CINEMATIC NATIONALISM AND

NATIONALISTIC CINEMA:
Tracing Cinema as a Site of National Identity

BY-
TANMAY KULSHRESTHA
M.A.HISTORY
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI
2016

1
 Fil is a disturbing symbol of an increasingly post-literate world (in which people
a read ut wo 't) 1
--ROBERT A. ROSENSTONE
If according to Stuart Hall, popular culture is a site where "collective social
understandings are created"2 then we may ask: What understandings of
Nationalism may we arrive at from cinema? Since mainstream cinema cannot be
understood by excluding its deeply commercial moorings, we need to look at
some of the views of the audiences. The key word here is "pleasure". Audiences
go to the movies principally for entertainment. The cinematic experience is not
restricted however merely to the bounded space of the theatre; it spills over into
spaces outside of it that is constituted by a plethora of ancillary experiences such
as listening to film music, reading of film magazines, newspaper film reviews and
interviews of stars, joining fan clubs, etc. The cinematic images in historical films
evoke the past event constantly and yet assert themselves in terms of their own
autonomy. Thus when we analyze historical films, we need to keep in mind the
salience of the cinematic image alongside the historicity of the narrative.
Further, I argue that films may be considered as constituting important historical
sources by raising questions such as: To what extent can popular cinema take on
the burden of recreating historical events accurately? Can films be seen as
legitimate historical sources? Can cinema be considered a site for the production
of historical knowledge? Even if so, then can Cinema capture the imagination of
the Nation?

In the beginning cinema appeared for many observers to be the first truly global,
transnational medium, for this simple reason: it had no or very little language.
Later during its first decade, it acquired language (intertitles) but still had no
speech.
Hindi cinema, since the beginnings, has shown an abiding interest in momentous
events that are bound to become part of history. Together with K. Asif and Kamal
1
Robert A. Rosenstone-The Historical Film: Looking at the Past in a Post literate Age
2
Stuart Hall-Notes On De-constructing The Popular

2
Amrohi, Sohrab Modi3 pioneered the spectacular genre of historical film in India.
The narrative of Kanjibhai Rathod's silent film Bhakt Vidur (1921) was an allegory
of Gandhian swadeshi. Interestingly, it was the first Indian movie to face a ban in
the country. In this film the Hindu mythological character of Vidura was molded
on the personality of Gandhi.
History therefore serves the purpose of a mnemonic device. As a narrative it
selects, rejects, includes, and then establishes the boundaries of memory that can
then be crossed safely without the threat of being trespassed. History in turn also
enables all generations to claim some part of the past for themselves. For the
older generation, it is a vehicle to travel smoothly from the past to present, while
still clinging on to a select portion of memories. Whereas, for the younger
generations, who have not been a part of that process, it is to weave for them a
reality that allows them to be a part of the collectivity called nation. Ultimately,
the present takes over the entire memory process and restructures not only the
past but also shapes the future.
All the same, what little historical information such films convey is significant for
its value as an informative channel to the masses that include those who do not
have access to the written word. Besides, the ideological inflection given to the
historical data is open to critique and contestation. Films with their predominance
of visual signifiers also contribute significantly to the construction of national and
social memory.

As far as Cinema and Nationalism is concerned, film is perhaps the single

strongest agency for the creation of a national mythology of heroism,
consumerism, leisure, and sociality4. In light of this statement we can analyze how
this national mythology is created. Whenever a myth about a nation is created
the people of the nation are projected in a glorified way. Usually they are
presented as brave, intelligent and basically good people who overcome all sorts
of impediments with the help of courage, knowledge or presence of mind.
Obviously there would be villains who create all sorts of problems for the
3
Credited with films like Sikander (1941); Ek Din Ka Sultan (1945); Jhansi Ki Rani (1953); Mirza Ghalib (1954) and
many more.
Appadurai, Arjun, and Carol A. Breckenridge (ed.) Pu li Moder ity i I dia. Co su i g Moder ity: Pu li
4

Culture in Contemporary India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1996. 1-20.

3
hero/heroine, or people in general, but these villains are later destroyed or
defeated. One can therefore say that epics are the main generators/originators of
such myths and world order, and are the prime narratives from which later
narratives are derived. Films, for instance, is an art form whose narrative has
been derived from these epics. Bollywood films, accordingly, borrow from myths
and grand narratives of good vs evil espoused in Ramayana and Mahabharata,
and are repeated over and over again in the films, albeit with new treatments.
This technique of the upholding of the Indian values becomes all the more
important when they are threatened abroad. An Indian often realizes that he/she
is an Indian the moment he/she leaves the country. Indian values are glorified as
a part of the struggle on the part of the Indian to maintain his/her identity which
is threatened under the pervasive influence of the foreign culture. The
valorization of the ethics of Indian-ness is a defense mechanism of the psyche
of the individual who is overwhelmed by everything alien. By asserting the values
of the Indian culture, the individual assures his/her unique presence amidst the
foreign environment. This could happen consciously or unconsciously. The people
who want them to be assimilated in the foreign culture imitates the life style of
the west consciously but deep down at the unconscious level he/she is resisting
the same by some act that surprisingly takes him/her closer to his/her roots.

Films have the power to influence the thinking of the people. They have changed
the society and social trends. They have introduced new fashions in society. They
may be described as pace-setters. They can create a direct impact on our social
life. Films can go a long way towards arousing national consciousness and also in
utilizing the energies of the youth in social reconstruction and nation-building by a
skillful adaption of good moral, social and educative themes, and by introduction
of popular sentiments, films can, to a great extent, formulate and guide public
opinion. Because of their audio visual appeal cinema films are the most powerful
means of publicity and advertisement. Small publicity pictures or skits when
shown on the screen easily catch the imagi- atio of spe tators.
The difference between the historical a d other i e a lies o l i the for er s
attempt to reconstruct period history with the help of legend and historiography.
Early Indian i e a s e plo e t of histor does ot appear surprising given the

4
colonial conditions in which it labored. A society denied historical agency by its
foreign rulers was bound to respond with its own version of the past. By the time
the cinema came into the hands of the Indian elite the social need to imagine,
construct and define group and individual identities had assumed a paramount
political importance at various levels of Indian society.
Cinema has the power to influence popular sensibilities by the use of historical
imagination. Films offer an opportunity, according to Franklin Fearing5, for the
expression of the basic meanings inherent in the relationships of human beings to
each other, to their environment and to the society, of which they are a part. This
is not limited to a passive reflection of those meanings, but may be a dynamic and
creative interpretation. The picture goer finds affirmations for his doubts,
alternative solutions for his problems and the opportunity to experience ways of
behaving beyond the horizons of his personal world. The motion picture in this
sense is the most powerful instrument of culture.
It is true that the depiction of societies other than the viewers own has widened
the information base of viewers in general in the same way as the internet has.
But this depiction, far fro de elopi g objective oder ist k o ledge a d
critical intelligence, reinforces pre-existing stereotypes. For example, the majority
of American pictures are both informative and historically discursive. They convey
a carefully edited and constructed West to their audience. How these images are
received in the third world, including India, with its colonial and post-colonial
social contexts. Needless to say that these images assist the narratives of gender,
freedom, morality, sexuality, infrastructure, progress, culture and wealth
prevalent in society. On the other hand, the reaction of Hollywood generalizations
in Indian cinema has been intriguing. Confronted with the highly admired western
modernity, Hindi cinema has generally tried to portray a moral Indian world which
is both amorphous and elusive. The Phir bhi dil hai Hindustani and I love my India
motifs run through the populist films to the more recent Bollywood extravaganzas
shot abroad. Often the clash with westernized modernity appears as the rural-
urban conflict- a subject of many Hindi films like Upkaar6 or Dharti Kahe Pukar Ke7
romanticize the north Indian village.

5
Panna shah, The Indian film
6
1967; Dir. Manoj Kumar
7
1969; Dir. Dulal Guha

5
All manner of such rituals, ceremonies, symbols, and the national narratives that
install them in the collective memory of Indian identity are the ways Indians have
imagined their nationality. The importance of this active and ongoing practice of
i agi atio for atio hood as the su je t of Be edi t A derso s rightfull
classic study of nationalism, Imagined Communities. Flags, stories, songs, pictures,
and monuments can be powerful means of imagining a common identity.
Nationalism does not supersede religion, according to Anderson, but develops
from it.8
Nationalism as an imagined community is most interesting as most of the nations
that we know today, people who are living in them feel loyal to themselves and
others too and in fact do not know who the vast majority of their fellow nationals
are, they will never meet them and yet they feel this strange, sort of abstract
solidarit a d it s ot e e ith li i g people. The loyalties can be and usually are
to generations of dead people and even more extra-ordinary generations of
people who have not yet been born and this imagining of ghostly ancestors and
even more so ghostly descendants is extraordinary for the imagined communities.
Anderson goes on to say that the seeds of this imagination are sown by the print
media which takes over the perception of people with its outreach and with its
ability to transcend to different places, times and generations. However,
Anderson only limits himself to the print culture whilst talking of the fuel which
energizes the imagination. If the idea of the nation is imagined, then it can be
transcended through archetypes or recurrent motifs. The audio-visual here plays
a big role. The use of national symbols like songs, animals, birds, flags etc. have
the ability to connect to the people belonging to varying times and places. It
transcends itself as an ideology.

The cinematic experience in the context of Indian nationalism may be divided on

the lines of History as Drama, History as Document and History as Experiment. As
far as History as Drama is concerned it has been suggested by Natalie Davis9 that
it can be divided into two broad categories: films based on documentable persons

8
Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, London; 1991
9
Natalie Zemon Davis, "Any Resemblance to Persons Living or Dead' : Film and the Challenge of Authenticity," Yale
Review 76 (1987), 457-82

6
or events or movements (Gandhi10, Jinnah11, Swami Vivekananda12, Sardar13, Dr.
Babasaheb Ambedkar14) and those whose central plot and characters are
fictional, but whose historical setting is intrinsic to the story and meaning of the
work (Garam Hawa15, Tamas,16 Lagaan17). But this distinction does not in fact
have much explanatory power, for the categories quickly break down. For
instance the films like Mangal Pandey: The Rising18 and Asoka19 follows the
common strategy of placing fictional characters next to historical characters in
settings alternately documentable and wholly invented.
History as document is a more recent form than history as drama. What we mean
here by document is not a written form of history, but rather a form of history
that is well documented in the form visuals, or in simple words, a documentary. In
the most common force, a narrator (and/or historical witnesses or experts)
speaks while we see recent footage of historical sites intercut with older footage,
often from newsreels, along with photos, artefacts, paintings, graphics,
newspaper and magazine clippings .
Professional historians trust history as document rather more than history as
drama because it seems closer in spirit and practice to written history. It seems
both to deliver "facts" and to make some sort of traditional historical argument,
whether as a feature or as a series. For i sta e “.N.“astr s I am 2020 and Anand
Patwardhan s Ram Ke Naam21 (1992) were exemplary when it came to showcase
the varied forms nationalism took on set within different contexts. But a major
problem for documentary lies precisely in the promise of its most obviously
"historical" materials. All those old photographs and all that newsreel footage are

10
1982;Dir.Richard Attenborough
11
1998;Dir.Jamil Dehlavi
12
1998;Dir.G.V.Iyer
13
1993;Dir.Ketan Mehta
14
2000;Dir.Jabbar Patel
15
1974;Dir.M.S.Sathyu
16
1987;Dir.Govind Nihlani
17
2001;Dir.Ashutosh Gowariker
18
2005;Dir.Ketan Mehta
19
2001;Dir.Santosh Sivan
20
1967; This film was about documenting those born on Independence Day in 1947 selected from different parts
of India and interviewed to know their hopes and desires, ambitions, hobbies, fears and frustrations and the result
is this unique film.
21
This controversial film explores the campaign waged by the Hindu-nationalist Vishva Hindu Parishad to build a
Ram temple at the site of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya, as well as the communal violence that it triggered.

7
saturated with a prepackaged emotion: nostalgia which leaves less to the
imagination of the viewer. The claim is that we can see (and, presumably, feel)
what people in the past saw and felt. But that is hardly the case. For we can
always see and feel much that the people in the photos and newsreels could not
see: that their clothing and automobiles were old-fashioned, that their landscape
lacked skyscrapers and other contemporary buildings, and that their world was
black and white (and haunting) and gone.
History as an experiment is nothing but what we witness as the art house cinema
or parallel cinema, which is appreciated only by the classes rather than the
masses. What these films have in common (apart from lack of exposure) is that all
are made in opposition to the mainstream Bollywood films. Not just to the subject
matter of Bollywood but to the very way Bollywood commercial films construct
an artificial world on the screen. All the struggle in one or more ways against the
codes of representation of the film are standard. All refuse to see the screen as a
transparent "window" onto a "realistic" world. Films of Satyajit Ray tried to
accomplish the same. His films were set in real time and were appreciated for its
historical accuracy.
Such works also hold importance for our understanding of the past, since they
narrow down the fictionalized tone of the presentation and focus more on the
minute details of the context in which the story is being presented. From
delineating the behavioral characteristics of the people living in those times to the
ideological repercussions being experienced in the same times, such works
provide the possibility of what might be called a "serious" historical film, a
historical film that parallels-but is very different from-the "serious" or scholarly
ritte histor . At its est, histor as e peri e t pro ises a re isiti g of hat
we mean by the Word History .
Popular Hindi cinema has, since the first film was made in India in 1913, played a
central role in the formulation of the national identity and in the promotion of
normative behavior. “o u h so that fil is perhaps the si gle stro gest age
for the creation of a national mythology of heroism, consumerism, leisure, and
sociality.22 Indeed popular Indian cinema in Hindi constitutes a particularly
interesting area of study as much because of its history as because of its key role

22
Appadurai & Breckenridge 1996

8
in the creation of the national identity and its place in the collective imagination.
Directors, producers, distributors, financiers, officials in the Central Board of Film
Certification (Censor Board) all seek to ensure the projection of lucrative,
aesthetically pleasant and acceptable contents. This results in a prescriptive and
normative body of works that have, over the years, reflected and mostly shaped
ideas of national identity, gendered behavior, and acceptability.

If 1757 marked the Battle of Plassey and 1857 witnessed the first revolution on a
massive scale against the colonial power, 1957 too was a milestone in the history
of Indian nationalism. It was the year when Mehboob Khan made Mother India23.
Mother India was soon followed by many others, one of which was Haqeeqat
(1964), directed by Chetan Anand. This is considered I dia s first war film.
Haqeeqat was a film about Indo-China war and a tale of heroic defeat and
martyrdom. A film made a year after Haqeeqat, in 1965, started off the nationalist
career of Manoj Kumar, the undisputed master of cinematic patriotism. This film
was Shaheed24, a black-and-white retelling of the Bhagat Singh story, which, 40
years later, inspired many others to tell their version of the same story albeit with
different styles of narration.
I will categorize nationalist filmmaking into three loose categories. The first being
the anti-colonial nationalist films. Shaheed as Ma oj Ku ar s take o a ti-
colonial desh-bhakti. Other films of these category include The Legend of Bhagat
Singh25, Mangal Pandey26, and the recent Khelein Hum Jee Jaan Se27, among many
others.
The second category includes the anti-West films that tried to purge Indians of
the permissiveness of the West. Purab aur Paschim28 was the defining film here
with Saira Bano cast as the foreign-returned Indian girl, and Manoj Kumar playing
the anchored, authentically Indian foil. The power of this stereotype can be

23
The first Indian film to be selected for the Academy Awards in the foreign language film category, pointing out
towards its far reaching popularity.
24
1965; Dir. S. Ram Sharma
25
2002; Dir. Rajkumar Santoshi
26
2005; Dir. Ketan Mehta
27
2010; Dir. Ashutosh Gowariker
28
1970; Dir. Manoj Kumar

9
judged by the faithfulness with which Namastey London29 updated Purab aur
Paschim. Swades30 and Lagaan31 vaguely fall into this category.
Finally, there is the anti-Pakistan film. While Upkar32 was made in the wake of the
19 ar ith Pakista , is t a fil po ered a ti-Pakistan chauvinism,
contrary to popular belief. Manoj Kumar does go to war in the course of the film,
ut that s i ide tal to the stor . I teresti gl , a ti- Pakistan films of India are
strictly secular in nature. Be it Gadar33, Border34, LOC Kargil35, Sarfarosh36, A
Wednesday37 or Roja38, all the films speak of a greater cause of the nation beyond
religion.
Interestingly all these films, although belonging to different categories,
accomplish one single goal, i.e. fueling the national imagination and creating the
idea of an Indian nation.

Then we should raise questions like can films speak of the past in a historical
sense? The haphazard nature of history on film and the lack of professional
control makes it all the more necessary that historians who care about public
history learn how to "read" and "judge" a film, learn how to mediate between the
historical world of the filmmaker and that of the historian.
Films having no relation at all to historical events may also throw light on the
historical processes of that time. For instance, the visual spaces created in a frame
on the screen can tell us a lot about the clothing pattern, house structures,
cuisines, types of vehicles, the aesthetics and so on concerning that time. These
for a part of the i e tio i the fil s stor li e. The fill up the e pt spa es
present in the story of the film. They provide the necessary background to the
characters being picturized.

29
2007; Dir. Vipul Amrutlal Shah
30
2004; Dir. Ashutosh Gowariker
31
2001; Dir. Ashutosh Gowariker
32
1967; Dir. Manoj Kumar
33
2001; Dir. Anil Sharma
34
1997; Dir. J.P.Dutta
35
2003, Dir. J.P.Dutta
36
1999; Dir. John Mathew Matthan
37
2008; Dir. Neeraj Pandey
38
1992; Dir. Mani Ratnam

10
The same is true of character. All films will include fictional people or invented
elements of character. The very use of an actor to "be" someone will always be a
kind of fiction. If the person is "historical," the realistic film says what cannot truly
be said, that this is how this person looked, moved, and sounded. If the individual
has been created to exemplify a group of historical people looked, moved, and
sounded. Both can obviously be no more than approximations of particular
historical individuals, approximations that carry out some sense that we already
have about how such people acted, moved, sounded, and behaved.
Films may show us the world, or the surface of part of the world, but it can never
provide a literal rendition of events that took place in the past. It can never be an
exact replica of what happened. Of course, historical recounting has to be based
on what literally happened, but the recounting itself can never be literal. Not on
the screen and not, in fact, in the written word. The written word works
differently from the image. The word can provide vast amounts of data in a small
space. The word can generalize, talk of great abstractions like revolution,
evolution, and development, and make us believe that these things exist. To talk
of such things is not to talk literally, but to talk in a symbolic or general way about
the past. Film, with its need for a specific image, cannot make general statements
about revolution or progress. Instead, film must summarize, synthesize,
generalize and symbolize in images. It is the historian's task to learn how to
"read" this filmic historical vocabulary.
Having said that, text remain inherent and of utmost necessity for any film.
Without text we cannot imagine dialogues, script, lyrics, not even a basic
storyline. Words although chosen with utmost care and combined with the visuals
have a more long lasting impact on the viewers. Any film begins its journey on a
paper. Even films depicting historical events takes cues form historical texts from
where the claims of a film can be corroborated. The written text in some ways
systematizes and legitimizes the film. It gives the film a touch of authenticity
albeit this authenticity then depends on the authenticity of the text itself.
At the outset, we must accept that films cannot be seen as a window onto the
past. What happens on screen can never be more than an approximation of what
was said and done in the past; what happens on screen does not depict, but
rather points to, the events of the past. This means that it is necessary for us to

11
learn to judge the ways in which film summarizes vast amounts of data or
symbolizes complexities that otherwise could not be shown. We must recognize
that film will always include images that are at once invented and true in the
sense that they symbolize, condense, or summarize larger amounts of data; true
in the sense that they impart an overall meaning of the past that can be verified,
documented, or reasonably argued.

In Purab Aur Paschim39, the emigrant, whose Indian origin is this time not denied,
is presented in an extremely unfavorable light. The young hero played by Manoj
Kumar is named Bharat (India) and quite explicitly embodies the nation. He takes
a visit to London and with it he carries with himself the cultural baggage of his
birth place, again, India. Manoj Kumar, who is also the fil s dire tor, pai ts a
negative image of a metropolis obsessed by consumerism and sex. Living abroad
means here living in a den of depravity and uncensored appetites and losing or
re ou i g o e s origi al moral values. In these conditions, emigration can only
be shown as a egati e phe o e o a d the igra t as the moral a titheses of
the real Indian40. The popularity of this film can be gauged from the fact that this
story line was re-iterated in the comparatively recent film Namastey London.
Until the 1990s, the foreigner was thus an absolute counter-example and anti-
hero whose salvation lay in a dramatic change of status. And the foreigner was
none other than the British in most cases. Thus, trying to draw an analogy with
the pre-independence sentiments of Indians.
Before soaring to pan-India and later international fame with Do Bigha Zameen41
that spoke of the travails of Shambhu the peasant, Bimal Roy had, almost a
decade earlier, in 1944, become a household name in Bengal with Udayer Pathey
(Towards the dawn), his directorial debut in Bengali. In fact it became so
successful in its days that it was remade in the very next year in Hindi as Humrahi
in 1945.

39
1970; Dir. Manoj Kumar
40
Patricia Uberoi The diaspora comes home: Disciplining desire in DDLJ; Contributions to Indian Sociology
November 1998 vol. 32 no. 2 305-336
41
1953; Dir. Bimal Roy

12
Bi al ‘o s orks all ha e a disti t fla or of so ial realis a out the , a d
Udayer Pathey is steeped in that flavor. It is the story of Anup Chaudhuri, an
intrepid writer-intellectual who upholds the cause of the proletariat in a system
where the balance of power is skewed towards the moneyed class. The context in
which the film came out influenced the visual text that it tried to recreate. Thus,
Udayer Pathey came about when the rich-poor divide was in plain view, and
inescapably so the famine, the inflation of the war years, and the economic
hardships that were the exclusive lot of the poor had irredeemably polarized the
haves and the have-nots into two incompatible camps.
This social divide rings loud and clear in the opening scenes of Udayer Pathey. A
luxurious chauffeur-driven car makes its way to a poorer part of Calcutta as the
ealth Gopa Ba erjee drops off her poor lass ate “u ita at the latter s ho e.
But for all the lack of material wealth in the house, there seems to be an
a u da e of oral a d i telle tual ealth. “u ita s rother, A up, li es and
breathes celebrated minds. The walls of his room are covered in his drawings of
Tagore, Bernard Shaw, Vivekananda, Aurobindo, Bankim Chandra, Gandhi and
Karl Marx.
Indeed, as the socialist argument goes, in the capitalist system profits are
flagrantly tilted in favor of those who own the means of production. The rich have
the ea s, hi h the poor do t, a d that is what makes all the difference. The
socialist framework of Udayer Pathey plays out in the context of the nationalist
struggle against British rule. With economic and political subjugation thus
i e tri a l i tert i ed, the fil s apitalist-worker divide is concurrent with the
ruler-ruled—and West-East—divide of the times.
Udayer Pathey was, at various levels, an innovative film and one that set the
standards for realism in Indian cinema. Although the fil s de idedl la k-and-
white treatment of the rich-poor divide does seem rather simplistic, the
exposition of class differences was relevant at a time of rising national
consciousness, when the country was busy setting aside differences of class,
caste, gender, and religion to coalesce against foreign rule.
There is a sense in which the larger nationalist aspirations of the day merge into
the fil s so ialist aspiratio s: that Udayer Pathey opens to Jana Gana Mana not
et the atio al a the i 19 , suggests that the fil s so ialist drea is at o e
13
a dream of free India—free from the skewed power structures of capitalism and
colonialism, both of which alienate and dispossess the colonized. Characters in
the film not only strip the workers of their rights to a dignified life but goes one
step further when they villainously rob their intellect and creativity. This sort of an
elemental plundering is fundamental to colonialism, which dispossesses not only
at the material level, but also, very significantly, at the inner level. Thus the image
of the antagonist in his western suit, throwing his weight around, unscrupulously
appropriating what is not rightfully his, is indisputably in the colonialist mold.
Gopa s risi g re ellio a d her final desertion of the villain , one of her own, to
join hands with Anup—and the people— disturbs the status quo of the capitalism-
colonialism combine and is symbolic of the weakening colonial grip over India.
The path towards dawn at the end of the film prepares the path towards a new,
independent India.

Cinema being a performative art, came to be influenced by the period of its

creation. A Bhakt Vidur could not have been created in the manner it was, had
not Mahatma Ga dhi s non-cooperation movement gathered momentum and
found general public support. Gautam Kaul in his work specifies that before 1947,
an average of 160 films per year were made in the country. But by 1947, film
production had crossed the 275 released film mark. Yet the number of films which
related to the theme of the freedom struggle could not have exceeded ten in any
given year.42
Among the first major acts which the parliament was asked to approve after India
attained freedom was the amended Cinematograph act of 1918. In effect, the
new act and its attending regulations created a new Board of film Censors, a new
set of guidelines on categorizing films for public screening and new controls on
the release of film raw stock and equipment for film making. There were,
however some, from within the film industry who found time to be reflective on
the contribution of Indian cinema who could be identified as having shared the
pai of i the struggle for freedo for the ou tr . The people s ele ted
government now installed, could adopt this group of traders in cinema for official
patronage and business support. A demand was made from within the Indian
42
Gautam Kaul- Cinema and the Indian freedom struggle; Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi, 1998; p.203

14
cinema to get one representative of this sector of business to sit in the Indian
parliament. The Indian national congress and Nehru finally conceded the demand
and Prithviraj Kapoor was nominated as the first member in Rajya Sabha to
represent the Indian film industry. Thus, the importance of cinema in creating a
public memory was being realized by law makers and the film makers alike with
the gaining of independence.
Films ridiculed social taboos, outworn customs, negative conventions and also
sartorial influences of western civilization, thus reinforcing national pride. A
hole ra ge of fil s hi h fell i the ge eri ter of so ial the es eulogized
things Indian, Swadeshi and the secular. Practically in each film, there would be a
khadi clad youth, a Muslim character as a young friend, or elder kindred soul. The
negative forces would be represented by a character imitating the western ways
alone, or in a group, or even as a villainous character.
Every such film left its psychological impact on the audiences. Therefore, a film
had to be really bad to be greeted with outright condemnation of the critics and
the audience. Such films existed then as they exist today. The difference was that
even a very bad film made before 1947, did speak of some social values dear to
the general pu li . Irrele a t i e a is a re e t happe i g. If a fil failed i
those days, it did so on account of poor story, or poor production values, but did
not lack widest broadcast of the social message in it. It was so also because,
making a film in those days was a costly and painstaking affair, and therefore any
and every film that was made was well thought after. Sometimes the
controversial message itself spelt success, as in Achhut Kanya43 or Raithu Bidda44
Movies as brainwashing mechanisms have the ability to influence thought
patterns. Scholarly works on cinema reveal how much the imported films
influenced not just the fashion of the day but also social norms of developing
countries. Indian films generally stood as a solid barrier on both the fronts. An
offshoot of this particular phenomenon is the making of films, such as Saat
Hindustani45 and Uttarayanam46 that lament the loss of the spirit of nationalism
of the period of national freedom struggle.

43
1936; Dir.Franz Osten
44
1939;Dir.Gudavalli Ramabrahmam (Tamil Film)
45
1969; Dir.Khwaja Ahmad Abbas
46
1975 Dir. G.Aravindan (Malayalam Film)

15
I Wa i g the Flag, A dre Higso argues that a atio does ot e press itself
through ulture: it is ulture that produ es the atio 47. The logic of the colonial
Empire produced a nation concretized through political, economic, and legal
measures. But it is through cultural productions that the nation is imagined: the
sphere of education, history, literary fiction, newspapers, television, and, the
most overlooked of all—Films, which popularizes that imagination. Powerful
nationalist rhetoric dominates everything from the public sphere to individual
su je ti ities. Apart fro the halle ge of riti g the histor of the
contemporary, there is the diffi ult of u dersta di g atio a d atio alis
that thoroughly infuses our consciousness, positioning us within it. Films locate
these fractures within the nation by projecting a national edifice and the
rumblings against it. The nation not only subsumes personal identities but also
collectivities identified by class, gender, sexuality, community, and caste,
although social movements centered around these threaten the hierarchies
(feudal, capitalist, and patriarchal) maintained by the nation state. Hindi films
explore the tensions these collectivities generate, even openly articulate their
conflicts within the nation.
What the notion of "ideas of a national cinema" suggests is that there is a need to
understand the concept of national cinema as the articulation of an imagined
text. In his study of nationalism, Benedict Anderson proposes that the nation is an
imagined political community bound by a false consciousness conveyed through
the perception of the people themselves. If I apply Anderson's theory to national
cinema then it becomes clear that national cinema itself is an idea which is more
an institutionalized construct than it is a true reflection of national identity.
In other words, national cinema is a contingent and replaceable concept that
typifies the way in which cinema has been historically contrived. As a nation is
bound through the idea of community, national cinema is imagined to represent
that community. What this means is that the idea of national cinema is subject to
a specific cultural discourse in the reception of Indian cinema at a given time. The
reception of a film can be seen as being institutionalized through academic and
social contexts both of which contribute to the meaning of a film. These
contextual factors are intertwined with each other and need to be examined

47
Andrew Higson- Waving the Flag: Constructing a National Cinema in Britain; Clarendon Press, London, 1995

16
together in order to understand the meanings that become attributed to a
specific film and how that in tum affects discourses of national cinema.

REFERENCES
Breckenridge, Carol A. (ed.) - Consuming Modernity: Public Culture in a South
Asian World; University of Minnesota Press, USA, 1998
Deshpande, Anirudh- Class, Power and Consciousness in Indian Cinema and
Television; Primus Books; 2009
Deshpande, Anirudh- Films As Historical Sources or Alternative History; Economic
and Political Weekly, Vol. 39, No. 40 (Oct. 2-8, 2004)
Deshpande, Anirudh- Indian Cinema and the Bourgeois Nation State; Economic
and Political Weekly, Vol. 42, No. 50 (Dec. 15 - 21, 2007)
Deshpande, Anirudh- Nationalism and Nation-State as Discourse in India;
Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 32, No. 25 (Jun. 21-27, 1997)
Kaul, Gautam-Cinema and the Indian Freedom Struggle; Sterling Publishers Pvt.
Ltd, New Delhi, 1998
Jeongmee, Kim (PhD Thesis) - Social art cinema of the 1990s: commodifying the
concept of British National Cinema; University of Nottingham; 2003
Rosenstone, Robert A. - "The Historical Film: Looking at the Past in a Post literate
Age," in The Historical Film: History and Memory in Media, edited by Marcia
Landy; New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2001
Therwath, Ingrid-Shining Indians: Diaspora and Exemplarity in Bollywood; South
Asia Multi-Disciplinary Academic Journal; 2010
Walsh, Michael - National Cinema, National Imaginary; Film History, Vol. 8, No. 1,
Cinema and Nation (spring, 1996)

17
Viswanath, Gita and Malik, Salma - Revisiting 1947 through Popular Cinema: A
Comparative Study of India and Pakistan; Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 44,
No. 36 (September 5-11, 2009)

18