Bollywood of 50’s - A Socialist Project
- In Society
- 08:08 AM, Nov 30, 2015
- Aviral Kapoor
Barren broken earth, drought, and unkempt poor farmers rejoicing at the first sound of thunder is the beginning of the seminal classic Do Bigha Zameen (1953). Directed by Bimal Roy, this film ushered a new wave of Indian cinema. Shambhu Mahato (Balraj Sahni) a poor farmer owes money to the Zamindaar and is threatened to sell his land in lieu of his debt. The Zamindaar wants to build a factory on Shambhu’s land and bring electricity to the village. The Munshi forges the accounts and increases Shambhu’s debt to Rs. 235 from the original of Rs. 65. Shambhu is forced to go to the city to earn money to save his land. What follows is a heartbreaking tale of loss, and exploitation. This film defined how a newly independent India came to romanticize poverty and subsistence farming. The damage is so deep, that even to this day, real Shambhu Mahato’s of India have not been able to recover from it.
Before we criticize the impact of such films and try to analyze them, we must explore the real problems highlighted in them. For instance lack of both irrigation and credit are real problems that plague Indian farming to this day. Everyone from Incumbent Politicians, central bankers, and retail stock investors look southeast every summer and pray for a good monsoon. When monsoons fail or are inadequate, every few years’ politicians waive off farm loans. And the vicious cycle continues year on year. As subsistence farming becomes increasingly uneconomic some farmers commit suicide, which generates outrage or a vast majority are forced to find work as day laborers in cities, which is barely reported. All the talking heads on TV blame the Government of the day, which seems to be true across party lines and political ideologies and the vicious cycle continues.
Another problem highlighted by such films was of exploitation of the poor farmers at the hands of rich zamindars and moneylenders. Zamindars have been replaced now by the all-powerful bureaucratic state. It may not look as exploitative, but effects are similar. What Zamindars did through fear and exploitation, the state achieves with omission and restrictions. No other civilian enterprise is as heavily dependent on government largesse as farming. From the price and availability of seeds and pesticide, to the minimum support price of agricultural produce; all is controlled by the government. Farmers could also only sell their produce to state appointed middlemen, but this seems to be changing. There are also severe restriction on agricultural land use and size of ownership.
Another pivotal epic of the time is Mother India (1957). Directed by Mehboob Khan it is one of the highest grossing films in Indian cinema history. Widely lauded in India, it became India’s first submission to the Academy Awards and was nominated for Best Foreign Language Film (1958). A remake of his 1940 film Aurat, it is the story of Radha (Nargis) a woman who battles insurmountable odds to raise her children after her husband abandons her. She toils in the field, while keeping her family and the village together. The antagonist Sukhilala (Kanhaiyalal) is the evil village moneylender who wants Radha to marry him to settle her families’ debts. The film is reminiscent of soviet socialist imagery from Radha pulling the plow, to the villagers forming the map of India.
Do Bigha Zameen, Mother India are great examples of Indian Cinema of the 1950’s. They also provide a window into popular culture and village life of the time. To critique them will be considered sacrilegious by many. But there is a central theme in all of these that must be discussed. There is almost always a derision of wealth and deification of poverty. This window to the time is important to note. In Do Bigha Zameen and Mother India there was a shylockian portrayal of moneylenders. It was borderline bigotry; as to this day “Baniagiri” is a derisive term to describe any businessmen, Bania’s being the class or caste of moneylenders. The Bania or the moneylender was portrayed as the greedy, conniving, lustful villain, who would always want more than his due. Were all moneylenders of the time evil? Is it ok to generalize any class or caste of people? And use the generalization to paint this group as villains? For any sensible person the answer to these questions should be, NO.
Another notable omission in these films was any criticism of the state, which failed in creating policies facilitating basic irrigation and credit facilities in the villages. To be fair, In its wisdom the Indian state has spent a lot of money and has done more than mere lip service on the farmers. Large parts of Northern India were also irrigated. Mother India seems to praise the Indian state, as it is primarily a flashback, when an old Radha is called upon to inaugurate a canal, and she ponders upon her life. But till today there are many Radha’s across India who have to suffer great odds to make ends meet. Farming for them is a curse; something they cannot seem to shake off unlike the fictional Radha. They don’t have the luxury to ponder.
It is natural to feel pain and concern for the poor, and one must understand that directors like Bimal Roy, Mehboob Khan had good intentions behind making such films. They must not be singled out for criticism, for such films were a symptom and not the disease. Most Indian politicians and thinkers of the time were deeply influenced by Soviet Socialism. Many more still are.
One must also look back at the great socialist state project of the 1950’s. For all intents and purposes the project was an experiment, which has failed. The results are there for us to see, although after 1991 reforms of the urban economy many may not be able to see it. But for farmers this is a stark reality. Farmers no longer want their children to follow in their footsteps. For many farmers education of their children is the only salvation. Survey after survey states this simple fact. Yet schools and other social infrastructure in villages are severely wanting. Farmers wait for the perennial monsoon, which is frequently unreliable. And many end their lives.
One can only hope farmers are freed from government interference in agriculture, this may not happen overnight, nor may that be desirable. But in the medium term, farmers should be able to access irrigation, electricity, storage facilities, and access to markets for their produce from the free market at market price. Farmers should also be allowed to sell their land if they wish; at a rate they desire or be able to convert their land for other commercial use. These are the broad lessons inferred from reading assorted reports and newspapers and should be taken with a handful of salt.
True solution to this perpetual despair is beyond the scope of this article. One only wishes to learn from the mistakes of the masters, and not try to give rural policy advice based on films. For any art is the study of society and is deeply influenced by social mores present at the time of its creation, but its understanding is limited to that of the artist and represents his or her biases. These biases profoundly affect the art that is created and are necessary for it, but cannot be considered a holistic view of society. Art is an experiment in emotion; but emotions do not make good public policy.
Comments