and rallies ended in a dramatic confrontation between the
pro- and anti-dam activists at the dam site in the village of Ferkuwa on the border of
Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh. I suggest that a close reading of the episodes culminating in
the confrontation at Ferkuwa reveal the ‘event’-like qualities of the Narmada Movement.
According to William Sewell Jr., an event is a ‘sequence of occurrences that is recog-
nized as notable by contemporaries and results in durable transformations of structures’.32
‘Structures’ are understood as ‘interlocking sets of cultural schemas, distributions of
resources, and modes of power’ that characterize a society.33 In his analysis of the tak-
ing of the Bastille in 1789, Sewell shows that historical events are significant because
they reconstitute the very categories of political culture that ultimately shape political
action.34 The bloody events of Bastille produced epoch-making changes to understandings
of sovereignty, revolution and people’s rights. Seen within this framework, the Ferkuwa
events in particular and the Narmada Movement more generally introduced a novel politi-
cal vocabulary, new conceptions of victimhood and loyalty and unusual political alliances
that had an enduring influence on Gujarat’s political culture.
The events leading up to the Ferkuwa confrontation generated an array of powerful
symbols that did important political work, namely, that of identifying the movement’s allies,
enemies, goals and the legitimate strategies for mobilization. Through their inscription in
particular practices, these symbols35 articulated a brand of Gujarati nativism that became
the touchstone for political action in the state. According to the Oxford English Dictionary,
‘nativism’ is ‘the attitude, practice, or policy of protecting the interests of native-born
or existing inhabitants against those of immigrants’.36 The nativism that emerged from
the Narmada Movement was grounded in a complex ideological worldview that exceeded
devotion to language and territory. Although victimhood stood at the core of this nativist
scheme, support for the dam became the litmus test for ‘loyalty’ to Gujarat and opposition
to it, the ultimate act of disloyalty. Its tropes of collective pride and suffering built on ear-
lier ideas of regional consciousness, such as K.M. Munshi’s concept of Gujarati asmita or
pride37 while also going beyond them to specify a distinct vision of the ideal Gujarati polity.
In December 1990, the NBA announced a Sagharsh Yatra, or Agitation Rally, from the
village of Rajghat in Madhya Pradesh to the dam site in Ferkuwa. The rally’s intention was
to physically stop the ongoing construction of the dam and force the Gujarat government
 South Asian History and Culture 515

to review the project. The supporters of the dam in Gujarat planned a counter rally, calling
it the Narmada Agey Badhao Shanti Yatra, or Move Narmada Forward Peace March. The
stated aim of the Peace March was to stop the NBA activists led by Medha Patkar and Baba
Amté from entering Gujarat. By now, all attempts at talks towards a resolution between the
Gujarat government and the NBA had failed.
In reconstructing the highlights of the pro-dam rally through a reading of the local
Gujarati media reports, my purpose is to examine the dominant perspective on the move-
ment. The newspaper reportage during this time also revealed the media’s multiple roles as
an important third-party site where claims were made and contested. The media both rep-
resented and influenced public discourse in civil society by spreading particular language
use, such as the phrases ‘lifeline of Gujarat’ and Narmadé Sarvadé (Narmada, Giver of
Plenty), as well as ‘political consciousness to the everyday settings of people’s lives’.38
Weeks before the confrontation began at Ferkuwa, mainstream Gujarati newspapers
started writing about Gujarat’s preparations to counter the NBA protestors. These daily
reports consistently presented the perspective of the pro-dam activists as the unanimous
view of the entire state. The reports alleged that the protestors were spreading lies about
Downloaded By: [Mehta, Mona G.] At: 23:36 7 February 2011

the facts of the project and unfairly portraying Gujarat as the enemy of the environment and
the poor tribals. They accused the NBA of instigating illiterate tribals and maligning the
reputation of Gujarat’s government and its people before the world. Quoting anonymous
sources, one article alleged that Patkar and Amté had stage-managed their protest march
to elicit sympathy from the rest of the world by inviting the international environmental
lobby, TV channels, photographers and journalists to cover the events at Ferkuwa.39
An editorial in the Gujarat Samachar described the Narmada project as the ‘lifeline of
Gujarat’ and reprimanded Ms. Patkar for ‘throwing bones in the holy fire of this project’.40
In Hindu mythology, gods often perform a ritual fire to realize an important or pious task.
However, demons are known to throw bones in this holy fire to desecrate and vitiate the
ritual. By invoking this Hindu idiom,41 the editorial compared Patkar to the demons of
Hindu mythology and held her responsible for not merely obstructing but also desecrating
the Narmada project, which was likened to a sacred task. Depicted in this way, the activist
stood demonized, both literally and figuratively, for daring to challenge the dominant
viewpoint in Gujarat.
The print media continued to build up the event, with some reports estimating 300,000
potential participants for the Peace March from various parts of Gujarat, a large part of
which were expected to be tribals from the dam-affected areas in Gujarat.42 The close
connection between the state administration and business elites was exemplified by the
fact that a planning meeting with the then Chief Minister Chimanbhai Patel was held in
the offices of the Gujarat Chamber of Commerce and Industry (GCCI).43 At this meeting,
a prominent Gandhian former freedom fighter pledged the voluntary participation of a
hundred other Gandhian veterans from Ahmedabad in the Peace March.
In the presence of Gandhians, an industrialist at this meeting suggested the following
un-Gandhian approach to be adopted against the protestors: ‘don’t instigate anyone, but if
someone instigates you, don’t let that person go.’44 Approximately, 500 private vehicles
and 400 state transportation buses had been lined up in the city of Ahmedabad alone for
transporting the protestors to and from the dam site in Ferkuwa.45 Special buses to carry
women protestors were also organized. A control room was to be set up on the premises of
the chambers of commerce and industry to coordinate these activities.
Newspaper reports of Gujarat’s law and order preparations for the rally resembled a
war plan of a country gearing up for battle. The border village of Ferkuwa – the site of the
confronting rallies – was widely referred to as a ‘warfront’. Extensive traffic arrangements
 516 M.G. Mehta

were made en route to Ferkuwa and repair facilities were in place to ensure smooth trans-
portation in the event of vehicular breakdowns. Heavy police presence was organized in
Kevadia colony, 100 km downstream from the dam site. Gujarat’s inspector general of
police (IGP) told the press that he had arranged for special police to man the area to ensure
that the anti-dam protestors could be spotted even if they arrived by boat.46 Detailed time
schedules of buses and their various stops were published in the newspapers for the benefit
of ordinary citizens who wished to join the march in support of the dam.
One report listed the names of groups that had publicly pledged support for the Peace
March.47 The list included an amazing breadth of civil society groups such as trade unions,
small and big business associations, bar associations, professional association of engi-
neers and architects, civil rights organizations, caste associations, religious sects, youth
wings of political parties, residents associations of Muslim and dalit (former untouchables)
neighbourhoods in Ahmedabad city and social service NGOs.48
Some civic groups issued prominent public statements pledging their support for the
Peace March and calling on citizens to do the same. For instance, the Gujarat State
Cooperative Bank, a powerful and wealthy cooperative, issued the following two statements
Downloaded By: [Mehta, Mona G.] At: 23:36 7 February 2011

printed in bold that ran across an entire newspaper page:

Oppose those who are coming to break the Narmada project – the lifeline of Gujarat, those who
are jealous of Gujarat and those who are virulently anti-Gujarat. Do not allow these people to
enter the territory of Gujarat!49

Medha Patkar and Amté are going to spend more than a million rupees on this rally. Whose
money is this? This is the money of anti-Gujarat forces, and Medha and Amté are their
stooges!50

These publicly expressed statements highlight the extent to which the dam and Gujarat
had become synonymous with the collective interests of Gujarat. They also revealed the
moral suspicion towards those who opposed the dam. The fact that Patkar was a native
of the neighbouring state of Maharashtra contributed to her representation as an ‘outsider
plotting against the interests of Gujarat’.
Religious sects, associations and gurus actively participated in the pro-dam mobiliza-
tion. Gujarat’s largest and most prosperous Hindu sect, Swaminarayan (BAPS), issued the
following 4 inch by 3 inch newspaper announcement with a photograph of its leader. Titled
‘Pramukhswami51 Appeals’, it read:

Pramukhswami sincerely appeals to all citizens to participate in the Peace March in support
of the lifeline of Gujarat – the Narmada project, on December 29, 1990. The incarnation of
the ultimate creator, Yogiji Maharaj,52 had himself blessed this project. To ensure the success
of the Peace March, hundreds of priests and volunteers of the Swaminarayan sect have set up
a camp at Chota Udaipur.53 May this march for a project of national importance be peaceful,
and may god give some sense to those who oppose the dam.54

A Hindu guru, Swami Sachchidanand, unattached to any particular sect, also joined
the Peace March. A prolific and publically engaged guru, he wrote articles and popular
books to counter the arguments of the anti-dam protestors.55 Clad in his flowing saffron
robe and trademark saffron cap that resembled a chef ’s hat curled over each ear, Swami
Sachchidananda became the most prominent unofficial mascot of the Narmada Movement.
Through their public pleas for the dam, spiritual authority called upon the faithful to enlist
their support for a temporal matter. In so doing, these gurus lent sacred import to an osten-
sibly secular issue of water and implied that supporting the dam was not a partisan political
issue but an act of being a righteous Gujarati and a good Hindu.
 South Asian History and Culture 517

On the day of the rally on 29 December 1990, the Gujarat Samachar carried a full-page
interview feature with the Chief Minister Chimanbhai Patel on the Narmada issue. This
prominent media space served as a platform for the government to reiterate its position
on the necessity of the dam for all sections of Gujarati society. In this interview, Patel
emphasized his government’s positive record on resettlement and criticized the anti-dam
protestors for obstructing the development of the state.56 Two hundred thousand supporters
of the dam led by the chief minister marched to the Gujarat side of the border in Ferkuwa.
The chief minister’s wife led another rally of 10,000 people to the Maharashtra side of
Gujarat’s border. While the anti-dam protestors chanted slogans such as ‘Stop the dam, it is
a betrayal of the people!,’ the pro-dam supporters yelled ‘The dam will be built, no matter
what!’
An activist of the NBA who participated in the anti-dam rally noted that nearly 7000
protestors from her group walked to the Gujarat border in the bitter winter cold.57 In a
dramatic turn of events, the protestors were stopped from entering Gujarat at the state
border by the Gujarat police. In response, NBA’s top leaders, including Medha Patkar went
on an indefinite fast, a classic Gandhian political tactic. It was at this point that the ‘World
Downloaded By: [Mehta, Mona G.] At: 23:36 7 February 2011

Bank gave way and agreed to an independent review of the Narmada project – the first in
its history.’58 However, the supporters of the dam refused to concede, and the stalemate at
the border in Ferkuwa lasted for 33 days. Ultimately, the anti-dam protestors were forced
to back off and return to Madhya Pradesh.

Coercive politics of nativist consensus

Symbols appear in particular historical contexts and have observable political effects.59
The symbolic significance of the taking of the Bastille as the founding act of the French
Revolution happened in tandem with a radical reordering of power relations between the
monarchy and the people’s National Assembly.60 In Gujarat, the spectacular solidarity dis-
played by different groups at Ferkuwa was later reflected in the state legislature with the
passing of a rare and unanimous resolution cutting across political parties. The legisla-
ture criticized the independent review of the Narmada project ordered by the World Bank
as an infringement of the state’s sovereignty and resolved to go ahead with the project
irrespective of the Bank’s backing.61
The World Bank eventually withdrew from funding the project in 1993.62 The gov-
ernment’s decision to go ahead with the project without the Bank’s loan was widely seen
as an act of heroism and regional pride in the state.63 Almost two decades later, many
Gujaratis still recall the events at Ferkuwa as an exemplary occasion of collective victory
when ‘Medha Patkar and her people were shooed away from the state.’64 Despite several
attempts by the NBA to block its construction, the dam was eventually built and the Gujarat
government declared the dam site as a destination for eco-tourism.65
The transformative dimension of the Narmada Movement lay in its ability to entrench
the structures of a Gujarati nativist consensus that worked to produce the guidelines for
acceptable political action. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, ‘consensus’ means
‘agreement in opinion’ or ‘the collective unanimous opinion of a number of persons’.66 I
use consensus to refer to a hegemonic viewpoint or worldview that does not necessarily
preclude the existence of other dissenting views,67 but is able to render dissent politically
and culturally marginal. Operating both as the medium and outcome of social practices,68
the Narmada consensus was coercive in nature with its intolerance for dissent and tendency
to identify nonconformists as ‘anti-Gujarat’. Yet, the coercive quality of this consensus was
not a top-down product of forced compliance secured by dominant elites, but derived its
 518 M.G. Mehta

strength from civil society. The content and contours of this nativist consensus became
visible in the limits of what could and could not be spoken on the Narmada issue.
As the dam got defined as the ‘lifeline of Gujarat’, endorsing it increasingly became an
act of Gujarati identification. The movement spoke in the name of Gujaratis of all denomi-
nations – religion, sub-sect, class, gender, occupation, regions – and simultaneously viewed
those who opposed the dam as the radical ‘Other’ of the state. In the politicized garbas
calling for the dam, critics of the project were said to be ‘hurting’ Gujarat. A headline
describing the confrontation at the dam site in Ferkuwa read ‘March Forward! Baba Amté’s
Call to Fight, Go Back! Gujarati People’s Defiant Response!’69 The reference to ‘Gujarati
people’ as a comprehensive category was illustrative of the ‘us versus them’ sentiment that
emerged as a powerful sub-text in the Narmada debate.
The movement’s discursive frame was coercive in that it left no political possibilities
for those who were critical of the project within and outside Gujarat. In 1988, Mrinalini
Sarabhai, a noted dancer and public figure, was asked to resign from her position as
chairperson of the Gujarat State Handicraft and Handloom Development Corporation for
supporting a memorandum questioning the environmental and social implications of the
Downloaded By: [Mehta, Mona G.] At: 23:36 7 February 2011

dam.70 Commenting on the tenor of this public debate, a Gujarati social scientist wrote:
‘The Narmada fever in the state is so widespread that nobody is ready to hear anything
except news about its early implementation.’71 Criticism of the dam was seen as treason
and dissenters were deemed ‘enemies’ of the state. Moral denigration of opponents justified
the use of bans, boycotts and at times even violence in pursuit of the state’s larger interest.
The Narmada consensus built on earlier Gandhian and other modes of politics but also
transformed these Gandhian tools of resistance by infusing new meanings into old sym-
bols and practices. For instance, the pro-dam Peace March borrowed Gandhian political
idioms of non-violent resistance even as it undermined the democratic ethic of Gandhi’s
philosophy. The idea of a peace march resurrected memories of the historic ‘Salt March’
led by Gandhi from his Ahmedabad ashram (commune) to the village of Dandi on the sea
coast of Gujarat in 1930.72 However, unlike its historical counterpart that sought to demand
rights from an unjust colonial administration, the contemporary Peace March attempted to
obstruct the fundamental rights of Indian citizens (anti-dam protestors) to move freely from
one state to another and express their viewpoints.
The movement’s mascot, Swami Sachchidanada, was an outspoken critic of Gandhi’s
philosophy of non-violence.73 The guru claimed that Gandhi’s ideological legacy of ‘small
is beautiful’ was the biggest stumbling block in the development and progress of India.74
Notwithstanding these ideological differences, contemporary Gandhians marched shoulder
to shoulder with the guru in support of the dam. The alignment of Gandhians with sectarian
groups and capitalist interests on the common platform of the Narmada dam revealed both
a political reconfiguring of what it meant to be ‘Gandhian’ in contemporary Gujarat as
well as the ideological range of groups that were part of this consensus. Over the years, the
NBA leader Medha Patkar has become persona non grata in Gujarat. Her effigies are burnt
in protest75 and she is repeatedly harassed and physically assaulted by pro-dam activists,
including members of the BJP and Congress, when she visits the state.

Narmada nativism and Hindutva

In the words of analyst Tridip Suhrud, Gujarati society found its ‘developmental other’76
in the Narmada issue, whereby critics of the dam were seen as the opponents of Gujarat’s
development. However, today it is increasingly clear that the Narmada Movement did much
 South Asian History and Culture 519

more than create Gujarat’s ‘developmental other’. In fact, I argue that the Narmada con-
sensus profoundly shaped subsequent debates in the state, especially those surrounding
communal conflict between Hindus and Muslims. Specifically, the Narmada consensus
helped consolidate yet another consensus surrounding Hindutva politics, which envisions
Gujarat (and India) as essentially a Hindu polity where Muslims and other minorities would
be second-class citizens.77
The Narmada Movement must be seen in the context of a wider historical pattern of
popular mobilizations in Gujarat. According to the leader of opposition in Gujarat’s legisla-
tive assembly, Congressman Shakti Sinh Gohil, ‘Gujaratis are a people of movements.’78
From the Mahagujarat movement of the 1950s that demanded a separate linguistic state of
Gujarat, the anti-corruption Navnirman movement of the 1970s, the anti-reservation agi-
tations of the 1980s79 to the Ramjanmabhoomi campaign of the 1990s, Gujarat has been
a hotbed of mass movements. These mobilizations rode on specific ideas that left a last-
ing impact on the politics of their respective eras. The efficacy of these movements lay in
their ability to produce politically transformative myths and catch-phrases. For instance,
Mahagujarat raised the flag of ‘manifest destiny’, Navnirman talked about a ‘moral polity’
Downloaded By: [Mehta, Mona G.] At: 23:36 7 February 2011

and the anti-reservation agitations called for a ‘meritocratic democracy’. The Narmada
Movement made one of the strongest cases yet for ‘collective injustice’, which proved to
be a watershed in crystallizing arguments about ‘Gujarati victimhood’.
The momentum for the Narmada dam came on the heels of a series of politically
charged yatras or rallies throughout the 1980s in Gujarat led by the Hindu right-wing
groups of the Sangh Parivar. Starting with the Gangajal Yatra (Rally for the holy water
of the Ganges) in 1983, the Ram-Janaki Dharma Yatra in 1987 to the most significant Rath
Yatra (Chariot Rally) led by the BJP’s Lal Krishna Advani from the temple of Somnath to
Ayodhya in 1990, these rallies claimed to rise above differences of caste and sect within
Hindu society to forge a unity among Hindus of all denominations.80 The peak of the
Narmada Movement, marked by the confrontation at Ferkuwa in 1991, prepared the ground
for and coincided with the mobilizations for the Ramjanmabhoomi movement that ended
in the demolition of the Babri Mosque at Ayodhya on 6 December 1992. Gujarat sent some
of the highest numbers of Kar Sevaks to participate in the demolition of the mosque.81
Between 1985 and 1990, the Sangh Parivar had succeeded in bridging the divisions
between savarnas or upper caste Hindus and avarnas or dalits and tribals by providing
a pan-Hindu political platform of Hindutva against a Muslim ‘Other’.82 This campaign
turned the anti-reservation violence (of the early 1980s) against lower caste Hindus into
large-scale anti-Muslim riots in the state. During this time, the Narmada Movement, itself
a product of and enmeshed in the volatile political context of the 1980s, played a catalytic
role in consolidating Hindutva in at least two important ways: first, it broke the solidarity
of the left movement by creating an expansive platform around water and development that
transcended the secular and non-secular divide. In the midst of the Ferkuwa agitations, an
editorial in the Gujarati press sarcastically titled ‘Thanks to anti-dam activists’,83 noted
the unprecedented unity wrought by the dam across Gujarat’s varied political spectrum.
Second, the nativism that arose around the dam was at once secular and amenable to a
communal vision given its divisive discursive frame that specified an oppositional ‘Other’.
The elective affinities between the Narmada and the Hindutva movements were strong,
mutually sustaining and politically transformative. The two mobilizations overlapped in
important ways and shared in common their preoccupation with the idea of victimhood
and hostility to the fundamental tenets of equality and citizenship enshrined in the Indian
constitution. The discursive and institutional structures made available by the Narmada
Movement were ever present and handy for Hindu nationalist politics to effectively latch
 520 M.G. Mehta

onto. The proponents of Hindutva managed to supplant and rework the Narmada nativism
to serve their specific political agendas. As a result, Hindutva in contemporary Gujarat
has emerged as an avatar of Gujarati nativism that is malleable yet capable of reproducing
political mobilizations around the binary categories of ‘insider/outsider’, ‘friend/enemy’
and ‘Hindu/Muslim’.
According to Achyut Yagnik, Narendra Modi attached Hindutva with the idea of
Gujarati Asmita (pride), the foundation for which was laid in recent history by the
Narmada Movement under earlier Congress regimes.84 It is not a coincidence that
Modi invoked the powerful memory of Narmada to coin the slogan ‘Aapnu Gujarat,
Aagvu Gujarat’ (Our Gujarat, Unique Gujarat) in one of his earliest speeches after
being appointed the BJP chief minister of Gujarat in 2001. Following the post-Godhra
violence in 2002, independent inquiries criticized the complicity of the state, media
and civil society in Gujarat in the attacks against Muslims. Yet, Gujaratis widely view
these criticisms as unjust. The fundamental structures of argumentation that marked the
Narmada debates continue to recur in and animate contemporary debates in Gujarat. In the
intense deliberations about the 2002 violence, Gujaratis across different sections of society
Downloaded By: [Mehta, Mona G.] At: 23:36 7 February 2011

came to a consensus that Hindus rather than Muslims were the objects of persecution.
Those who condemn the exclusion of Muslims are regarded as the ‘enemies of Gujarat’,
not unlike the critics of the Narmada dam.
In 2006, eminent literary figure and tribal rights activist from Gujarat, Ganesh Devy,
noted that anti-Muslim bigotry was pervasive among large sections of Gujarati Hindus. In
his expressed disappointment, he drew a connection between the pro-dam and anti-Muslim
sentiments in the state:

[M.K] Gandhi, I have to say, is not a popular man in Gujarat; they merely pay him lip service.
You do not become a bad man in Gujarat if you hate Muslims; you are normal. Decent people
hate Muslims. And it is not a city phenomenon alone; this is true of villages as well. If a
Muslim is traumatised, it is a normal thing. Just to give a sense of how Gujarati Hindus relate
to Muslims, I will come to the Narmada issue. Gujarat is extremely pro-dam and, therefore,
extremely anti-Medha Patkar. Gujaratis will call all pro-Medha people Muslims. Intolerance
in Gujarat is unanimous. If Muslims are hated, entire Gujarat will hate them. If Medha is seen
as an ‘enemy’, all of Gujarat will look at her as an enemy. In that sense, Gujarat has treated
Medha as much an ‘enemy’ or a ‘fundamentalist’ as Muslims are treated. The minds have got
locked here. The culture of disagreement and dissent is pervasively shunned. This is so even
when Gujarat is not a feudal state in terms of its economic makeup.85

Devy observes the unanimity of public opinion in Gujarat and the available category
of an ‘Other’ within which first ‘Medha’ [Patkar], and now ‘Muslims’ could be placed
interchangeably. His statements provoked an unprecedented uproar within the state’s liter-
ary public sphere.86 The dominant theme in the rejoinders to Devy resonated remarkably
with the arguments in the Narmada debates. Some of the most respected names in Gujarati
literature construed Devy’s remarks as insulting to Gujaratis and filled with anti-Gujarat
sentiments.
One respondent accused Devy of conspiring with ‘forces outside Gujarat’, such as the
national English media and human rights groups, and maligning the reputation of Gujaratis
by projecting them as a violent people.87 He argued that ethnic conflict was a problem
in all of India and to condemn Gujarat for it was unfair. One argument turned against
Devy for being a Marathi rather than a native of Gujarat. It was alleged that Devy did not
truly consider Gujarat his own state, despite having spent most of this adult life there and
winning the state’s top awards for his contribution to Gujarati literature. The accusation
 South Asian History and Culture 521

rested on the assumption that a ‘true Gujarati’ could not engage in the criticisms that Devy
put forward. Conversely, had Devy identified as a Gujarati, he would not criticize Gujarat.
In 2007, yet another film Parzania88 was boycotted by theatre owners, Hindu right-
wing outfits and several sections of the civil society in Gujarat, even as it played in
theatres across India. Set in the backdrop of the 2002 communal violence, the film was
based on a true story of a young Parsi boy who was separated from his family never
to return during an attack by a Hindu extremist mob on a Muslim neighbourhood in
Ahmedabad.89 The film sought to depict the human tragedy of a single family that was
neither Hindu nor Muslim, caught in the midst of the ethnic frenzy. Within Gujarat, the
most common argument in favour of boycotting the film was its ‘anti-Gujarat’ content.
By telling a story of the violence that had occurred in the state, it was believed that
the filmmaker was criticizing Gujaratis and projecting an unjust image of the state as
violent.
It is important to note that the state did not prevent the film from being screened
privately by some NGOs.90 Many ordinary people I talked to during the controversy felt
that the film was ‘unnecessary’ because it projected Hindus in a bad light and was biased
Downloaded By: [Mehta, Mona G.] At: 23:36 7 February 2011

in favour of Muslims. They viewed the film as ‘anti-Gujarat’ because Hindus were shown
to be aggressors. Others felt it raked up ‘old ethnic wounds’ that are best forgotten.91
Unlike Ganesh Devy, the filmmaker was an expatriate Gujarati based in California. Yet,
his native status as a ‘Gujarati’ did not entitle him to express himself through the film in so
far as the film’s opponents believed that his political position differed from their own. All
these instances of post-2002 public discourses in Gujarat are revelatory of the enduring
political legacy of the Narmada Movement in the state.

Conundrum of democracy and consensus

My analysis has shown the ways in which the political dominance of Hindutva in contem-
porary Gujarat stands on the strength of the coercive nativism forged during the Narmada
Movement. I do not deny the presence of alternative political visions that seek to chal-
lenge this consensus at different levels in Gujarati society on a daily basis. Indeed, the
state is home to many brave rights activists, dalit and tribal leaders and women’s groups
who continue to resist the currently hegemonic politics of Hindutva. A product of histori-
cal conjunctures, this consensus was neither inevitable nor must it be seen as a permanent
trait of Gujarat’s political future. However, the electoral success of the BJP for almost two
decades in the state reveals the failure of alternative voices to effect sustained political
change. The ascendance of this nativist consensus invites us to reflect on an important
conundrum of democracy in Gujarat: how might we make sense of a popular consensus
garnered through the instruments of democracy, such as a free media, public debates and
the rights of assembly and protest, that has worked to produce exclusion and ultimately
undermined the substantive ideals of democracy.
The coercive politics spawned by the Narmada consensus was at odds with the inclu-
sive goals of deliberative democracy. Recall the intolerance for dissent reflected in the
unofficial ban against the film Fanaa discussed at the beginning of this essay. The film was
boycotted but not officially banned because its lead actor had appealed that those affected
by the dam be rehabilitated, while not questioning the dam itself. During this time, two
different perspectives on the nature of the film’s boycott emerged in public debate that
merit attention for my analysis of consensus and democracy. An editorial in The Hindu
criticized Gujarat’s boycott of Fanna as an act of intolerance unfit in an open democracy. It
argued that if an actor’s political beliefs are made the ground for whether his or her films
 522 M.G. Mehta

are screened, it would mean that Gujarat is open only to those who support the dominant
political opinion.92
A reader from Gujarat challenged this argument in a letter to the editor by stating that
there was nothing undemocratic in Gujarat’s boycott of the film Fanna. ‘After all’, he wrote,
‘the weapon of boycott was given to us by Gandhiji’.93 A young blogger from Gujarat took
this idea further by explaining the difference between a ‘ban’ and a ‘boycott’.94 According
to him, whereas a ban is not democratic because it is ordered by the state, a boycott is
entirely democratic because it is an outcome of the popular will. In the blogger’s view, the
actor in a democratic society has the right to say what he feels and the theatre owners of
Gujarat have the right to do what they feel.
The boycotting of the films Fanna and Parzania expose the serious problems of equat-
ing popular will with democracy and speak to an older debate in democratic theory
about the ‘tyranny of the majority’ associated with thinkers like Alexis de Tocqueville
and John Stuart Mill.95 The politics of boycotts in Gujarat is complicated by that fact
that a boycott, even when it is an expression of the public will, could override demo-
cratic dissent without recourse to a legal ban. In other words, popular support for an
Downloaded By: [Mehta, Mona G.] At: 23:36 7 February 2011

exclusionary consensus makes coercive legislation against dissent unnecessary. In these

circumstances, institutional protections for the right to dissent become ineffective and are
rendered meaningless.
For Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson,96 the starting point of a theory of delib-
erative democracy is the challenge of moral disagreement between citizens or their
representatives. Deliberative democrats seek to address this challenge by suggesting that
citizens continue to reason and discuss until a mutually acceptable decision is reached.
They believe that deliberation clarifies, enlightens and highlights the moral issues at stake
in political debates, and allows citizens to elucidate these issues for themselves.97 However,
the starting point of the problem of Gujarat is the near absence of moral disagreement. The
Narmada debates and (subsequent debates about Hindutva) reveal what deliberation looks
like without vigorous disagreement. The extensive public debates provoked by the move-
ment failed to deepen democracy in ways these theorists expect. On the contrary, these
discussions undermined democracy by demonizing dissenters and construing their views
as antithetical to the common good.
Theorists from Alexis de Tocqueville98 to Cass Sunstein99 have argued that dissent is
invaluable in a democracy because it reduces the risks that accompany conformity. Dissent
increases the likelihood of greater information and viewpoints that are likely to benefit
society at large.100 The Narmada consensus shut out other viewpoints on the dam despite
the presence of a thriving procedural democracy with the institutional possibilities for
opposition. In so doing, the movement foreclosed potentially valuable information about
the implications of a fraught developmental model. The deliberations about the dam were
marked by a phenomenon Sunstein calls ‘group polarization’, whereby members of a delib-
erating group end up in a more extreme position in line with their tendencies before delib-
eration began.101 Sunstein argues that extreme movements are more likely to occur when
like-minded people consistently meet without sustained exposure to competing views.102
The consolidation of a coercive Gujarati nativism underlines the paradox of Gujarat,
namely, the phenomenon of a democracy that is procedurally sufficient103 but substantively
deficient. Democratic institutions and a vibrant civil society have not only failed to protect
the rights of minority citizens and viewpoints but have become unwitting conduits for their
marginalization in the state. This shows that democracy may well provide the space for
contention and free debate but democratic institutions alone are ill-equipped to ensure that
social movements are generative of substantive democracy. In other words, democracy is
 South Asian History and Culture 523

profoundly vulnerable to popular support for exclusionary politics. Despite these suscepti-
bilities, democracy continues to posses the most compelling possibilities for unseating the
current consensus and enabling an inclusive political future in Gujarat.

Notes
1. Ramachandra Guha, ‘The Arun Shourie of the Left’, The Hindu, November 26, 2000.
2. Quoted in Dione Bunsha, ‘Heights of Intolerance’, Frontline 23, no. 11 (June 3–16, 2006).
3. ‘Narmada Abhiyan joins agitation against Fanaa’, The Hindu, June 1, 2006.
4. Editorial, ‘New Heights of Intolerance’, The Hindu, May 26, 2006.
5. Bunsha, ‘Heights of Intolerance’.
6. Although the Narmada dam triggered social movements both for and against it, I refer to the
pro-dam mobilization as the Narmada Movement, unless otherwise noted. This is because in
Gujarat the movement came to be almost entirely interpreted as a pro-dam movement.
7. Tilly and Tarrow, Contentious Politics; Tarrow and Tilly, ‘Contentious Politics and Social
Movements’.
8. I base my argument on materials I collected over 20 months of ethnographic fieldwork in
Gujarat between 2006 and 2009, which includes legislative debates, folk literature, newspaper
Downloaded By: [Mehta, Mona G.] At: 23:36 7 February 2011

and magazine reports, political party and NGO campaigns and personal interviews.
9. The project was proposed in 1959 by the nationally appointed Central Water and Power
Commission (CWPC), also known as the Khosla Committee after its head Dr. K.N. Khosla.
10. The SSP is a concrete gravity dam, 1210 m (3970 feet) in length and a maximum height
of 163 m. It is the third-highest concrete dam in India and the second largest in the world
with an aggregate volume of 6.82 million cu.m, the first being the Grand Coulee Dam in the
United States with a total volume of 8.0 million cu.m. The SSP has the third-largest spillway
discharging capacity of 87,000 cumecs (30.70 lac). The Narmada main canal is 458 km long
and is the biggest lined irrigation canal in the world with a capacity to flow 1133 cumecs
(40,000 cusecs). The Main Canal negotiates several water streams, rivers, roads and railways
and there are about 598 structures on the main canal, Official website of the Sardar Sarovar
Narmada Nigam Limited, http://www.supportnarmadadam.org/default.aspx (accessed May
10, 2010).
11. Throughout this article I use the term ‘Narmada dam’ to specifically refer to the SSP unless
otherwise noted.
12. I do not recount the chronological history of the Narmada movement which has already
been extensively documented by other scholars. I discuss the movement’s trajectory mainly
to illustrate my central argument.
13. Editorial, ‘Implement the Tribunal’s Judgment’ [Chukada no amal karo], Gujarat Samachar,
December 8, 1979, 4.
14. Snow and Benford, ‘Master Frames and Cycles of Protest’, 137.
15. Patel, ‘What Do the Narmada Valley Tribals Want?’
16. Ibid., 182.
17. Tarrow and Tilly, ‘Contentious Politics and Social Movements’, 442.
18. Sheth, Images of Transformation, 71.
19. Patel, ‘The NGO Movements in the Narmada Valley’, 80; Indukumar Jani, personal interview,
June 27, 2007. Jani is a noted member of Gujarat’s left movement, is a dalit rights activist and
was formerly associated with the ARCH-Vahini.
20. Patel, ‘What Do the Narmada Valley Tribals Want?’, 190.
21. Indukumar Jani, personal interview June 27, 2007. He noted that he could not bring himself to
support the NBA’s ‘no dam’ position despite the high regard he had for Medha Patkar’s politics
because he remembered seeing the tremendous suffering brought about by the terrible droughts
of the late 1980s in large parts of Gujarat.
22. Sheth, Narmada Project; Mukta, ‘Wresting Riches, Marginalizing the Poor’, 105.
23. Sheth, Narmada Project, 54.
24. During these years of drought, the images that were especially etched in public memory were
those of water and cattle fodder being transported in freight trains to the drought-affected areas
in Kutch, Saurashtra and north Gujarat.
25. Fisher, Toward Sustainable Development?
 524 M.G. Mehta

26. Sheth, Narmada Project.

27. The NGO in question was Sad Vichar Parivaar, a founding member of the Narmada Abhiyan.
28. Narmada Garba Special Issue, Suvichar, 41 (my translation from Gujarati).
29. ‘Mother Narmada Song Collection’, 16 (my translation from Gujarati).
30. Goodwin, Jasper and Polletta, Passionate Politics; Aminzade and Perry, Silence and Voice in
the Study; Sewell, ‘Historical Events as Transformations of Structures’, 865.
31. Personal conversation with Haribhai Panchal founder of Sad Vichar Parivaar in August 2007;
details of this campaign are also given in the booklet titled ‘Mother Narmada’ [Narmada
Maiya-Sangeet Rupak] published by the NGO Sad Vichar Parivar, April 1992.
32. Sewell, ‘Historical Events as Transformations of Structures’, 844.
33. Ibid., 842.
34. Ibid., 861.
35. Wedeen, ‘Conceptualizing Culture’.
36. Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition, 1989.
37. Mukta, ‘On the Political Culture of Authoritarianism’; Yagnik and Sheth, The Shaping of
Modern Gujarat.
38. Gamson, ‘Social Movements and Cultural Change’, 59.
39. ‘The anti-Narmada dam forces are moving ahead on the path of confrontation’ [Narmada
virodhio havey sanghrash na marge aagal vadhi rahya che], Gujarat Samachar, December 26,
Downloaded By: [Mehta, Mona G.] At: 23:36 7 February 2011

1990.
40. Editorial, ‘The Stubbornness of the Anti-Dam Activists’ [Narmada virodhio no hathaagrah],
Gujarat Samachar, December 19, 1990.
41. The idiom was ‘to throw bones in the holy fire’ or ‘Havan man hadka nakhva’.
42. ‘A Mass of 3 Lakh People Set to Join the Narmada Peace March’ [Naramadani shanti yatra
man adhi thi tran lakhni medni jodashey], Gujarat Samachar, December 28, 1990.
43. The GCCI is one of the most powerful business and industry associations in Gujarat, which
has historically worked closely with the state government to support the Narmada dam. The
GCCI’s activities have included the public dissemination of information highlighting the impor-
tance of the Narmada project through discussion forums, special publications and high-profile
meetings with politicians and leading members of the business community. See especially the
25th Anniversary issue of the Gujarat Chamber of Commerce and Industry GCCI magazine,
Bulletin, 1975, for a detailed account of the GCCI’s support for the Narmada project.
44. ‘A Mass of 3 Lakh People Set to Join the Narmada Peace March’ [Naramadani shanti yatra
man adhi thi tran lakhni medni jodashey], Gujarat Samachar, December 28, 1990.
45. ‘20,000 Citizens Expected to Participate in the Narmada Peace March from the City’ [Naramda
shanti yatraman shehrmanthi 20 hajar naagriko jodashe], Gujarat Samachar, December 29,
1990.
46. Statement of IGP P.K. Datta quoted in ‘Strong Preparations to Atop the Anti-Dam Protestors’
[Narmada virodhione khalva Gujarat ni sajjad taiyari], Gujarat Samachar, December 29, 1990.
47. ‘Unprecedented Awakening to Counter the Challenge of the anti-Narmada Protestors’
[Narmada samena padkaro jheeli leva lokoman abhootpurva chetna], Gujarat Samachar,
December 29, 1990.
48. The groups in the list included: The Small Businesses Trade Union, Committee for the
Protection of Citizen’s Interests, residents of the predominantly working-class Muslim ward
Behrampura, Gujarat Institute of Civil Engineers and Architects, Ahmedabad Bar Association,
Association of Trade Unions, Rajasthan Seva Samiti, Gujarat Pesticides Formulators’
Association, Hindu Relief Committee, All Gujarat Brahmasamaj Youth Association, Swami
Shivdasji Maharaj and Swami Ramavtardasji of the Shri Ramanand Virkat Vaishnav
Association, Chunval Valam Brahman Youth Association, Chandkheda Youth Development
and Peace Association, Bharat Sevak Samaj, Ahmedabad District Bar Association, Unity
Young Circle, Gujarat State Corporation Workers Association, Navtad Seva Sangh, Gujarat
Diamond Industries Association, Janata Dal Youth Wing, Gujarat Anti-injustice Association,
Arya Samaj Swamis (except Swami Agnivesh, who is opposing the dam) [the names are
translated from Gujarati to English by me].
49. Gujarat Samachar, December 29, 1990.
50. Ibid.
51. Pramukhswami is the current highest-ranking spiritual leader of the order of Swaminarayan
Bochasanwasi Aksharpurshottam Sansthan (BAPS).
 South Asian History and Culture 525

52. Yogiji Maharaj was the predecessor of the current spiritual leader of the Swaminarayan sect,
Pramukhswami.
53. Chota Udaipur is a town on the way to Ferkuwa.
54. Gujarat Samachar, December 29, 1990.
55. See especially Swami Sachchidananda’s book The Narmada Dam Project: A Response to Baba
Amté. Swami Sachchidananda writes a regular column called ‘Lok Sagar ni teerey, teerey’ in
the widely circulating newspaper Sandesh for more than two decades. The Gujarati colum-
nist Urvish Kothari writes in one of his blog posts that ‘the status of Swami Sachchidanada
can be gauged by the fact that his articles would appear in all three of the top Gujarati
newspapers’ [My translation from the original in Gujarati], Gujarati world, August 16, 2008,
http://www.urvishkothari-gujarati.blogspot.com/ (accessed August 20, 2008).
56. ‘A Conversation with Gujarat’s Chief Minster about the Narmada Project’ [Narmada yojna
angey Gujaratna mukhyamantri sathey mulakat], Gujarat Samachar, December 29, 1990.
57. Interview of Chittaroopa Palit by Achin Vanaik, ‘Monsoon Risings: Mega Dam Resistance in
the Narmada Valley’, New Left Review 21, May–June 2003.
58. Ibid.
59. Wedeen, ‘Conceptualizing Culture’.
60. Sewell, ‘Historical Events as Transformations of Structures’.
61. Vidhan Sabha Debates on the Narmada Issue, Gujarat legislative assembly publication, 1996.
62. Fisher, Toward sustainable development?, 5.
Downloaded By: [Mehta, Mona G.] At: 23:36 7 February 2011

63. Praise for this government decision appeared in the Narmada Agree Special Issue of the pub-
lication Suvichar (1994); in the government’s own publication, ‘The Narmada Story’ (1992);
and in an encyclopedia-like book titled Gujarat 2000 (2001).
64. This particular phrase of ‘shooing away’ or ‘bhagaadi devu’ was a commonly used formulation
by many of my informants in reference to the ‘ousting’ of Medha Patkar from Gujarat.
65. ‘Narmada dam is tourism hot spot’, Business Standard, January 31, 2007.
66. Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition, 1989.
67. Many within the left political and intellectual circles of Gujarat who supported the dam were
publicly critical of the ‘witch-hunt’ against the anti-dam protestors. See especially a letter to
the editor written by those affiliated with the Center for Social Studies in Surat expressing
their disappointment with what they called the ‘hysterical’ tone of the pro-dam movement,
‘Narmada Debate’, Letter to the Editor, The Times of India, September 29, 1988.
68. Sewell, ‘Historical Events as Transformations of Structures’, 842.
69. Chitralekha (Gujarati), January 14, 1991.
70. ‘Chaudhry Assails Narmada Opponents’, The Times of India, September 20, 1988. It is worth
noting that the then Congress Chief Minister Amarsinh Chaudhry who asked Sarabhai to resign
was Gujarat’s first (and as yet only) tribal chief minister.
71. Himmat Patel, ‘Sardar Sarovar: Damming a Debate’, The Times of India, November 14, 1988.
72. This event is also popularly called the ‘Dandi March’ and is associated with iconic images of
Gandhi leading the march with thousands of Satyagrahi followers. The aim of the march was
to reach the sea coast and make salt from sea water to challenge the salt tax imposed by the
British colonial government.
73. Swami Sacchidanand’s interview by Saurabh Shah, Vichardhara, April 2007.
74. Personal interview with Swami Sachchidananda, June 23, 2007.
75. ‘Pro-Narmada Dam Activists Burn Medha Patkar’s Effigy’, The Times of India, March 20,
2000.
76. Suhrud, ‘In Defeat, Let Us Reclaim Our Selves’.
77. See especially Golwalkar, We or Our Nationhood Defined and Bunch of Thoughts for an
exposition of Hindutva’s political philosophy.
78. Shakti Sinh Gohil, personal interview, July 27, 2009.
79. See Nagindas Sanghavi’s Gujarat a Political Analysis for a political history of Gujarat between
1946 and 1990.
80. Yagnik and Sheth, The Shaping of Modern Gujarat, 257–59.
81. Nandy et al., Creating a Nationality.
82. Yagnik and Sheth, The Shaping of Modern Gujarat, 260; Shani, Communalism, Caste, and
Hindu Nationalism.
83. ‘Thank You, Anti-Narmada Protestors’ [Abhar Naramda virodhione], Gujarat Samachar,
December 29, 1990.
84. Achyut Yagnik, personal interview, July 3, 2009.
 526 M.G. Mehta

85. Devy, ‘Hating Muslims Is a Natural Thing in Gujarat’.

86. Devy, ‘Where Contempt for Muslims is a Way of Life’. This interview originally appeared in
Tehelka and was later translated and published in this Gujarati literary pamphlet.
87. Panchal, ‘Is Gujarati Society That Wicked?’ 6–8.
88. Parzania is a Persian word that means ‘Heaven and Hell on Earth’.
89. ‘Parzania not Screened in Gujarat’, The Times of India, January 26, 2007. To date the boy,
Azhar Mody, continues to be missing. His family and the filmmaker (who are friends) had
hoped that the film would help in locating the boy as well as provide a social message about
the devastating effects of ethnic violence.
90. Activist Shabnam Hashmi’s group ANHAD in particular screened the film, which was open to
the general public.
91. Based on personal interviews and informal conversations with informants.
92. ‘New Heights of Intolerance’, The Hindu, May 26, 2006.
93. Prasad Lele, ‘Amir Khan Got Fitting Reply’, Letter to the Editor, The Indian Express, May 26,
2006.
94. Japan Pathak’s blog, http://www.flickr.com/photos/japanpathak/140734342/ (accessed
October 25, 2008).
95. De Tocqueville, Democracy in America; Mill, Essays on Politics and Culture.
96. Gutmann and Thompson, Democracy and Disagreement.
Downloaded By: [Mehta, Mona G.] At: 23:36 7 February 2011

97. Benhabib, Democracy and Difference; Gutmann and Thompson, Democracy and
Disagreement.
98. De Tocqueville, Democracy in America.
99. Sunstein, ‘Conformity and Dissent’.
100. Ibid., 3.
101. Sunstein, ‘Deliberative Trouble?’, 75.
102. Ibid.
103. By ‘procedural democracy’ I am referring to a minimalist conception of democracy associated
with theorists such as Joseph Schumpeter who define democracy in terms of free and fair elec-
tions. For a discussion of the limitations of procedural democracy see Lisa Wedeen, Peripheral
Visions.

Bibliography
All About Narmada. Gandhinanagar, India: Directorate of Information, Government of Gujarat, April
1991.
Aminzade, Ronald R. and Elizabeth J. Perry. Silence and Voice in the Study of Contentious Politics.
Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
Benhabib, Seyla, ed. Democracy and Difference: Contesting Boundaries of the Political. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996.
Boix, Carles and Susan C. Stokes, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics. Oxford, NY:
Oxford University Press, 2007.
De Tocqueville, Alexis. Democracy in America. Ed. J. P. Mayer. Trans. George Lawrence Doubleday.
New York: Perennial Library, Harper & Row, 1969.
Devy, Ganesh. ‘Hating Muslims Is a Natural Thing in Gujarat’. Tehelka, May 20, 2006.
Devy, Ganesh. ‘Where Contempt for Muslims Is a Way of Life’ [Muslim tiraskar jya swabhavik che].
Nirikshak. Ahmedabad, India, August 1, 2006.
Drèze, Jean, Meera Samson, and Satyajit Singh, eds. The Dam and the Nation; Displacement and
Resettlement in the Narmada Valley. New Delhi, India; New York: Oxford University Press,
1997.
Fisher, William F. ed. Toward Sustainable Development?: Struggling over India’s Narmada River.
Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 1995.
Gamson, William A. ‘Social Movements and Cultural Change’. In From Contention to Democracy,
ed. Marco G. Giugni, Doug McAdam, and Charles Tilly. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers, 1998.
Golwalkar, M.S. We or Our Nationhood Defined. 4th ed. Nagpur, Kale, India: Baharat Prakashan,
1947.
Golwalkar, M.S. Bunch of Thoughts. Bangalore, India: Vikrama Prakashan; sole distributors:
Rashtrotthana Sahitya, 1966.
 South Asian History and Culture 527

Goodwin, Jeff, James M. Jasper, and Francesca Polletta, eds. Passionate Politics: Emotions and
Social Movements. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2001.
Gujarat Legislative Debates on the Narmada Project. Gandhinagar, India: G.V. Mavlankar
Parliamentary Studies and Training Bureau, Gujarat Legislature Secretariat, 1999.
Gutmann, Amy and Dennis Thompson. Democracy and Disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Belknap
Press, 1996.
Mill, John Stuart. Essays on Politics and Culture. Edited and with an introduction by Gertrude
Himmelfarb. New York: Doubleday, 1962.
Mukta, Parita. ‘On the Political Culture of Authoritarianism’. In Development and Deprivation in
Gujarat: In Honor of Jan Breman, ed. Ghanshyam Shah, Mario Rutten, and Hein Streefkerk.
New Delhi, India; Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2002.
Mukta, Parita. ‘Wresting Riches, Marginalizing the Poor, Criminalizing Dissent: The Building of the
Narmada Dam in Western India’. South Asia Bulletin, Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa
and the Middle East XV, no. 2 (1995): 99–108.
Nandy, Ashis, Shikha Trivedy, Shail Mayaram, and Achyut Yagnik. Creating a Nationality: The
Ramjanmabhumi Movement and Fear of the Self . New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press,
1995.
The Narmada Story. Gandhinagar, India: Directorate of Information, Government of Gujarat
Publication, 1992.
Downloaded By: [Mehta, Mona G.] At: 23:36 7 February 2011

Panchal, Harilal, V., ed. ‘Narmada Garba Special Issue’ Suvichar. Ahmedabad, India: Sad Vichar
Parivaar Press, April 1990.
Panchal, Harilal V., ed. ‘Narmada Song Collection’ [Narmada Maiya Sangeet Rupak]. Suvichar.
Ahmedabad, India: Sad Vichar Parivar Press, April 1992.
Panchal, Harilal V., ed. ‘The Narmada Agreement Special Issue’, [Narmada Samarthan Visheshank].
Suvichar. Ahmedabad, India: Sad Vichar Parivar Press, December 1994.
Panchal, Shirish. ‘Is Gujarati society that Wicked?’ [Shun Gujarati praja atli badhi bhundi che?].
Nirikshak. Ahmedabad, India, August 1, 2006.
Patel, Anil. ‘The NGO Movements in the Narmada Valley: Some Reflections’. In The Dam and the
Nation: Displacement and Resettlement in the Narmada Valley, ed. Jean Drèze, Meera Samson,
and Satyajit Singh. New Delhi, India; New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.
Patel, Anil. ‘What Do the Narmada Valley Tribals Want?’ In Toward Sustainable Development?:
Struggling over India’s Narmada River, ed. William F. Fisher. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 1995.
Ramu, Patel, ed. Gujarat 2000. Ahmedabad, India: Western Times Publication, May 2001.
Sachcidananda, Swami. The Narmada Dam Project: A Response to Baba Amté [Narmada yojana:
Baba Amaţene uttar]. Ahmedabad, India: Gurjar Prakashan, 1990.
Sanghavi, Nandidas. Gujarat: A Political Analysis. Surat, India: Center for Social Studies, 1995.
Schumpeter, Joseph. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. New York: Harper and Row, 1976
[1942].
Sewell, William H. Jr. ‘Historical Events as Transformations of Structures: Inventing Revolution at
the Bastille’. Theory and Society 25, no. 6 (1996): 841–81.
Shah, Ghanshyam, Mario Rutten, and Hein Streefkerk, eds. Development and Deprivation in
Gujarat: In Honor of Jan Breman. New Delhi, India; Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,
2002.
Shani, Ornit. Communalism, Caste, and Hindu Nationalism: The Violence in Gujarat. Cambridge;
New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
Sheth, Pravin. Images of Transformation: Gujarat and Narendra Modi. Ahmedabad, India: Team
Spirit (India), 2007.
Sheth, Pravin. Narmada Project: Politics of Eco-Development. New Delhi, India: Har-Anand
Publications, 1994.
Snow, David A. and Robert D. Benford. ‘Master Frames and Cycles of Protest’. In Frontiers in
Social Movement Theory, ed. Aldon D. Morris and Carol McClurg Mueller. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press, 1992.
Suhrud, Tridip. ‘In Defeat, Let Us Reclaim Our Selves’. Tehelka 5, no. 1 (January 12, 2008).
Sunstein, Cass R. ‘Conformity and Dissent’. Chicago Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper
No. 34, October 30, 2002, http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/34.crs_.conformity.pdf
(accessed June 10, 2010).
Sunstein, Cass R. ‘Deliberative Trouble? Why Groups Go to Extremes’. The Yale Law Journal 110,
no. 1 (2000): 71–119.
 528 M.G. Mehta

Tarrow, Sidney, and Charles Tilly. ‘Contentious Politics and Social Movements’. In The Oxford
Handbook of Comparative Politics, ed. Carles Boix and Susan C. Stokes. Oxford; New York:
Oxford University Press, 2007.
Tilly, Charles, and Sidney Tarrow. Contentious Politics. Boulder, CO: Paradigm, 2007.
Wedeen, Lisa. ‘Conceptualizing Culture: Possibilities for Political Science’. American Political
Science Review 96, no. 4 (2002): 713–28.
Wedeen, Lisa. Peripheral Visions: Publics, Power, and Performance in Yemen. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 2008.
Yagnik, Achyut, and Suchitra Sheth. The Shaping of Modern Gujarat: Plurality, Hindutva, and
Beyond. New Delhi, India; New York: Penguin Books, 2005.
Downloaded By: [Mehta, Mona G.] At: 23:36 7 February 2011

View publication stats