Shyam Benegal

Lalit Mohan Joshi talks to the maestro  

Shyam Benegal’s leftist trilogy - Ankur (The Seedling, 1974), Nishant (Night’s End, 1975) and Manthan (The Churning, 1976) set the pace of the 1970s New Wave in Hindi Cinema. Although based on independent stories, these three films were thematically linked for voicing concern for India’s rural poor. Ankur dealt with the slow transformation of feudal India, Nishant depicted actual confrontation between feudal value systems and a new emerging rural India and Manthan saw social change actually coming. Benegal’s penchant with leftist themes continued with Arohan (Ascent, 1981), Susman (The Essence,1986) and Samar (Conflict, 1998) where he further explored the struggle and conflicts of the common man.

Shyam Benegal recently spoke to Lalit Mohan Joshi, Editor, South Asian Cinema journal  about the fallout of leftist ideology in Indian Cinema.

Lalit Mohan Joshi: How would you define the presence of leftist thought in Indian cinema?

Shyam Benegal: In post-independence Indian cinema there was a general atmosphere that we are building a new nation. There was this idea in Indian filmmakers as in writers and everybody else – it was in their blood – this feeling that they are on this adventure of building a new nation, a new independent nation. Because of that kind of feeling you could be critical, you could be anything, because the Indian constitution itself has it in its Preamble that we are creating a secular socialist nation. Although we haven’t removed the word socialist from the Constitution, we have, by and large, given up on socialism in many ways – though we still believe that a state has responsibility towards its people, and therefore there are measures of welfare and concerns from time to time in parliament about rural indebtedness, employment and we have this NREGA [National Rural Employment Guarantee Act] which is a guarantee of at least 100 days of work for rural people who live in our countryside which is a socialist kind of measure, so we have some such things.

What is important is to remember that because it has been so, there was always in the arts, a left of centre movement. You will notice that the left of centre social movement in all the arts, is a natural process of most societies for a very simple reason because the artist or writer tends to support the underdog.

LMJ: Has that been so in all societies?

SB: Yes, in all societies. If you look at the 1930s American cinema for the common man, they even went to the extent of calling some kinds of films social realism. If you remember some films made by Warner Brothers in the 1930s, you will find that many of them were even called social realism because they were socially concerned films. They took up the cause of the underdog. If you remember the big droughts that took place in central USA which created dust bowls and other problems following the great depression, you will notice that books like the Grapes of Wrath were written and films like Grapes of Wrath were made. The theme of these writings and films was a socialist state. Such themes were always there in all art and certainly in India, it was always left of centre. But I wouldn’t use Communist. I would use left of centre.

The most important literary and theatre movement which took the Indian intellectual scene by storm, was the Progressive Writers’ Group (PWG) and the Indian People’s Theatre Association (IPTA) movement. These were very much inspired by socialism and in many cases by the Communist Party of India (CPI) because several of the people who were writers and who saw themselves as members of the PWG and the IPTA, were card-carrying members of the CPI. People like Kaifi Azmi, KA Abbas and Balraj Sahni were at one time or another, members of the CPI. But certainly even if they did not contribute to the thinking of the Communists as such, they certainly contributed to the thinking of the socialists. They were broadly left of centre and naturally so. And, that situation in the arts has still not seriously changed even to this day. You may look with a critical microscope at the activities of the Communists and you may feel disturbed by them, but it does not mean that you have moved over completely moved to the right. What you would still do is that you would still stand up for the under dog, you would still look to see what the solutions might be. You would still like to portray the problems and exploitation of working class people of village India or those who have no voice and no one speaking for them such as tribal communities or women and their rights, empowerment etc. Naturally, if you look at these, it is always slightly left of centre because it is not part of the status quoist thinking.

LMJ: To use your expression this ‘left of centre’ undercurrent was strong during 1930s and 1940s. Certain films of  V. Shantaram, had definite leftist leanings.

SB: All Shantaram films including Satyajit Ray films. Satyajit Ray himself was once asked: Politically, where do you put yourself? He said: Has to be slightly left of centre.

LMJ: Did he?

SB: Yes, But when I say left of centre, it must not automatically be assumed that you are communist.

LMJ: What about Ritwik Ghatak and Mrinal Sen?

SB: Ritwik was a part of IPTA. As far as Mrinal is concerned, at one time he was very powerfully in favour of the Communist Movement even in his cinema.  If you remember, he almost made agitational propaganda type of kind of films particularly in the late 60s and early 70s. Even today, even a person you might not consider as having any political leanings, whether it be Aparna Sen or Rituparno Ghosh in Bengal or others, filmmakers would still be looking at society in terms of how to end exploitation or rather for you to be made aware of exploitative relationships.

LMJ: If you look at the 1970s and then the 1990s, there is a complete shift of the left in the mainstream commercial cinema.

SB: That’s because they moved away.

LMJ: Why?

SB: Purely because of their aspirations. Today’s Indian cinema represents the aspirations of the urban middle class. The aspirations of the urban middle class are the ones that are being presented or represented in our cinema.  Its focus is on all kinds of material wealth, consumerist fancy – everything that you think you need to have if you have to be happy. For happiness, people tend to think you must have expensive cars, you need to have this and that, you need to have holidays abroad. So, you will notice that these films have a definite reference to trips abroad if not living there altogether. Those are our aspirations. That’s the middle class aspiration. Today the dream of an urban Indian resembles very much the famous American dream.

LMJ: Concern for the common man seems to have gone out of the window. Isn’t that sad? 

SB: It is not a question of sadness or a feeling of loss. I wouldn’t like to be judgemental but I will say that the countryside has lost its charm Therefore, there is no option in that area even in terms of aspirations in the entertainment image. You don’t see an option there and it has fallen off the map. The Indian village has disappeared from the map of cinema.  If you do see village India, you will see it in Bhojpuri films or you will soon see in one Shyam Benegal film! Otherwise, you are not likely to see it!

LMJ: Why has this happened ?

SB: Because the policies for changing the economic circumstance of our country which have led to an overall average growth rate of 8 -9,% which we hope we sustain, mean that urban India is doing infinitely better than it ever did. It means that we can dream, as it were, very big and a lot of money is coming into the hands of entrepreneurs or people who intend to be in businesses. Those who own properties are becoming rich. Those in business and those starting new industries are becoming rich and opportunities to make money have become enormous for those who can take advantage of such situations either by way of circumstance or education. This situation in the country means that if you are either an educated middle class person or educated in a way, then this particular social circumstance helps you to gain whatever you wish to gain. Those things at one time did not seem possible, but today it’s very much within the realm of possibility. We are soon going to have more billionaires in our country than most parts of the world, including perhaps the USA.

LMJ: If you look back at the cinema of the 1970s, the kind of films you made, or Govind Nihalani, Ketan Mehta or Saeed Akhtar Mirza made, they had a lot of  progressive or leftist thought. Where exactly was it rooted? 

SB: I would say that was all part of the idealism, the hopes, the vision of the future at that point of time that determined this behaviour on the basis of the early years of India’s independence. Since we were a young independent nation and that we were creating our own destiny, it did not matter even if you were critical of the systems that were coming in the way of the realisation of the national dream of egalitarianism, universal education, empowerment of women, destruction of the caste system and such things that seemed to come in the way of change. Our cinema reflected that.

LMJ:  Where has it disappeared?

SB: There is no custom for such films. The truth is no people are willing to watch such films.

LMJ: Why?

SB: Particularly because cinema has become personal aspiration. People are thinking: Why should I sacrifice? Who am I sacrificing for?  What am I gaining from it? So now your personal gain is of great consequence. When India became independent, we also had the background of Gandhi’s thinking and of sacrifice. There was also the belief that man did not need much to be happy. Gandhi had famously said that there was enough in this world for everybody’s need but not for everybody’s greed. That’s what he said.  That has changed to another view, the urban middle class view that greed is good. Greed is good is also the thinking that gets the engine of growth going. Greed is good were the words used by Deng Xiaoping in China.

LMJ: The ideology seems to have come full circle. In West Bengal the rule by the Leftists - what is your take on Nandigram?

SB: Well if you look at Nandigram or Singur, the CPM believes that industrialisation is the way to the future like China did. The Special Economic Zone (SEZ) route is also a quicker one. It is fraught with other kinds of problems. If you want to start a Special Economic Zone for quick growth which the Government of India have accepted and the states have also accepted for quicker industrialisation because you don’t have to pay local taxes and there are export oriented industries and you can give enough jobs to people and compete with the rest of the world – this is the thinking behind the SEZ. But, the SEZ is land that belongs to somebody. Unless its land that belongs to the government, many factors come into play.

The major factor that comes into play is how you will evaluate that land that belongs to somebody and how much will you pay as compensation. Secondly, what happens to people who do not own that land but who make a living out of that land? How do you compensate them? Thirdly, it’s not just a question of a lump sum of money as compensation. In an old society like India, where people have been living in a place for many generations, their whole culture is built and created in a certain way. So, if you take land away from them, their entire culture collapses. They suddenly become people without a past, without a cultural past, without anything, without a connection because you’ve cut their roots off. If it happened to you, wouldn’t it be frightening? What will happen? First of all, are we fit enough to rehabilitate and resettle the displaced people?

Rehabilitation and resettlement packages haven’t so far been satisfactory. Whether they can ever be satisfactory is another matter.  But so far, none of the rehabilitation and resettlement packages have worked out successfully in any part of India.

The second point is about the basis on which the land had been bought. The land is being facilitated for private people to buy. Land that is under people who make a livelihood out of it, is being taken away and private people are buying that land to start their industry and make the country prosperous at least in theory.  But what is the basis on which you are acquiring that land? You are acquiring that land on the basis of a Land Acquisition Act that was brought about by the British in 1894. So it’s totally exploitative. There was a little insignificant amendment made to it in 1988.

So until the Act is examined properly, I don’t believe the government has any right to facilitate the selling of land to a private individual. A private individual will do everything for his personal profit or that of his shareholders. How is that person interested in the people? The government cannot expect that they will be concerned about rehabilitation and resettlement. Why should they?

LMJ: What are you driving at? 

SB:  I am trying to say is that if you are doing any of this, you had better be very very careful. Think seriously. Don’t rush into it, because the consequences can be like what happened in Nandigram. That’s what I’m trying to say. CPM has fallen into the same trap as the rest of the so called capitalist thinking states.

LMJ: Do you think Jyoti Basu is right in his thinking about the way forward?

SB: Yes if you have once accepted the paradigm that progress consists of being industrialised. If you have accepted the paradigm that materiality is very important for people to consider themselves as living a good life; if materiality is necessary to make you feel that you are living a good life, then that paradigm of progress comes in which way?  In true industrialisation – clearly. We know that.   Jyoti Basu is saying that.

The other alternate to that is what Gandhi said. Now, if you go by what Gandhi said, 90% of this country will immediately revolt and say No!  But human beings being human beings, they also do not want – particularly rural and tribal communities when they are dislodged from their situation, they are in a traumatised state. They are in a state of being torn away from their past, fractured. They live fractured lives. So, when artists think about this, they think about the human side of all this.

LMJ: Will artists continue to project such human trauma? 

SB: Of course they will, but for a lot of people aspirational cinema is clearly more entertaining. Wouldn’t it? Living in a grand mansion in the north of England or Switzerland or Australia or in the beautiful countryside in New Zealand – unpolluted! Going about it BMWs!

LMJ: Having one song in Switzerland, another in London!

SB: Ya, wherever, wherever!

LMJ: Isn’t that ridiculous?

SB: I don’t wish to judge them but these things succeed because people also want them.

LMJ: So, the bankruptcy also springs from our audiences.

SB: Yes!

ENDS

Lalit Mohan Joshi is an Indian film historian and editor of the thematic journal South Asian Cinema. He has been a Hindi Broadcast Journalist with the BBC Hindi Service for the last 20 years and has produced acclaimed radio features in Hindi for the BBC. A well known film critic he has written extensively in English and Hindi on Indian Cinema. His books Bollywood – Popular Indian Cinema (2002) and A Door to Adoor (2006) and the documentary  Beyond Partition (2006) have won critical acclaim. He is the Director of the London based film organisation South Asian Cinema Foundation (SACF) committed to inspiring a film culture and promoting meaningful cinema . 

A special issue of ‘South Asian Cinema - Leftist Thought in Indian Cinema’ carries this interview. To receive a copy contact editor@southasiancinema.com or lalitmohanjoshi@gmail.com or ring SACF - 020 8230 5765.