Culture and power

13 Pages·1998·3.4 MB·Hindi

by  Bharucha, Rustom

Culture and Power'
RUSTOMBHARUCHA
E
veryone seems to be cashing in on 'culture' these days-activists disillusioned
withtheeconomisticandinstrumentalistunderpinningsofdevelopment;religious
groupswhichrealizethatthe anofproselytizingcan beenhancedifitisgrounded
inthesymbols and codes ofeverydayculturalinteractions;environmentalistswhohave
sought connections between nature. nurture, and the archetypes of culture in their
opposition to the violations of biodiversity and ecocide; and finally policy-makers and
administrators whohave wokenup to thereality thattheirpoliciesmayhave failed inthe
absenceofany real cognizance ofand respect forthetransformativepowers ofculture.
India's Culture: The Slate. the Arts and Beyond is one such anempt by an Indian
administrator(or"civilservant"ashedescribeshimself)whichstakesaclaimfor'culture'
within the necessities of administration for the larger stability of the State. Before we
analysethe power that is embedded within B.P. Singh'sabsolute faithinadministration.
itisnecessary to dispel any illusion that he isa "distinguished scholar",as describedin
theattractivelydesignedjacket cover of thisbook.NotonlydoesSinghhimselfadmitin
the preface that his book is an outcome of "J8 months" of close involvement with
"culture",ostensibly when he was the CultureSecretary to theGovernmentof India,he
alsoacknowledgesthat'Theexclusivenessofsuchaconcernisunprecedentedinmylife"
(xi). While this would seem like a candid admission of the chimerical life of an
administrator--Singh has nowbeen appointed as our HomeSecretary- weareexpected
tobelievethatthis"recentmentaljourney" asdocumentedinthe b<xJkisanillumination
ofSingh's "whole being" (ibid.).
There isobviously Some kind of hubrisandself-mystificationatworkhere.Scholars
and researchers have spent their entire lives trying to decipher the multiple strands in
"India'sCulture" ordiversecultures. Increasingly.withgrowingcriticalreflexivity,there
areacknowledgementsofthefragmentation,omissions.gaps,erasures.andtheimplicitly
casteist,sexist.andracistevaluationsof'other' cultures.Themostpioneeringscholarship
todayhas become atonce more tentative and microanalytical.Omniscientoverviewsof
'Indian culture' are best left to pundits unable to free themselves from the positivist
categoriesofanearliertime.
However,let usacknowledge thatsome of thesepunditshave a classicalscholarship
*Review-article:B.P.Singh,India'sCulture:TheSt4U,TheArtsandlkyond.Delhi:O_JordljniversityPress.
1998.Rs425.
Stzng~ttNatak Nos. 127-128. 1998
36 RUSTOM BHARUCHA
thai sustains their Himalayan visions of 'Indian culture'. MeSingh does not have this
scholarship. His41-pageencapsulationof"India'sCulture" in the openingchaptertohis
book, encompassing everything from Mohenjodaro. the Vedas, the Brahrnanas, the
Upanishads, the epics, the six systems of 'philosophy' (Nyaya, Vedanta, etc.), the
Nutyashustra. the Arthashastra, Ajanta. Ellora, is not even an adequate paraphrase of
derivativescholarship.It isbetter readasthekindofbackground materialthatonegetsto
read inthe moreexpensiveeditionsofcultural tour guides.
ATourGuideofIndian Culture '
Banality is one of the dominant signs of this touristic discourse: "Kalidasa's
Meghadoota isaclassicoflyricalbeauty.Similarly.Kalidasa'sAbhijnanashakulltalamis
thegreatestworkofdramanotonlyofancienttimesbut ofsubsequenttimesaswell"(18),
That'sitfor Kalidasa.Alongwith thisbreezy hyperbole,there isalso anauthenticationof
our glorious past throughtotallyfabricateddates: "By the year AD I, India was ahighly
developedculture" (I)-nofuzzinesscan betolerated here;likewise,"the Ramayanaand
the Mahabharata were alreadya part of the collective Indian consciousness prior to the
8thcentury BC" (16).What isthe verification for these assumed 'facts'?Indeed.whatis
theepistemologyunderlying suchhistoricity?Whatkindofpastis beingconstructedhere.
andforwhat purpose?
The overwhelming problem in Singh's 'scholarship' is that he consistently confuses
informationfor facts.Thisresultsinatrivializationofassumed knowledge- forexample,
in afour-sentence paragraphonmedicineintheAtharva Veda,thereisaninexplicabletit
bitinterspersed betweentheperfunctory identificationsofDhanvantari and Charakainthe
'''20different typesof [surgical]knivesand needlesand 26 articlesofdressing" matwere
inusebythe"firstcentury AD"(34),Clearly,theauthorisoutofhisdepthhereinfiguring
outanadequatenarrativemodeinorganizing"somefacts"toprovide "someperspectives",
Ajudiciousselective principlebecomes mandatory for anysuch overview of "India's
Culture"-for example, in connection with Singh's obvious devotion to the art of
administration, it would have been useful to analyse why the Arthashastra emphasizes
"the need for abureaucracy to uphold dharma' (35).Butthisis merely "interesting"for
ourbureaucrat-scholar,andheletsitpass.Likewise,myowncuriosity iswhettedwhenI
am reminded that the "Lion Capital", one of the most "remarkable achievements of
Mauryancourtart", isalsotheemblem oftheRepublicofIndia(25).Howexactlydidthis
process of image-making materialize at a conceptual level? How do symbols become
emblems? What is the political think-tanking that goes into the retrieval of traditional
visual resources inorder tocreatethe signs ofourtimes?
If answers to such questions are totally elided in this tour-guide of our cultur.ll
traditions. it is because Singh has no critical framework in which to situate his adhoc
of
information.Notonlydoesthisresultinsimplificationsbutinafalsification indigenoUS
cultural histories through a grand assimilationist strategy. Thus, the author has no
CULTUREANDPOWER 37
difficulty in claiming with no elaboration whatsoeverthat"the fusion between tribal
languagesand Sanskrit isevident" instateslike Bihar, Madhya PradeshandOrissa(II).
Likewise.whilethe"Tibeto-Burrnan languagescameundertheinfluenceofSanskritand
its two majoroffshoots. Assamese and Bengali"(ibid.), there is no hintas to how this
cameaboutthroughtheculturalcolonizationofVaishnavism,amongotherprocessesof
irnercuhuration.
Perhapstheconceptualvacuuminthesedetailscentresaroundatotallyamorphoususe
ofthe word'culture'. Singhinforms us inafootnote that he isdrawing ondefinitions
of culture provided hy Edward Taylor, A.L. Kroeher, Ninnal Kumar Bose, and D.O.
Kosambi.Thelastreference isperhapstheunkindestcutofall,becausethereisnothing
inSingh'scavalierreadingofculturetosuggestthathehasgraspedeventheelementsof
thedialecticaldensityof Kosambi,forwhom"patterns ofcultureandethicalvaluesare
not mere ideological superstructures of establishing economic relations", but are
"historicallydetennined-hy the logic ofthe history ofideas" (42).Inthe courseofhis
book. Singh attempts to demonstrate a global awareness of culture in relation to the
market,science.andtheenvironment inwhatwouldappeartobeacontemporaryhistory
ofideas.Unfortunately,this 'history' isultimatelysubsumedwithin anall-encompassing
andultimatelyarbitraryreadingofculturethatisreducedtobureaucraticjargon.
Politicsof CulruralDiversity
Singh. ofcourse, is not alone in this political appropriation of 'culture' hy policy
makers. whose enthusiasm for the term is matched, unfortunately, by an absence of
intellectual rigour in dealing with its multiple dynamics andcomponents. Since the
publicationoftheUnescoreportin 1995 onOurCreativeDiversitypreparedbytheWorld
Commissionon Cuhure andDevelopment.there is now anofficialrecognition at the
highestinternationallevel forencouraging"empathyandrespectfortheentire spectrum
of human differences" (75). Suffice it 10 say that this master-text on culture and
developmentisnotfreeofitsownsuperficialities,euphemisms.andreductions.
Inthemeasured critique ofthe Unesco document hy ArneMartin Klausen(1997), we
learnhowinthesearchforamore"holistic"and"synthesising" useofculturetofacilitate
''trans·sectorialanalysis and overallperspectives", there is a problematiccontlationof
culture and society (10 which Raymond Williams had alerted us many years ago).
Anchored firmly within "the Unesco tradition of unanimity", Our Creative Diversify
"elidesdifferences,particularly those relatingtoacriticalanalysisofmodernity,notonly
underdevelopmenC·(Klausen 1997: 29). Confusing the anthropological. cognitive. and
sectorialmodesofanalysingculture,indeedunable todiscriminatebetween"nonnathr~"
and "descriptive": readings of culture, the Unesco blueprint ultimately succeeds In
"inflating"thewordtosuchanextentthatitbecomes"meaninglessand inoperative"- a
"fashionlable]sound-bite" (ibid.: 31-32).
38 RUSTOM BHARUCHA
InamuchlessrefineddiscoursethanOurCreative Diversity,B.P. Singh'smusingson
"India's Culture" succumb precisely to the same traps of an essentially factitious
comprehensiveness. Withourso muchasquestioning thepertinenceofthe Unescorepon
to Indianrealities.hejumps ontothebandwagonof"diversities" :Howcan wegowrong
here?- we have all the statistics in the world to prove that we are the most "diverse"
country in the world with 18officiallanguages. 1700 dialects.45.000 plant species,etc.
Singh uses the Unesco report(Q claim thatthe world islooking to India for answersthat
are likelytoemergefromour"5,000yearsofuninterruptedcivilisation" (76).Barelyable
toconcealhispride.hepromptlygoesontoaffirm:"Indianculturalunity hassuccessfully
tackled problems of political instability and military invasion, social obscurantism and
religiousbigotry,and has gained renewalatseveralstagesofitshistory" (ibid.),
Stop right there, Mr Singh. Indian "cuhural unity". in so far as it exists today, has
certainly not tackled any ofthese problems: the nation has been politically unstable for
quitesometimenow;ourrecentnuclearblastshaveintensifiedthepossibilitiesofmilitary
invasion;social obscurantism and religious bigotry arerampant. Wecannotregardthese
problems as contemporary aberrations; nor can we mildly chide the laws ofManu,as
Singh does, for "formalising inequalities", with the caste system engendering
"snobbishness and pride in the higher castes", and "a spirit of inferiority and servility
amongstthelowercastes" (152).Ifwe werehonestenough toconfrontthe atrocitiesthai
continue to be inflicted on the marginalized sections of our society, particularly among
dalit communities- the word 'dalit' docs not seem to exist in Singh's political
vocabulary-I think we would have to acknowledge how our "cultural unity" has been
sustainedthroughanunacknowledged racism.
What is urgently needed in thiscontext is ananalysisof the politics of diversitythat
has sustained the increasingly nationalist myths of our "cultural unity". Unfortunately,
this analysis is absent in Singh's tediously familiar reiteration of statist platitudes.
Contrasting whathedescribesas a"segmented viewofculture" witha "composite"one,
Singhdoes not elaborate atall on the two primary sources ofsegmentatlcn-c-rreligiou"
and"region" (48). While communalism isfleetinglyglossed in thecourse ofthebool:"
nomention,ofcourse,oftheBabriMasjiddemolitionortheriots inMumbai-thereisno
analysisofhowreligion can function as asourceofdivisiveness rather than diversity.In
this regard. Singh simply falls prey to the deeply internalized notion of "pre-fonned.
scaled religious communities", as Kumkum Sangari (1995) indicates in her exemplary
analysis of the politics of diversity. Pre-ordained by birth and transmitted across
generations. these "religious diversities" are invariably divested of "internal diversity,
looseness, and open boundaries" (Sangari 1995: 33(0).Sequestered from "regionaland
class variations". they need to be interrelated. as Sangari would insist, with specifk
historiesofsocialdisparityand patriarchy. which produce diversities in theirownrighl.
Withoutinterveninginthiscontentiousdebate.Singhtotallyavoidstakinganyposition
CULTUREANDPOWER 39
onthecontradictorydynamicsofreligion.culture,andtherightsofcitizenship.Likewise.
there is no historical perspective '7"hatsoever in his book on how regional cultural
identitiesemergedthrough-andagainst-the mechanismsoftheState.Hereitwouldbe
imperative toexaminethealmostunanimousacceptanceof linguisticcultural identities
during the freedom movement, which became increasingly more complicated after
independence. with different linguistic groups seeking distinct state identities and
formations. Such was the chauvinist intensity of these linguistic demands that Nehru
himselfwascompelled to acknowledge asearly as 1960 in the LokSabha:"We liveina
closedsociety-notoneclosedsociety,butnumerousclosedsocieties.ThereisaBengali
closedsociety,aMarathi closedsociety, a Malayaliclosed society, andsoon"(quotedin
Nag 1993:1527).
Insteadofdealing withthe increasing provocations ofregionalism. Singhfalls back
predictablyenoughonavague,woolly, sentimentalnotionofrcomposlteculture",which
hecompares to "bee activity" (48). Just as it is impossible to "separate the specific
contributionofeachflowerorplant" inthetransformation ofnectarinto honey. India's
diverse culturesare composite. Atbest. the "variationsof Indiancultural honey"taste
differentlyaccording to the localvariations inenvironment.climate,and language (49).
Typically,Singhusesthewords'composite'and'pluralist'synonymously,revealinghis
intellectuallazinessinfailingtodiscriminatebetweeneventhemostvitaltermsincultural
discoursetoday.
Alittle laterin the book,however, Singhdoesinflect his seeminglyunequivocal faith
in the plurality of"India's Culture" by acknowledging the "fears" about"Hindi-isation"
and"Assamisarion",whichwillcontinueto"hauntsectionsofourpeopleandwillcontinue
untilpluralitytakesfinn roots" (66). I welcome thisqualification,but Iwouldalsoneed
someexplanation as to why plurality bas not taken finn roots in Indiansoil.The marxist
scholarJaveedAlarnonce suggested that while"tradition" withinasocietycanbemarked
bydiversity,"pluralism"isa"post-enlightenmentresultbornofstrugglesfordemocracy"
(Alam 1994: 24). Unfortunately, there is no such conceptual intervention in Singh's
freeWheeling reading of 'diversity', 'composite culture', and 'plurality', which simply
becomeinterchangeable catchwords,frustratinganypossibilityoftheoreticalillumination,
ThesheerconfusionofSingh'spositionbecomesonlytooobviousinthearbitrariness
ofhis thought process, which has not been assisted in any way by thesloppy editingof
themanuscript'snumerousredundanciesandabrupttransitions.Atonepoint.forinstance.
Singhquotes Gandhi's famous statement: "I want the cultures of all lands tobeblown
aboutmyhouse." ", whichwouldseemtoprovidethefoundationsfor"India'scultural
policy" (66). In the next paragraph, there is a list of fourteen "first-rank leaders ofthe
freedom struggle" (67), This is followed by a quotation deconteXlualized f~m ~e
historian Ravinder Kumar's discriminations between "Civilisation~State" and 'Nation
State", And finally. when Singh commits himself to making his own statement on
40 RUSTOMBHARUCHA
plurality,this iswhathehastosay:
[T]heapproachtocultureinIndiamustpositivelyencourageregionaldiversityandnot
just tolerate it. No region or group should have the feeling of a threat of being
swamped.Thereareno'majority'and'minority'cultures.
(ibid.:myemphases)
Thefirststatementiscastinanimperativemode:thesecondismorepaternalistic;thethird
isessentialist.From"must'to 'should' to 'are':thisishowthegrammar ofadministrative
discourse functions. from a declaration thata problemcan andmust be resolved to the
acknowledgementthatthereisnorealproblem inthe first place.
Strategizlng theNational Culture Fund
IfSinghisnottheoreticallypreparedtotakeonconceptualissuesrelatingtothepolitics
ofdiversityand plurality, one would expecthim 10handle the bureaucratic nitty-grittyof
culturalinstitutions withmoreauthority.Butapartfromanextensivehistoricalsurveyof
the Archaeological Survey of India-which unaccountably includes nine pages of
documentsrelatingtotheearlyprioritiesofthe ASIin1862-there isnocriticalreading
oftheleadingculturalinstitutionsinthecountry.Atonepoint,Singhmerelyliststheearly
pioneering initiatives of Santiniketan, the Kerala Kalamandalam, the Uday Shankar
Culture Centre atAlmora, theIndianPeople's Theatre Association, the MadrasMusic
Academy.buthedoesnotaddressthematall.Thisevasionofcriticalaccountabilityalso
extendsto hisperfunctoryaccount ofpost-independence institutionsliketheAkademis,
theNationalSchoolofDrama, andtheZonalCulturalCentres,which are merelyendorsed
with the mildlycritical comments ofHigh Powered Committees led by P.N. Haksarand
U.R.Ananthamurthy.
Apart from this totally inexplicable absence ofanyanalysis of the inner workingsof
theseinstitutions,Singhavoidsanydialogue(ordebate)withcontemporaryIndianartists.
Ifailtosee inthisregard howhecanpresumeto include"the Arts'<inthesubtitleofhis
book when he does not really deal with them except through scandals like the recers
administrative crisis in the Lalit Kala Akademi (which Singh attributes a little tOO Self·
righteously tothe"moralbreakdownofitsleadership");controversiesrelatingtoStateart
purchases.suchasthe Brunner paintings(throughwhichSinghsomewhatoverstatesthe
transparencyofNehruinacceptingthecriticalviewsofanexperts);andthesmugglingof
art objects (which is cast in the mode of a "veritable crime thriller" as Singh tracesthe
"odyssey" of the Natarajaof Sivapuram fromTamilNadu to New York).Unfortunately,
these are relatively marginal, if not sensational events, that do not really tackle the
ideological bankruptcy andbureaucracy of State institutions in theirroutine modesof
operation.Insteadofelicitingadebateonadministrativeprocedureswithculturalanalysts
and practitioners.Singhincorporates theviews ofjustone contemporary Indianaetist
the"sensitive"MallikaSarabhai,whose perspectiveon"corporatesocial responsibiliry"
CULTUREANDPOWER 41
(61)isobviouslycompatiblewiththe one institution thatSinghisprepared todealwithat
length-the NationalCulture Fund.
As the originator of the very idea of the Fund and the President of its Executive
Committee, Singh has obvious stakes here which are substantiated with a pragmatic.
though not particularly inventive, managerial strategy. The raison d'hre for the Fund
comesfromtherealitythat"thereisaneedtolookfor[financial]support[forthearts]from
outside" (71}-inotherwords,outside the sanctified boundariesoftheState,whichNehru
and MaulanaAzad had legitimized in the 1950s as theonly appropriateSourceoffunding
culture in post-colonial India. Not only was the feudal bankruptcy of more traditional
sources ofpatronage considered inappropriate for a modern society. itwas also assumed
that themarketwas too undeveloped,unpredictable, and philistine toprovidesupportfor
thearts.
Times have changed. For all his loyalties to the Nehruvian legacy, Singh is now
prepared to re-think the creative possibilities of corporate sponsorship and the positive
effects of commercialism. Even in the more ruthless world of the global economy, he
acknowledges that "Commerce also has a neutralising effecton violent behaviour since
commerce facilitates prosperity and this. in turn. would give people a stake in peace"
(123). While this speciously deductive logic does not receive any elaboration, Singh is
more convincing when he uses statistics to prove that external support for the arts is
criticallyneededfortheir sustenance. Weareinformed inthisregardthatthetotalbudget
allottedfortheculturalsectorinthe8thFiveYearPlanwasRs800crores,whichamounts
toamere"0.19 percent ofthetotal planoutlay oftheGovernmentof India"(70). While
this isundeniably shameful, one wonders whySingh and his colleagues do notusetheir
cloutwithin the government to raise the cultural budget to atleast 1%of the total plan.
Instead, we find him justifying a Fund whose models are 10 befound in the U.S. and
Britain, which have totally different corporate structures. and indeed. a culture of
'businessphilanthropy' thatcannotbesustainedwithinthepresenteconomicuncertainties
of Indiancorporations:industries, andbusinesshouses.
Instead of confronting the hard facts of our economy, Singh allows himself to be
seduced by the rhetoric of First World funding policies, which would like to privatize
cuhuralcapital in aseeming marginalization oftheState (which,ofcourse,has thetotal
sanctionofthe State itself). Now the "onus" is no longer on the government10 provide
administrativeandfinancialassistance forculture-relatedactivities;nowwhatmattersare
"inter-institution partnerships for mobilising extra-budgetary resources forculture" (72).
Not onlydoes Singh envision an intermediary role for theStateadministration betw~en
the public and private sectors, he also advocates an advisory intervention in theere-alton
ofnew"servicestructures" fortheexistingnational institutionsrepresentingarchaeology,
museo!ogy,anthropology, and the archives.
Thus.what is being envisioned here is an expansion ofadministrative capacities that
42 RUSTO'IBHARUCHA
totally overlooks the questionable expertise of its personnel. In addition, Singh seems
totallysanguine aboutthe cultural andethical implications involved in allowingdonors
from thecorporate world todetermine thokindsofprojects that they would like tofund.
Taxbenefits,tomymind.shouldnotlegitimizecorporateaestheticstandards.Despitethe
recent facadesof Indian foundationsinconscientizingthecultural normsofthebusiness
world. there shouldbenodoubtsaboutitspreferenceforglitzandspectacle- galaevents
structured around cricket, horse-racing, fashion, and beauty competitions rather than
experimentsinart.
The SpectacleofPolitics
Spectacle cannot be dismissed in the cultural politics ofany administration. which
assumesthatculturemustbevisibleinorderto haveanimpact inpublic life.Thus.we
find Singh totally enamoured by the scale and prestige ofthe Festival of India andthe
RepublicDay Parade.Rhapsodizing on theformer, he has the nerve to celebratefestivals
preciselyonthegroundsforwhichtheyhavebeencriticized byawide rangeofartistsand
writers.Totallyignoringthepoliticalagendas ofthesemega-events,Singh wouldhaveus
believe that the Festival of India was designed to dispel the stereotype of India as,
"romantic andexotic landof maharajas. tigers, snake-charmers. the Taj Mahal, and of
course,grindingpoverty" (55).
Firstly,onewouldneedtoacknowledgethatiforientalist stereotypes were eliminated
by the Festival of India, they were also replaced by another set of stereotypes that
packaged the diversities of India and its timeless folk wisdom within a neo-colonial
framework of themodern nation-state. Secondly, there must be something seriously
wronginSingh'sunderstandingofthestereotypeifheisabletoplace "snake-charmers"
alongside "grinding poverty", Surely poverty is the dominantreality of ourcountry,
which places us 138th in the list of the world's nations (this is one statistic thatSingh
needsto remember). The stereotype is notpoverty, butthe erasure ofpoverty. which
enables festivals to cast their synthetic and extremely transitory spells on "enthusiastic
crowds", whose sensitizationtoIndian "folk traditions"andcontributionto thetourist
traffic-theassumedlypositive kickbacksoffestivals-canbemore accurately readasa
wish-fulfilmenton the part oftheIndian bureaucracy.
"When the festival ends", all that the organizers can do is to "disappear", as Pup<JI
Jayakar puts it poetically.vinto the night" (56). But has anyone in the Departmentof
Culturecared tofind out what happenstothe folk practitioners when they retumtotheir
villages?Hasthere been anystudy ontheeffectsof festivals within inter/intra-regional
sectors and communities identified with particular performative skills? What are the
structures of dialogueand translation prepared by thegovernment to initiate meetings
belween performers across thedifferences andhierarchies of class, caste, religion.and
language?The truth isthat theorganizersareprimarilyinterested inmountingaspectacle
-'
Cl:LTUREANDPOWER 4J
with maximum media attention; what happens at human and psychological levels to
peoplewithinandoutside the framework:ofthe festivalisofnoconcern.
Amore formalprocessofdehumanization isatwork inthe RepublicDayParade. but
Singhfails to see it in his total endorsement of the nationalist raison d'stre of the
spectacle.Hereoneencounters themostblatant instrumentalizationofculturethathasits
roots.in the liberal vision ofa post-independence politicalelite, who imagined that the
young Republic of India could score over more developed nations in its capacity to
combinea "ceremonial military parade" with a "culturalpageant" (as AshfaqueHusain,
the Joint Secretary of the Department of Education had emphasized in his 1952
correspondencewithMaulanaAbut KalamAzad),Thereisaqualityofquaintnessinthese
reconunendations: while Azad referred approvingly to the pageants in the Parade as a
"CulturalCaravan" (96),Husainwent one stepfurtherin affirmingthatthis"beaugeste"
(95) should impress notonly the foreign dignitariesbUIthe masses ofIndia.
Nehruwasatonceenthusiastic,andyetrestrained.inhisrecommendationthattheParade
shouldemphasizethe "civilian" aspectsofcontemporary Indiansociety(97).BUIhewasalso
insistent,on General Cariappa's suggestion. that"folk dances" shouldbe presented,"more
especiallybytribalpeoplefrom...theNorth-East,theNagas,etc,"(ibid.).liealsosuggested
that some of these folk dances could be presented "on a small scale" at the Rashtrapati
BhavanpartyonthedayfollowingtheParade.Itishard nottoreadanimplicitcondescension
intheserecommendations, which can also betraced in the criticalcomments recordedby
Nehruinhisimmediateresponse tothe 1952Republic DayParade:
Thefirstpartof[thepageant]depictingwhatiscalled 'YouthandProgress' appeared
tobemerely an array of people holding up placards.There was nothingartistic or
impressiveaboutif...
Maharashtra was good, but too long drawn out. Lezim fitsinwithaprocession,but
Malkhamb doesnot. Having boxing and thelike was ratheroutofplace...The UP
Ramlilawasfeeble.Itwasjustacrowdsittinginatruck.
(93) .
WhileSinghemphasizes thatnothingescapedNehru's"discemingeye".1thinkoneneeds
to question what was meeting theeye in the firstplace.When yousay "Maharash~ w~
good", there isan incredible reductionism at work herethat has beentotally normallz.-.d on
Our official cultural discourse. Firstly, there is an entity called Maharashtra that has ~en
determinedbyacertainhegemonicstructureofvaluesandassociations;itisequatedWitha
particularculture;thiscultureisreducedto atableauwithperforrnativeaccessories;andthe
ingredients of this performativity are specifically aligned to folk forms-hence itbe~omes
possible for Nehru to say that Lezim works, Malkhamb does not. Even "'lbin.!he
hermeneuticsofofficialpageantry,one cannothelpbeingtroubled here bythe assumpUons
notonlyofcriticaldiscriminationandtaste.butofwhatisbeingmadeofpeoplemaforum
thatvalues "cultural progressno lessthanmilitarystrength" (95).
44 RUSTO~1BHARUCHA
If this would seem like an overly fastidious reading of what is after all a parade,I
woulddrawSingh'sattentiontotheinvaluabledocumentationoftheFirstDramaSeminar
organized by the Sangeet Natak Akademi in 1956, where the most distinguished
participants including Kamaladevi Chattopadhyay, V. Raghavan, .Mulk Raj Anand,
Sombhu Mitra, Balraj Sahni;among other luminaries, had expressed their distressabout
thevulgarity andmoneywastedontheRepublicDayParade.WhiletheimmediateSOUrt,
of theprovocationwasthemodernizeddressof aKuchipudiperformance intheParade,
the actual circumstances of arranging the performance, as pointed out by Nataraj
RamakrishnaintheDramaSeminar. wereevenmoreobjectionable:
ThemostunfortunatepartofitisthatnoneofusinKuchipudi knewthatatroupewas
being organisedto participate inthe Republic Day Parade celebrations. The official
who wasentrusted toorganise couldnotcontact[the] rightpersons buthe wantedto
prove his efficiency. He gatheredtogetherpersons who did not know their artand
thoughtthatmoderncostumeswouldgivethemdignityinthecapital of India.There
wasnobody totellthemthattheywouldlookclownishinmodemcostumes.
(n.d.:322-323)
At this point in the discussion, the irrepressible Dina Gandhi had intervened-her
voice comes throughthedusty pagesofthe Seminar-by saying:"Weneednotwasteour
time overthefolliesofofficials andartists.Itisatragedythat thisworldcannotbegotrid
offools" (ibid.: 323).
Thefoolsarestillaround.Ifwecannotgetridofthem,wehavetoquestiontheraison
d'streoftheir folly.Today westillcontinuetocelebratethe Republic DayParadeinmote
orlessthesameform asitsearlyexplorations.Theformhasnowcongealed;itistimeto
re-workitbyquestioning itsconceptual.political.and choreographicingredients.Watch
out forthe Parade nextyear. No consolation prizes fornot guessing the maintheme:
Nuclear Peace. I can see a large CUI-OUl ofthe Buddha floating down Raj Path, perhaps
surrounded bya phalanxofsaffronflags,followed by nuclearmissiles which,hopefully,
will not betoo authentic.Thedummies willdo.
"CultureisPower"
These perversionsofourtimes,however,shouldnotpreventusfromconfrontingthe
limitations,prejudices,and blindspots of thepast.Thisispreciselywhat Singhrefusesto
do.Ontheonehand,hefailsto acknowledgethelacunaein theNehruvian legacy,buthe
also scrupulously avoids any comment on the culturalpolitics ofpost-AyodhyaIndia.10
this vacuum,he hasnootherchoicebutto holdontothe eternalist chimera of"India's
Culture" that will surely go on forever: ''The change in [the] political complexionof
governmentsoracabinet crisiswithingovernmentnevermadeanysignificantimpacton
Our cultural freedom" (68). While there is a passing reference in the book to "the dart
cloudsofthe Emergency"(xvi),there isnOIaword on theideologyofHindutva,oronthe