Wednesday, May 24, 2017
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Friday, December 22, 2006
And the band played on
Published in 1993-4?
Jameer Khan has been blowing his trumpet for various bands for over 14 years now, and he is not smiling about it. Not that life has been fun lately Unlike most other itinerant musicians of his ilk who return to agricultural pursuits during the off season, he must eke out living in Delhi itself and his current vocation is painting walls, furniture, or anything else people will pay him for.
"Music has always been in my family's blood," he declares proudly sitting on a rickety chair by a begrutten wall during a breather, but he would rather that his son grew up into a carpenter or some such thing rather than ever become a trumpeter. Why, I ask and he rejoins with a litany, "The playing season seldom lasts beyond four months, salaries are poor and uncertain, upward mobility, social or professional, is unheard of and there are niggardly compensations to look forward to ... and boy the music nowadays! Carpenters at least never need to sit idle or lay bricks!" he retorts.
He is not alone in this unrewarding profession. Delhi is teeming with brass bands that are virtually mandatory on social occasions. Most musicians hail from poor families with a tradition of professional playing. They invariably come from outside Delhi hoping to make that extra exiguous buck during the peak marriage season or Ramlila when there is an unlimited demand for anybody who can blow a horn or beat a drum.
Ramlila is the big moment when all the musicians and bands look to make the mark that will set the tone for the seguing season. Amidst the festivities, bands from all over Delhi vie to out do each other as the reputations established here are irrefragable determinants of a band's demand and prices. "This is the only time we truly rehearse," Jameer Khan blurts, and some of the sessions stretch for really long periods - sometimes a new tune may take a week to master though "experts" manage in a few hours. Then there are the old favorites that have to be reprised. A good band must be prepared to satisfy all sorts of requests.
Once the season commences life lapses into a familiar pattern. “We want our band to create the right impression," says Madan Lal, the proprietor of Anand Band, "We provide the outfits and the instruments and strive to arrange for the transport. There are a set of musicians on contract, but the number that actually goes out to play varies with the client's requirement and demand."
The musicians themselves know the routine by heart. "A lot of us would make excellent postmen," jokes Mahammad Rajan, a clarinet player with the Popular Band. The work begins with sniffing out the right address and this can be rather cumbersome. In unknown localities when several marriages are being organized in close vicinity, bands preening away at wrong addresses before being displaced by rightful rivals is hardly unknown.
The playing itself is distressingly monotonous. Songs like Aaj mere yaar ki shadi hai and Babul ki duyaen leti ja are the meat and potatoes of every marriage and after a bow to them, the bands launch into the current standards - these nowadays being headed by the ubiquitious Amma dekh and numbers from recent movies like Hum Aapke Hain Kaun and Chand Ka Tukda. Occasionally a request is made that certain band members are unfamiliar with, but this is rarely a deterrent as chords are struck and impromptu improvisations made.
"We are prepared to play anything as out salaries are peripheral really”, elaborates Mohammed Rajan. "What we are always looking forward to are the tips we get. Our proprietors do not seek shares here and the total tips work out larger then the pay itself. That is why sometimes musicians are prepared to play for a pittance... foot is rarely served to us but sometimes liquor bottles are provided after the show and I suppose a tipple is alright after a hard night's blowing.”
The flexible repertoire and the ability to instantly draw on a variety of styles is a major draw of these bands. The same set of people happily play movie songs, bhajans, Punjabi songs and a lot else, sometimes all on the same night. Competence levels may be pretty average and more often than not most notes sound alarmingly alike even if played in dissonance, but their efforts seldom fail to enthuse Indian revelers who are generally too inebriated to appreciate nuances of any sort.
The idea is really to have some lights and a beat to wiggle at. The bands seldom believe in displays of virtuosity or setting the tempo, they just adjust to the mood, especially now with trolleys having been banned by Delhi Administration on account of noise and traffic problems and the concomitant loss of vocalists who could communicate with the listeners.
Marriages constitute the single largest chunk of a band's engagements but the calendar includes several other events. A man's association with a band lasts a life time, quips Mohammed Rajan's cohort, "we play at the birth, the thread ceremony, marriage, even death. The world is incomplete without us." Now of course with the emphasis on ostentation mounting, bands have become omniscient, playing at jagrans, processions, even birth day parties, playing the same old rhythms with their numbers being symbolic of the client's status.
Loud music on public occasions has definitely been a constant in Indian culture and with time, rather than emphasizing on quality, decibel levels have gone up. One reason that the brass bands supplanted the pipe players of the yore was probably their ability to really spank the ear-drums. The new orchestras that are coming in routinely use microphones and amplifiers to make quire a din, and with their vocalist they have the advantage of putting up real shows. Does that make any difference to the way the traditional bands conduct their business?
Chander Prakash at Anand Band sees some of the better musicians migrating to the more lucrative orchestras but this is hardly a significant phenomenon. "None of us depend solely on music for our livelihood and our skills are not extraordinary either. But we are willing to walk and our music envelops our listeners who believe we play just for them as we stand in little circles around anybody who wants to move to our music . We offer immediacy and we are an inalienable part of the Indian tradition. As long as traditions live we will be too," he says.
Despite the penury, there is pride in the playing. "Some of us have our problems with breathing, but our breath brightens other people's lives," says Jammer Khan. Poverty may ultimately force his kids out of the hereditary profession but die-hards like Mohammed Rajan say that all in all it’s not such a bad life. "Sleep in the day, blow for a few hours at night and sometimes somebody calls you 'master saab'. Its not too great but its okay."
Jameer Khan has been blowing his trumpet for various bands for over 14 years now, and he is not smiling about it. Not that life has been fun lately Unlike most other itinerant musicians of his ilk who return to agricultural pursuits during the off season, he must eke out living in Delhi itself and his current vocation is painting walls, furniture, or anything else people will pay him for.
"Music has always been in my family's blood," he declares proudly sitting on a rickety chair by a begrutten wall during a breather, but he would rather that his son grew up into a carpenter or some such thing rather than ever become a trumpeter. Why, I ask and he rejoins with a litany, "The playing season seldom lasts beyond four months, salaries are poor and uncertain, upward mobility, social or professional, is unheard of and there are niggardly compensations to look forward to ... and boy the music nowadays! Carpenters at least never need to sit idle or lay bricks!" he retorts.
He is not alone in this unrewarding profession. Delhi is teeming with brass bands that are virtually mandatory on social occasions. Most musicians hail from poor families with a tradition of professional playing. They invariably come from outside Delhi hoping to make that extra exiguous buck during the peak marriage season or Ramlila when there is an unlimited demand for anybody who can blow a horn or beat a drum.
Ramlila is the big moment when all the musicians and bands look to make the mark that will set the tone for the seguing season. Amidst the festivities, bands from all over Delhi vie to out do each other as the reputations established here are irrefragable determinants of a band's demand and prices. "This is the only time we truly rehearse," Jameer Khan blurts, and some of the sessions stretch for really long periods - sometimes a new tune may take a week to master though "experts" manage in a few hours. Then there are the old favorites that have to be reprised. A good band must be prepared to satisfy all sorts of requests.
Once the season commences life lapses into a familiar pattern. “We want our band to create the right impression," says Madan Lal, the proprietor of Anand Band, "We provide the outfits and the instruments and strive to arrange for the transport. There are a set of musicians on contract, but the number that actually goes out to play varies with the client's requirement and demand."
The musicians themselves know the routine by heart. "A lot of us would make excellent postmen," jokes Mahammad Rajan, a clarinet player with the Popular Band. The work begins with sniffing out the right address and this can be rather cumbersome. In unknown localities when several marriages are being organized in close vicinity, bands preening away at wrong addresses before being displaced by rightful rivals is hardly unknown.
The playing itself is distressingly monotonous. Songs like Aaj mere yaar ki shadi hai and Babul ki duyaen leti ja are the meat and potatoes of every marriage and after a bow to them, the bands launch into the current standards - these nowadays being headed by the ubiquitious Amma dekh and numbers from recent movies like Hum Aapke Hain Kaun and Chand Ka Tukda. Occasionally a request is made that certain band members are unfamiliar with, but this is rarely a deterrent as chords are struck and impromptu improvisations made.
"We are prepared to play anything as out salaries are peripheral really”, elaborates Mohammed Rajan. "What we are always looking forward to are the tips we get. Our proprietors do not seek shares here and the total tips work out larger then the pay itself. That is why sometimes musicians are prepared to play for a pittance... foot is rarely served to us but sometimes liquor bottles are provided after the show and I suppose a tipple is alright after a hard night's blowing.”
The flexible repertoire and the ability to instantly draw on a variety of styles is a major draw of these bands. The same set of people happily play movie songs, bhajans, Punjabi songs and a lot else, sometimes all on the same night. Competence levels may be pretty average and more often than not most notes sound alarmingly alike even if played in dissonance, but their efforts seldom fail to enthuse Indian revelers who are generally too inebriated to appreciate nuances of any sort.
The idea is really to have some lights and a beat to wiggle at. The bands seldom believe in displays of virtuosity or setting the tempo, they just adjust to the mood, especially now with trolleys having been banned by Delhi Administration on account of noise and traffic problems and the concomitant loss of vocalists who could communicate with the listeners.
Marriages constitute the single largest chunk of a band's engagements but the calendar includes several other events. A man's association with a band lasts a life time, quips Mohammed Rajan's cohort, "we play at the birth, the thread ceremony, marriage, even death. The world is incomplete without us." Now of course with the emphasis on ostentation mounting, bands have become omniscient, playing at jagrans, processions, even birth day parties, playing the same old rhythms with their numbers being symbolic of the client's status.
Loud music on public occasions has definitely been a constant in Indian culture and with time, rather than emphasizing on quality, decibel levels have gone up. One reason that the brass bands supplanted the pipe players of the yore was probably their ability to really spank the ear-drums. The new orchestras that are coming in routinely use microphones and amplifiers to make quire a din, and with their vocalist they have the advantage of putting up real shows. Does that make any difference to the way the traditional bands conduct their business?
Chander Prakash at Anand Band sees some of the better musicians migrating to the more lucrative orchestras but this is hardly a significant phenomenon. "None of us depend solely on music for our livelihood and our skills are not extraordinary either. But we are willing to walk and our music envelops our listeners who believe we play just for them as we stand in little circles around anybody who wants to move to our music . We offer immediacy and we are an inalienable part of the Indian tradition. As long as traditions live we will be too," he says.
Despite the penury, there is pride in the playing. "Some of us have our problems with breathing, but our breath brightens other people's lives," says Jammer Khan. Poverty may ultimately force his kids out of the hereditary profession but die-hards like Mohammed Rajan say that all in all it’s not such a bad life. "Sleep in the day, blow for a few hours at night and sometimes somebody calls you 'master saab'. Its not too great but its okay."
Part of a seminar on the press during the emergency – on the role of The Statesman
Written in 1992. Published 1995?
Among the English language, mainstream national newspapers, only the Indian Express and the Statesman emerged with their reputation and credibility enhanced by their deportment during the Emergency. This despite the fact that they were more constrained by censorship regulations than other newspapers due to their contumacious broadsides against several aspects of the Emergency. As has been mentioned earlier, the Indian Express was placed under total pre-censorship and not even the sports pages or the matrimonial columns were spared scrutiny. The Statesman managed to avoid such fate but could not avoid intermittent pre-censorship. It however managed to successfully challenge a government decision to not give it any advertisements. The order issued in August, 1976 had to be withdrawn following the high court order in February 1977.
Most post-Emergency works have identified the Statesman, published simultaneously from Delhi and Calcutta, as the most vociferous critic of the government during the Emergency. One of the reasons assigned is its diffused proprietary structure wherein no party controlled over 13% of the shares. These factors allowed its editor, Mr.C.R.Irani, to function in an atmosphere bereft of any standardized management policy regarding editorial content, and follow his own anti-establishment volition. Such fortuitous circumstances were not available to fellow editors. The Hindustan Times was controlled by the Birlas who were decidedly with Mrs. Gandhi, while a third of the Board of Directors of the TOI was nominated by the Government enabling it the latter to pull all the strings. The Hindu owners too were disinclined towards confrontation.
In any case, the fact remains that the Statesman did, in a very notable and creditable way, wage a battle of wits with the Government. However, it should not be assumed that the daily sheets of the Statesman were littered with anti-government propaganda. Not only would such a step have invited immediate reprisals, possibly even proscription, it might also have damaged the newspaper’s credibility. In the case most issues of the Statesman were dominated by the government viewpoint. The highest print and photographic space was accorded to the Prime Minister and most of it held her in favorable light. The opposition, after being absolutely blanked in the initial days of the emergency, got a worthwhile look in only in the crepuscular days of the Emergency. A considerable amount of space was devoted to matters entirely extraneous to domestic policies. Stories from abroad received considerable space as did human-interest stories. Disasters and accomplishments like the Viking landing also competed successfully for space. Active criticism of the Government received a comparative modicum of space, and was frequently camouflaged, but it was this that distinguished the Statesman from most other papers as the following shall endeavor to establish.
Perscrutation of a month’s editions prior to the declaration of the Emergency immediately establishes the Statesman has being sympathetic to the opposition’s cause. The Gujarat elections, extensively covered serve as beacon of Mrs.Gandhi’s falling star, as violence and dissatisfaction dog her campaign. Thus a headline like, ‘Mrs. Gandhi’s car stoned by students’ (5.6.75) appears more message than news.
The paper’s coverage of Mrs. Gandhi’s disqualification by the Allahabad high court judgment and the events leading up to the Emergency may be said to have set the tone for the newspaper’s demeanor over the next year and half. The edition dated 13.6.75 is paradigmatic. The report on Mrs. Gandhi’s disqualification (under banner headlines) mentions ‘wide acclaim’ for Justice Sinha in the ‘crowded courtroom’. The front page includes the opposition’s clamor for Mrs. Gandhi’s head couched in the strident advice to ‘respect judiciary’. The promptly produced editorial urges resignation on ‘moral grounds’. The op-ed article by N.J.N. speaks piously of, ‘democratic tradition and conventions’ while going for the incumbent’s jugular, and a string of letters unanimously endorse the view. However amidst the entire diatribe a photograph of Mrs. Gandhi straddles a conspicuous corner of the front page and she gets her say in no uncertain terms. The second lead story concerns Congress leaders rallying around Mrs.Gandhi in unanimous support. There is also a reprint of the Times, London story that Mrs.Gandhi’s peccadillo would not be considered ‘corrupt practice’ in U.K. Most interestingly however, Mrs. Gandhi is quoted as promising to ‘work for the upliftment of the poor’. A week later Mrs. Gandhi was allowed to invoke the specter of ‘Central Crisis’ and ‘threat on the border’. On the same day the first letter questioning the resignation theory appeared. ON 21.6.75, Mrs.Gandhi earned another quotation in the front page when addressing a boat club rally in her support, she said, ‘when people remind us that many promises have not been met they should remember the obstacles and difficulties. We have not let the nation down’. Such homilies and other ‘progressive and developmental’ ideals were to become a constant refrain over the next 18 months.
There was no edition of the paper on 27.6.75 the day after the imposition of the Emergency as electricity to most newspaper houses had been cut following government instructions. The paper the day after carried very innocuous headlines of the Emergency report. The lead photo, quite ironically, was from abroad and in keeping with the subdued mood, and in marked contrast to 13.6.75 there was no editorial comment on the Emergency. A little blank space had been left in the op-ed page, but this illegal practice was hastily abandoned thereafter. Notably, all letters had switched to mundane affairs. Clearly censorship was in force and the fact was mentioned in an exiguous column, in gross violation of censorship orders, but soon enough the Statesman’s ardor was diminish.
Looking at the newspaper in the days ahead, an innocuous observer may be pardoned if he cannot descry the existence of such a dybbok as the Emergency, and if the Prime Minister conveys the impression of being the paragon of all virtues. The front page was soon reduced to carrying news items like ‘Prices of cinema tickets and eggs reduced’ (22.8.75). And this was not an isolated instance. News reports like ‘Sunday Market at Chandni Chowk moved’ (21.7.75) ‘Delhi shops get a pruning’ (9.8.75) and ‘issue of tokens to cyclists’ (13.8.75) became the norm. Apart from being obscure reminders of government efficiency, they quintessentially appeared to be the result of the need to fill pages. A letter published on 11.1.76 called for compulsory sterilization of beggars. It is unlikely that such a letter would have been published at any time except the Emergency, and while to a later reader it appears to be a manifestation of the general inanity prevalent in the nation at that time, it is unlikely that the Statesman was using the letter as an ironical aside on the Emergency for the posterity.
Not all ‘propaganda’ on the Emergency was couched in such subtile terms. The front page was frequently devoted to playing up the sunny side of the Emergency while Mrs. Gandhi basked in the glow. New items like ‘Indira Gandhi lists the gains of Emergency’ (25.7.75) and ‘ only democracy can work in India’ (7.8.75) constantly appeared. Through most of the period of the Emergency Mrs. Gandhi grabbed headlines spouting democratic ideals and progressive measures. Thus she spoke of ‘Women’s rights’ (15.1.76) ‘decentralisation’ (22.2.76) ‘scientific farming’ (11.4.76) ‘Solar Energy’ (31.12.76) et.al. and espoused other akin ideals and Government measures whilst reiterating platitudes like the need for ‘Democracy to suit a country’s needs’ (29.10.75). She also got away with half-truths, like ‘there is no censorship in India’ (9.7.76) when clearly several publications were under censorship at that time. The Statesman chose not be question such statements. Indeed it published an editorial titled ‘Flourishing Press’ (31.1.76) which was generally a summary of the report of Registrar of Newspapers based on figures till 1973 and made absolutely no mention of censorship laws. The newspaper also gave prominent space to Mrs.Gandhi’s invective against the Western press. News items like ‘Bias in Criticism of the Western Press’ (3.3.76) and ‘ Ignore western press – Indira Gandhi’ (16.9.76) where faithfully rendered with no questions asked. The newspaper also eagerly covered the Non aligned press conference that was ironically enough held in New Delhi and encouragingly published Mrs. Gandhi’s address (with her photo lead) whence she spoke of ‘the need to fight Western Colonial Media (9.1.76). The paper thus let go of an excellent opportunity to expose the hypocrisy inherent in the summit.
The newspaper persisted with an equivocal stance towards censorship. While carrying on a battle of attrition with the censor authorities itself, it strangely enough chose to favor censorship of other media. An editorial on 8.6.76 identified TV and radio as ‘modes of propaganda’ and called for a ‘sophisticated approach’ to their censorship. It also suggested that film censorship be ‘qualitatively vigilant’ rather than merely quantitative’. The movie review section of the paper may be held culpable of being politically inert. The most glaring instance was the unanalytical review of the film made by Sukhdev on the emergency, provocatively titled ‘Thunder of freedom’. The review mentioned ‘wide-spread acceptance’ of the Emergency and questioned none of the aspects of the documentary that was apparently a panegyric to the Emergency. Most galling of all though was the latent tyrant in the reviewer, streaks of which were revealed when he constantly hoped that something in the Emergency provisions would enable him to ban all that he did not like in Hindi movies, viz. sex, violence and even excessive length.
The opposition did not derive much succor from the newspaper, indeed it was blanked out for the most part. Reports on JP’s movement surceased entirely, and JP himself occasionally made it to the paper only due to deteriorating health. Mrs. Gandhi was able to level accusations like the ‘opposition (is) taking undue advantage of our tolerance, friendship, politeness, frankness’ (24.2.76), without the opposition getting a chance to retaliate in print. Top leaders like Morarji Desai and Charan Singh barely got a look in whereas Sanjay Gandhi (after making an initial photographic appearance on (8.3.76) was regularly featured. Other Congress leaders were visible too with some like Barooah being particularly prominent. When the Home Minister made a blatantly pro-Emergency statement that he hoped ‘new habits would become a way of life’ (14.9.75), it merited front-page attention. On the same day, the regime was eulogized for the ‘Big increase in the State’s income – better collection of taxes’. Unsurprisingly therefore, even readers of the putatively anti-Emergency Statesman often became convinced of the Government’s merit as a letter published just prior to the 1977 elections shows. The reader writes, anyone who has read the newspaper carefully over the last year cannot fail to be struck by the advances made’ (20.2.77) and plumps for the Congress on the basis of the Statesman reporting.
Within the limited ambit of the current research it has not been possible to precisely determine the reason for such reporting in a newspaper whose editor frequently took the opportunity to take potshots at the Government. The very need to keep the newspaper afloat could have been once such exigency. The Government made no secret of the displeasure with which it viewed the activities of the Statesman and apart from putting legal pressure even tried to place Government nominees on the Board of Directors. At a meeting held under the chairmanship of Mrs.Gandhi on August 12, 1975 different ways of dealing with the Statesman were discussed and under instructions of the Minister of Information and Broadcasting, the Company Law Board was moved on December 10, 1975 to appoint Government nominees on the Board of Directors under section 408 of Company’s Act, 1956 on the ground that the Statesman had indulged in malpractices relating to news print. It is a different matter that the Statesman was ultimately able to prove the case malafide, but there is certitude regarding extreme pressure. Creditably then, the Statesman refused to tergiversate the carried on in critical vein, though it often had to take recourse to metaphors and veiled references to get past the censor.
The anti-establishment tone of the newspaper before the Emergency has been aforementioned and its vehement editorials (12.6.75, 14.6.75, 17.6.75, 18.6.75) pressing for Mrs.Gandhi’s resignation after the Allahabad High Court Judgment marked the apogee of the stance. The combative mood appeared to have vanished with the imposition of the Emergency and interestingly not a solitary op-ed article condemning the Emergency appeared till December 1976. However while the clangorous nature of the protest may have had to be dissembled, the Statesman, while never losing sight of pragmatism, continued to chip away.
It carried out pretty reasonable reportage of the Supreme Court Appeal by Mrs. Gandhi with regard to her election case, allowing equal space to consul arguments on both sides, thus leaving the door ajar for some anti-government rhetoric to creep in. It also carried regular reports on various constitutional amendments taking place at that time, albeit minus any significant analysis. While this occluded the scope for any trenchant criticism of the implicit motives behind these amendments, it was probably prudent to do so in the days of censorship, thus also excusing itself from the obligation to voice encomiums apropos these amendments.
On 16.9.75 there appeared an interesting photograph on the front page captioned ‘Beggars continue to squat in Delhi’. It showed a couple of beggars at the swanky Connaught Place. Innocuous as the photograph appears, I venture an animadversion in the light of the drive towards order in the city. The papers at that time were dominated by various drives towards punctuality, cleanliness, efficiency, discipline etc., and also reports of punitive measures being taken against offenders. The Statesman, by publishing this photo, may have been trying to picturise defiance. I may be running the gauntlet of over interpretation here but the photo does stand out amidst those of clean streets, perfect traffic etc.
In more assured vein, the comparison with Pakistan was insidiously bruited to exhibit the discrepancies prevalent in the current situation in India. The technique involved was to play upon the antipathy towards Bhutto and by innuendo suggest simulacrum with Mrs. Gandhi’s policies. Two episodes stand out in particular. On 1.1.75 the paper carried out a report on Bhutto using Mrs. Gandhi’s speeches to defend his position and invoking her logic of strengthening the center and simultaneously warned of the authoritarian proclivities intrinsic in such a mode of governance . On 24.2.76 the editorial took issue with Bhutto for carrying out short-term measures’ and went on to apostrophize, ‘Pakistan is more important than Bhutto’. This was obviously a dig at Barooh’s slogan that ‘Indira is India’.
Around November 1975, the reporting on Emergency increased as pre-censorship was relaxed. Mrs. Gandhi, while she continued to enjoy a privileged position in terms of news-worthiness, now occasionally found herself on the defensive. Thus on 6.11.75 a report appeared: ‘Indira Gandhi admits distortions in the economy’. Others in the same vein included, ‘Indira Gandhi denies lurch to the right’ (31.12.75) and ‘fifth plan not given up, says Mrs. Gandhi’ (10.1.76). While such reports failed to establish any points against the government they did succeed in mentioning some of the popular grievances of the time. These reports were filed’ By our special correspondent’ and while not being radical had the merit of raising issues, and also signaled the paper’s independence from the Government controlled news agency ‘Samachar’. This also allowed forbidden terrain to be explored. Thus on 14.9.75, the detenus were mentioned for the first time in a report titled ‘30% of the detenus freed’ due to prevailing normalcy. A more interesting report appeared on 21/2/76 , after the imposition of the President’s rule in Tamil Nadu, a letter appeared that spoke of the ‘value of liberty’ but refrained from mentioning the Emergency. The editorial column too was not entirely bereft of fight. Conspicuous instance included the following:
In December 1976, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting finally abandoned attempts to legally force the Statesman into acceding to a government appointment on the Board of Directors. It was a major victory for the Statesman and it showed in its coverage of the elections in 1977. By then it had found the courage to openly criticize censorship. An editorial on 1.3.77 declared, ‘Press censorship is a pernicious doctrine… few countries can outshine India in the bizarre nature of many censorship orders’. When Mrs. Gandhi declared at an election meeting at Behrampur in Murshidabad district that ‘The Prime Minister represents the entire people and any attack on him or, her is an on the entire people’, several letters ridiculed her. Democracy was a different ball game for them.
On the poll eve the editorial ventured ‘The extent of lying heard since June’75 would have made Mephistopheles tremble’. It spoke of ‘meanness displayed in achieving objectives’ and averred ‘never before in India have such responsibilities been placed upon voters’. After the results had been declared and Mrs. Gandhi voted out of power in a democratic way, the Statesman obviously felt vindicated and exulted, ‘We India can hold our head a little higher today’. (22.3.77).
Among the English language, mainstream national newspapers, only the Indian Express and the Statesman emerged with their reputation and credibility enhanced by their deportment during the Emergency. This despite the fact that they were more constrained by censorship regulations than other newspapers due to their contumacious broadsides against several aspects of the Emergency. As has been mentioned earlier, the Indian Express was placed under total pre-censorship and not even the sports pages or the matrimonial columns were spared scrutiny. The Statesman managed to avoid such fate but could not avoid intermittent pre-censorship. It however managed to successfully challenge a government decision to not give it any advertisements. The order issued in August, 1976 had to be withdrawn following the high court order in February 1977.
Most post-Emergency works have identified the Statesman, published simultaneously from Delhi and Calcutta, as the most vociferous critic of the government during the Emergency. One of the reasons assigned is its diffused proprietary structure wherein no party controlled over 13% of the shares. These factors allowed its editor, Mr.C.R.Irani, to function in an atmosphere bereft of any standardized management policy regarding editorial content, and follow his own anti-establishment volition. Such fortuitous circumstances were not available to fellow editors. The Hindustan Times was controlled by the Birlas who were decidedly with Mrs. Gandhi, while a third of the Board of Directors of the TOI was nominated by the Government enabling it the latter to pull all the strings. The Hindu owners too were disinclined towards confrontation.
In any case, the fact remains that the Statesman did, in a very notable and creditable way, wage a battle of wits with the Government. However, it should not be assumed that the daily sheets of the Statesman were littered with anti-government propaganda. Not only would such a step have invited immediate reprisals, possibly even proscription, it might also have damaged the newspaper’s credibility. In the case most issues of the Statesman were dominated by the government viewpoint. The highest print and photographic space was accorded to the Prime Minister and most of it held her in favorable light. The opposition, after being absolutely blanked in the initial days of the emergency, got a worthwhile look in only in the crepuscular days of the Emergency. A considerable amount of space was devoted to matters entirely extraneous to domestic policies. Stories from abroad received considerable space as did human-interest stories. Disasters and accomplishments like the Viking landing also competed successfully for space. Active criticism of the Government received a comparative modicum of space, and was frequently camouflaged, but it was this that distinguished the Statesman from most other papers as the following shall endeavor to establish.
Perscrutation of a month’s editions prior to the declaration of the Emergency immediately establishes the Statesman has being sympathetic to the opposition’s cause. The Gujarat elections, extensively covered serve as beacon of Mrs.Gandhi’s falling star, as violence and dissatisfaction dog her campaign. Thus a headline like, ‘Mrs. Gandhi’s car stoned by students’ (5.6.75) appears more message than news.
The paper’s coverage of Mrs. Gandhi’s disqualification by the Allahabad high court judgment and the events leading up to the Emergency may be said to have set the tone for the newspaper’s demeanor over the next year and half. The edition dated 13.6.75 is paradigmatic. The report on Mrs. Gandhi’s disqualification (under banner headlines) mentions ‘wide acclaim’ for Justice Sinha in the ‘crowded courtroom’. The front page includes the opposition’s clamor for Mrs. Gandhi’s head couched in the strident advice to ‘respect judiciary’. The promptly produced editorial urges resignation on ‘moral grounds’. The op-ed article by N.J.N. speaks piously of, ‘democratic tradition and conventions’ while going for the incumbent’s jugular, and a string of letters unanimously endorse the view. However amidst the entire diatribe a photograph of Mrs. Gandhi straddles a conspicuous corner of the front page and she gets her say in no uncertain terms. The second lead story concerns Congress leaders rallying around Mrs.Gandhi in unanimous support. There is also a reprint of the Times, London story that Mrs.Gandhi’s peccadillo would not be considered ‘corrupt practice’ in U.K. Most interestingly however, Mrs. Gandhi is quoted as promising to ‘work for the upliftment of the poor’. A week later Mrs. Gandhi was allowed to invoke the specter of ‘Central Crisis’ and ‘threat on the border’. On the same day the first letter questioning the resignation theory appeared. ON 21.6.75, Mrs.Gandhi earned another quotation in the front page when addressing a boat club rally in her support, she said, ‘when people remind us that many promises have not been met they should remember the obstacles and difficulties. We have not let the nation down’. Such homilies and other ‘progressive and developmental’ ideals were to become a constant refrain over the next 18 months.
There was no edition of the paper on 27.6.75 the day after the imposition of the Emergency as electricity to most newspaper houses had been cut following government instructions. The paper the day after carried very innocuous headlines of the Emergency report. The lead photo, quite ironically, was from abroad and in keeping with the subdued mood, and in marked contrast to 13.6.75 there was no editorial comment on the Emergency. A little blank space had been left in the op-ed page, but this illegal practice was hastily abandoned thereafter. Notably, all letters had switched to mundane affairs. Clearly censorship was in force and the fact was mentioned in an exiguous column, in gross violation of censorship orders, but soon enough the Statesman’s ardor was diminish.
Looking at the newspaper in the days ahead, an innocuous observer may be pardoned if he cannot descry the existence of such a dybbok as the Emergency, and if the Prime Minister conveys the impression of being the paragon of all virtues. The front page was soon reduced to carrying news items like ‘Prices of cinema tickets and eggs reduced’ (22.8.75). And this was not an isolated instance. News reports like ‘Sunday Market at Chandni Chowk moved’ (21.7.75) ‘Delhi shops get a pruning’ (9.8.75) and ‘issue of tokens to cyclists’ (13.8.75) became the norm. Apart from being obscure reminders of government efficiency, they quintessentially appeared to be the result of the need to fill pages. A letter published on 11.1.76 called for compulsory sterilization of beggars. It is unlikely that such a letter would have been published at any time except the Emergency, and while to a later reader it appears to be a manifestation of the general inanity prevalent in the nation at that time, it is unlikely that the Statesman was using the letter as an ironical aside on the Emergency for the posterity.
Not all ‘propaganda’ on the Emergency was couched in such subtile terms. The front page was frequently devoted to playing up the sunny side of the Emergency while Mrs. Gandhi basked in the glow. New items like ‘Indira Gandhi lists the gains of Emergency’ (25.7.75) and ‘ only democracy can work in India’ (7.8.75) constantly appeared. Through most of the period of the Emergency Mrs. Gandhi grabbed headlines spouting democratic ideals and progressive measures. Thus she spoke of ‘Women’s rights’ (15.1.76) ‘decentralisation’ (22.2.76) ‘scientific farming’ (11.4.76) ‘Solar Energy’ (31.12.76) et.al. and espoused other akin ideals and Government measures whilst reiterating platitudes like the need for ‘Democracy to suit a country’s needs’ (29.10.75). She also got away with half-truths, like ‘there is no censorship in India’ (9.7.76) when clearly several publications were under censorship at that time. The Statesman chose not be question such statements. Indeed it published an editorial titled ‘Flourishing Press’ (31.1.76) which was generally a summary of the report of Registrar of Newspapers based on figures till 1973 and made absolutely no mention of censorship laws. The newspaper also gave prominent space to Mrs.Gandhi’s invective against the Western press. News items like ‘Bias in Criticism of the Western Press’ (3.3.76) and ‘ Ignore western press – Indira Gandhi’ (16.9.76) where faithfully rendered with no questions asked. The newspaper also eagerly covered the Non aligned press conference that was ironically enough held in New Delhi and encouragingly published Mrs. Gandhi’s address (with her photo lead) whence she spoke of ‘the need to fight Western Colonial Media (9.1.76). The paper thus let go of an excellent opportunity to expose the hypocrisy inherent in the summit.
The newspaper persisted with an equivocal stance towards censorship. While carrying on a battle of attrition with the censor authorities itself, it strangely enough chose to favor censorship of other media. An editorial on 8.6.76 identified TV and radio as ‘modes of propaganda’ and called for a ‘sophisticated approach’ to their censorship. It also suggested that film censorship be ‘qualitatively vigilant’ rather than merely quantitative’. The movie review section of the paper may be held culpable of being politically inert. The most glaring instance was the unanalytical review of the film made by Sukhdev on the emergency, provocatively titled ‘Thunder of freedom’. The review mentioned ‘wide-spread acceptance’ of the Emergency and questioned none of the aspects of the documentary that was apparently a panegyric to the Emergency. Most galling of all though was the latent tyrant in the reviewer, streaks of which were revealed when he constantly hoped that something in the Emergency provisions would enable him to ban all that he did not like in Hindi movies, viz. sex, violence and even excessive length.
The opposition did not derive much succor from the newspaper, indeed it was blanked out for the most part. Reports on JP’s movement surceased entirely, and JP himself occasionally made it to the paper only due to deteriorating health. Mrs. Gandhi was able to level accusations like the ‘opposition (is) taking undue advantage of our tolerance, friendship, politeness, frankness’ (24.2.76), without the opposition getting a chance to retaliate in print. Top leaders like Morarji Desai and Charan Singh barely got a look in whereas Sanjay Gandhi (after making an initial photographic appearance on (8.3.76) was regularly featured. Other Congress leaders were visible too with some like Barooah being particularly prominent. When the Home Minister made a blatantly pro-Emergency statement that he hoped ‘new habits would become a way of life’ (14.9.75), it merited front-page attention. On the same day, the regime was eulogized for the ‘Big increase in the State’s income – better collection of taxes’. Unsurprisingly therefore, even readers of the putatively anti-Emergency Statesman often became convinced of the Government’s merit as a letter published just prior to the 1977 elections shows. The reader writes, anyone who has read the newspaper carefully over the last year cannot fail to be struck by the advances made’ (20.2.77) and plumps for the Congress on the basis of the Statesman reporting.
Within the limited ambit of the current research it has not been possible to precisely determine the reason for such reporting in a newspaper whose editor frequently took the opportunity to take potshots at the Government. The very need to keep the newspaper afloat could have been once such exigency. The Government made no secret of the displeasure with which it viewed the activities of the Statesman and apart from putting legal pressure even tried to place Government nominees on the Board of Directors. At a meeting held under the chairmanship of Mrs.Gandhi on August 12, 1975 different ways of dealing with the Statesman were discussed and under instructions of the Minister of Information and Broadcasting, the Company Law Board was moved on December 10, 1975 to appoint Government nominees on the Board of Directors under section 408 of Company’s Act, 1956 on the ground that the Statesman had indulged in malpractices relating to news print. It is a different matter that the Statesman was ultimately able to prove the case malafide, but there is certitude regarding extreme pressure. Creditably then, the Statesman refused to tergiversate the carried on in critical vein, though it often had to take recourse to metaphors and veiled references to get past the censor.
The anti-establishment tone of the newspaper before the Emergency has been aforementioned and its vehement editorials (12.6.75, 14.6.75, 17.6.75, 18.6.75) pressing for Mrs.Gandhi’s resignation after the Allahabad High Court Judgment marked the apogee of the stance. The combative mood appeared to have vanished with the imposition of the Emergency and interestingly not a solitary op-ed article condemning the Emergency appeared till December 1976. However while the clangorous nature of the protest may have had to be dissembled, the Statesman, while never losing sight of pragmatism, continued to chip away.
It carried out pretty reasonable reportage of the Supreme Court Appeal by Mrs. Gandhi with regard to her election case, allowing equal space to consul arguments on both sides, thus leaving the door ajar for some anti-government rhetoric to creep in. It also carried regular reports on various constitutional amendments taking place at that time, albeit minus any significant analysis. While this occluded the scope for any trenchant criticism of the implicit motives behind these amendments, it was probably prudent to do so in the days of censorship, thus also excusing itself from the obligation to voice encomiums apropos these amendments.
On 16.9.75 there appeared an interesting photograph on the front page captioned ‘Beggars continue to squat in Delhi’. It showed a couple of beggars at the swanky Connaught Place. Innocuous as the photograph appears, I venture an animadversion in the light of the drive towards order in the city. The papers at that time were dominated by various drives towards punctuality, cleanliness, efficiency, discipline etc., and also reports of punitive measures being taken against offenders. The Statesman, by publishing this photo, may have been trying to picturise defiance. I may be running the gauntlet of over interpretation here but the photo does stand out amidst those of clean streets, perfect traffic etc.
In more assured vein, the comparison with Pakistan was insidiously bruited to exhibit the discrepancies prevalent in the current situation in India. The technique involved was to play upon the antipathy towards Bhutto and by innuendo suggest simulacrum with Mrs. Gandhi’s policies. Two episodes stand out in particular. On 1.1.75 the paper carried out a report on Bhutto using Mrs. Gandhi’s speeches to defend his position and invoking her logic of strengthening the center and simultaneously warned of the authoritarian proclivities intrinsic in such a mode of governance . On 24.2.76 the editorial took issue with Bhutto for carrying out short-term measures’ and went on to apostrophize, ‘Pakistan is more important than Bhutto’. This was obviously a dig at Barooh’s slogan that ‘Indira is India’.
Around November 1975, the reporting on Emergency increased as pre-censorship was relaxed. Mrs. Gandhi, while she continued to enjoy a privileged position in terms of news-worthiness, now occasionally found herself on the defensive. Thus on 6.11.75 a report appeared: ‘Indira Gandhi admits distortions in the economy’. Others in the same vein included, ‘Indira Gandhi denies lurch to the right’ (31.12.75) and ‘fifth plan not given up, says Mrs. Gandhi’ (10.1.76). While such reports failed to establish any points against the government they did succeed in mentioning some of the popular grievances of the time. These reports were filed’ By our special correspondent’ and while not being radical had the merit of raising issues, and also signaled the paper’s independence from the Government controlled news agency ‘Samachar’. This also allowed forbidden terrain to be explored. Thus on 14.9.75, the detenus were mentioned for the first time in a report titled ‘30% of the detenus freed’ due to prevailing normalcy. A more interesting report appeared on 21/2/76 , after the imposition of the President’s rule in Tamil Nadu, a letter appeared that spoke of the ‘value of liberty’ but refrained from mentioning the Emergency. The editorial column too was not entirely bereft of fight. Conspicuous instance included the following:
- 9.11.75 – the editorial questioned the propriety of the amendment, which made the Supreme Court verdict of Mrs. Gandhi’s case redundant. Cheekily, the editorial was titled ‘Welcome relief’ and began in spirit appreciative of the assured stability at the center before changing tack towards the end. This may have been done to inveigle the censor.
- 18.1.76 -- The editorial on Family Planning questioned the government’s actual priorities against stated ones mentioning the cut in the budgetary allotment to family planning, thereby making the government appear to be dragging its feet. It also suggested coordination rather than coercion as the more efficacious method, thus bringing to fore the taboo subject of coercion.
- 13.3.76 – Editorial on the collapse of the Gujarat Government during the budget session refers to the ‘inability of the opposition in the present political climate’ thus hinting at the undemocratic state of affairs prevalent in the country.
- 24.3.76 – Editorial on the opposition. It bids ‘Ground rules of parliamentary politics have changed… old concepts of opposition irrelevant, new rules of iscusion and criticism’ and leaves little doubt about where its own sympathies lie. It also seizes the opportunity to criticize the Congress role in the Gujarat opposition.
- 1.4.76 – The editorial says ‘ The judiciary has done us proud in the Emergency’. It makes no specific mention of any judgments but it was common knowledge at that time that the judiciary had courageously refused to be cowed down by the Emergency provisions that aimed at strengthening the executive beyond control. This symbolic editorial put the Statesman firmly behind the oppressed.
In December 1976, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting finally abandoned attempts to legally force the Statesman into acceding to a government appointment on the Board of Directors. It was a major victory for the Statesman and it showed in its coverage of the elections in 1977. By then it had found the courage to openly criticize censorship. An editorial on 1.3.77 declared, ‘Press censorship is a pernicious doctrine… few countries can outshine India in the bizarre nature of many censorship orders’. When Mrs. Gandhi declared at an election meeting at Behrampur in Murshidabad district that ‘The Prime Minister represents the entire people and any attack on him or, her is an on the entire people’, several letters ridiculed her. Democracy was a different ball game for them.
On the poll eve the editorial ventured ‘The extent of lying heard since June’75 would have made Mephistopheles tremble’. It spoke of ‘meanness displayed in achieving objectives’ and averred ‘never before in India have such responsibilities been placed upon voters’. After the results had been declared and Mrs. Gandhi voted out of power in a democratic way, the Statesman obviously felt vindicated and exulted, ‘We India can hold our head a little higher today’. (22.3.77).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)