Translation error: What Sardar Patel said about money for Babri Masjid

Early in December, Amit Malviya, the head of the Bharatiya Janata Party’s propaganda wing, claimed in a post on X that Jawaharlal Nehru had wanted to rebuild the Babri Masjid using public funds. To support this, he cited the English translation of the diary of Maniben Patel, daughter of Sardar Patel, and shared a page from the introduction of the book.

The English edition, Inside Story of Sardar Patel: The Diary of Maniben Patel, 1936-’50, was published in 2001, while the original Gujarati diaries had remained unpublished until 2025. Just last month, selections from the original Gujarati text were finally released by the Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Memorial Society in Ahmedabad.

Compiled by RS Patel, the society’s secretary, these newly published excerpts Samarpit Padchhayo Sardarno have raised serious questions about the way the English volume was compiled and translated – an edition that had long been treated as a key source by researchers.

Inside Story of Sardar Patel: The Diary of Maniben Patel, 1936-’50 was published as part of the Collected Works of Sardar Patel, with PN Chopra as chief editor and Prabha Chopra as editor. The translation from the original Gujarati diaries was carried out by UM Choksi, former deputy chief editor of the Gazetteers of Gujarat, though his contribution was acknowledged only in a single line in the introduction.

The diary offered an intimate glimpse into Sardar Patel’s work and views, as seen through the eyes of his daughter, who was his constant companion. The translation claimed to illuminate and flesh out “some of India’s most epochal years and those of one of the tallest leaders”.

Since the Gujarati diaries were not available, the English edition became the sole source for information. Readers naturally assumed that the English volume was a complete and faithful rendering of Maniben’s writings.

Now that portions of the original Gujarati diary have been published, comparisons between the two texts reveal some serious discrepancies.

It should be noted that there appears to be no political agenda behind these selections or omissions, and the same applies to the Gujarati edition. It carries a tagline stating that it is “inspired” by the daily diary of Maniben Patel. The editor of the Gujarati selections has clarified – unlike the English volume – that he chose material from 25 diaries as he deemed appropriate.

Among the discrepancies, the editor of the English translation wrote in the book’s introduction: “Nehru also raised the question of Babri Masjid but Sardar made it clear that the government could not spend any money for building a mosque.” (Inside Story of Sardar Patel, p. 24).

The entry dated 20.9.1950 in the same volume reads: “When reference about Babri Masjid erupted…Bapu [Sardar] said government cannot give money for building a mosque?” (p. 415).

Yet the original Gujarati diary records the opposite: “When the conversation turned to Babri Masjid…Bapu [as Maniben referred to her father] said Masjid bandhane ke liye to Sarkar paisa de sakati hai…” (The government could give money to build a mosque, Page 212)

Another instance of erroneous and misleading translation concerns the 1946 episode when Nehru became Congress president instead of Patel. The English version in the volume reads:

“At this juncture I could recall the whole episode which Bapuji told me. None of the province had recommended his (Jawaharlalji’s) name yet Bapu maintained silence. Bapuji categorically told him (Bapu) that even if not a single province desired him, I don’t want to make you my prop – yet he did not say anything.

“Kripalani also withdraws his candidature, and Kripalani himself proposed Bapu’s name and asked Bapu to authenticate it (sign). But he got his name withdrawn. How Jawaharlalji’s name was suggested by WC members in Delhi. Everything appeared before my eyes (like a film).” (The Diary of Maniben Patel, Page 211-212)

Maniben referred to her father as “Bapu” and to Gandhi as “Bapuji”. The passage remains confusing even after that clarification. It blurs the roles of Sardar and Nehru. It wrongly suggests that Kripalani proposed Sardar’s name, asked him to authenticate it.

Reading the original Gujarati entry brings at least some clarity. A more accurate translation would read:

“…This reminded me of the whole incident that Bapuji [Gandhiji] told me after calling me in Simla – that no province has sent his [Jawaharlalji’s] name. The name has come only from the WC [Working Committee] yet he [Nehru] said nothing. Bapuji [Gandhiji] also said that if the provinces do not wish, ‘I don’t want to make you [Nehru] my prop’ [noted originally in English]. Still, he [Nehru] did not say anything.

“Kripalani withdrew his name and Kripalani brought a draft [of withdrawal] written by him and got the signature of Bapu [Sardar] on it. Got his [Sardar’s] name withdrawn. How [Kripalani] got Jawaharlalji’s name proposed by the WC people in Delhi – All these flashed before my eyes…” (Page 79).

Several more discrepancies have come to light through random comparisons of the Gujarati text and its English translation.

An equally serious issue with the English edition is the silent omission of material from the original diary. The editors did not indicate or acknowledge these cuts. Random sampling shows a striking mismatch between the two versions.

For example, the English translation contains no entry for 21.6.1949, while the Gujarati selection has an almost two‑page account of the Rs 55 crore issue, which was the amount given to Pakistan after Partition, and Sardar’s views on it on the same date.

The Gujarati entry dated 23.6.1949 has two paragraphs that are missing from the English version. The English translation for 29.6.1949 is reduced to a single paragraph, whereas the Gujarati diary runs to more than two pages. Likewise, the Gujarati diary has a lengthy entry on 6.9.1949, but the English edition offers only three lines.

In the entry dated 13.9.1949, the sections dealing with freedom fighter Dadasaheb Mavalankar, the Gandhi Smarak Nidhi and Sastu Sahitya publication trust are omitted. Even where the original text is broken, the English translation presents it as continuous and complete, without using three dots to indicate a break.

Both the Gujarati and English diaries, as important publications, demand far greater clarity, transparency, and editorial procedure in the process of selection. The absence of explanatory footnotes, proper identification of individuals and correction of obvious proofing errors undermines the reliability of a primary source now coming to light for the first time.

Finally, it must be noted that Maniben’s diary is not written in a truly Gandhian spirit. It suffers from several limitations – a lack of precision in expression, a tendency to flatten complex narratives, and at times the use of rash language with insulting references.

Her account of the Nehru-Sardar presidentship episode of 1946 is particularly misleading in style, as it gives the impression that most of the events unfolded in a single meeting, when in fact they stretched over two to three weeks.

Taken together, these shortcomings diminish the historical weight and credibility of a primary source that otherwise holds immense potential value.

Urvish Kothari is a Gujarat-based writer, satirist, editor of A Plain, Blunt Man: The Essential Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel (2023).