FILM CENSORSHIP AND POLITICAL CENSORSHIP IN BRITISH INDIA : 1914-1945

Author(s): S. T. Baskaran
Source: Proceedings of the Indian History Congress , 1975, Vol. 36 (1975), pp. 493-510
Published by: Indian History Congress

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/44138872

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Indian History Congress is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Proceedings of the Indian History Congress

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.228 on Wed, 27 Dec 2023 05:29:33 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 FILM CENSORSHIP AND POLITICAL CENSORSHIP
IN BRITISH INDIA : 1914-1945

S. T. Baskaran

The British era in Indian History has received a great deal of

scholarly attention from historians and in recent years, the regulation
of mass media, like press, and its bearing on political control
the British exercised over India, has been taken up for study.1
However cinema, the new medium that came on the Indian scene
when the struggle for Independence was gaining momentum, a medium
that was used for political propaganda and in turn got repressed
by the British Government has not received the analysis it deserves.

Within two decades of its appearance in 1896 in Watson

Hotel, Bombay, cinema was emerging as the single largest entertainment
form in India.2 Where the traditional channels of communication
are short and personal, as in India, control of a new, powerful
channel, such as the cinema becomes dramatically important.3 The
Brit sh Government in the face of clear signs of rising nationalism
and new attitudes that began to manifest after World War I grew wary
of the potentiality of cinema as a medium. Insidiously, by legislative
and extra-legislative methods, they built up a severely restrictive
control over films, a process Waich left some lasting effects on
Indian cinema.

Earlier, spurred into action by the increasing use of Indian

literature as a vehicle for stimulating nationalistic ideas, the British,
through a series of legislative actions, culminating in the Press Act
of 1910, had established a restraining hold over the press. But
with cinematographic shows, which by 1910 had become a regular
feature in a number of Indian cities, the Governments' concern
initially was restricted to ensuring the safety of the audience and
Law and Order. The police were using the place of Public Resort
Act II of 1888 to regulate the shows. When lime-lights gave place
to electric lamps in the projection of films, the shows came under

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.228 on Wed, 27 Dec 2023 05:29:33 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 494

the purview of Indian Electricity Act of 1910 under which the

permission of District authorities for shows was obligatory.4 As
touring cinema companies began to hold shows in small towns, 'the
Rules to Govern Cinematographic Exhibitions in muffasal' aimed
mainly at prevention of fire, was issued by the provincial governments.

Governmental sensitivity to the content of public entertainment

( other than drama, regulated by the Drmatic Performances Act of
1876 ) began rather innocuously when Miss. Maud Alien, a British
dancer of certain notoriety announced her tour of India in 1913.
Concerned about the British image in India, the Secretary of State
tried to persuade her to cancel the trip, but the dancer was adamant. 8
The Government of India alerting the provincial governments wrote
"the objections to performances in this country by a white woman
óf her dramatic reputations, of the dances of the type that has
become associated with her name are obvious." To meet the situation
the police in the provinces were armed with two powers, to demand
full information about any performance seven days ahead and to
prohibit any shows which may lead to disorder.6 And these powers
were used by the police to have a check on the content of cinemas
till the Cinematographic Act of 1718.

The British Government still indifferent to the potentiality of

cinema as a new visual medium, was treating it on par with other
shows. They woke to the difference and to the problems that would
have to be faced because of the unique properties of cinema through
a question from a member in the House of Commons. Carr-Gomm
drew the attention of the government to a cinema show held in
Madras in January 1914 in which "European and American demi-
monde" were featured. And the India Office grew concerned that
"the audience may think that the secrets of English home life were
being revealed" and began to examine steps to control cinema in
India.7 Though the first Indian film PUNDALIK was released in
1912, most of the films screened in India were American films,
stories set in western social background and the main concern of
the British was with keeping the British image untarnished. After
all, the average Indian audience might not distinguish English from
American characters.

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.228 on Wed, 27 Dec 2023 05:29:33 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 495

On the model of the Cinematographic Act of 1909 of Britian,

the Indian Cinematographic Act, which provided pre-censorship of
films, a form of control that was not possible over press and stage,
was passed in 1918. According to the Statement of Objects and
Reasons, it was "designed to ensure proper control of cinemato-
graphic exhibitions and to prevent presentation to the public of
improper or objectionable films"'. As most of the films screened in
India were imported, censor Boards were set up in the three chief
ports, Bombay, Calcutta and Madras in 1920 ; but unlike the British
Board, a non-official body, the Indian Boads which included non-
official members were in the hands of executive authority.8 The
Government of India Act of 1919 (Montague-Chelmsford Reforms)
had placed cinema as a 'reserved' subject with the governors and
the commissioners of police were the chairmen of the boards. Bombay
Board, which was handling most of the imported films, drew a
list of Central Principles, to guide the inspectors who were to examine
the films, patterned closely after the 43 rules framed by T. P. O.
'Connor, the second ehairman of the British Board of Film Censors.
While most of the principles were on violence and sex, three of
them indicated the anticipation of the government to the possible
areas which might be affected by films - reference to controversial
politics, relationship with capital and labour and subjects dealing
with India in which British or Indian officers are shown suggesting
the d.sloyalty of native states or disrepute British prestige.9

But London was still not satisfied with the working of the
censorship set-up. Articles decrying the damages done by American
films to the British image in India began to appear in the British press.
The Censorship pattern in each centre varied, necessitating periodical
directives from the centre. Bombay for example, employed inspectors
to examine films, while in Madras, sub-committees were formed for this
purpose. Though a certificate from one of these boards was valid
throughout British India, some films got uncertified locally and some
of the films which were banned in one province got screened in
the others. As a trade cinema industry was growing ; Indian companies
came into being and simultaneously import of foreign films increased.
The Government of India invited W. Evans, a cinema expert from

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.228 on Wed, 27 Dec 2023 05:29:33 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 496

England, to examine the state of cinema in India and he concluded

that tighter governmental control of cinema was called for. He
wrote, "serious consequence may ensue through the perversion
of what is now the most powerful weapon in the armoury of the
propagandist." The Advisory Publicity Committee of the Government
of India which examined the Evans report, endorsed his views and
sounded an alarm that when Indian cinema industry gets organised
it may produce "films of a highly undesirable type."10 So, to meet
that eventuality suggested, in addition to control of exhibition by
pre-censorship regulation of production itself, a two-pronged
instrument to keep the screen under effective control.

While the Government of India was worried about Indian

films, the India Office was bothered by the inflow of foreign films.
In July 1921 the Secretary of State telegraphically enquired if film
censorship was satisfactory in India.11 There were reasons for this
fear of foreign films. World War I particularly in the later stages,
had introduced orgainised international propaganda.12 In India, by
1919, Bolshevik documents began to be circulated and the British
Government geared up its machinery to ward of these new ideas
which might threaten their position in India.13 War controls had
created new problems ; in the recruiting areas there were labour
unrest and riots. Cerman and Indian revolutionary contact posed
a new danger. And tl.e British were anxious to avoid the hostility
of Indian Muslims who were concerned about the fate of Turkey.14
The examples of Japanese and Italian nationalism were already
influencing Indian political thought of the period. To protect India
from all these external influences a tight cordon was thrown around
the country, through customs and postal censorship. Film censor-
ship was tightened ; the Provincial Publicity Officer was placed in
the board thus increasing its executive character.

Internally there was turmoil. The Rowlatt Act and the

subsequent Non-c>operation and Khilafat movements with Gandhi
as the pre-eminent national leader, were accelerating the process oi
mass politicization. Gradually, popular arts began aquiring overtones
of political propaganda. In Bengal and later in Madras, popular
theatre was being actively used in this way,15 and the screen greatly

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.228 on Wed, 27 Dec 2023 05:29:33 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 497

influenced by stage in India, began showing signs of similar

developments. Though most of the films from Bombay at this time
were stunt and mythologicals, the occasional appearance of a film
with political flavour disturbed the British. BHAKTHA VIDUR
(1921) of Kohinoor Films, one of the earliest of its kind, told the
story of Vidur of Mahabharatha in an allegorical portrayal of
Gandhi's political activities.16 Vidurji, as he was referred to in
the sub-titles, wears khaddar, sports a Gandhi-cap, and spins on a
charka, all already powerful symbols of nationalism, and persuades
the farmers to refuse to pay tax.17 TRISTRAM SAHIB (1921), an
American film, laid in Indian setting, showed a priest inciting
villagers to rise against authority and the mutiny of an Indian
Regiment. Both the films were banned. The government's extreme
sensitivity to the attitude of the Muslims was reflected in the banning
of THE VIRGIN OF STAMBUŁ (1920), also American, because it
showed an Arab girl entering a mosque.18
With each directive from London, the censorship system grew
more and more elaborate, not through any well-considered measure,
but in a haphazard manner, out of certain specific situations. One
typical case was that of ORPHANS OF THE STORM ( 1922 J1 9
which was banned in Bengal because of certain scenes of French
Revolution depicted in the film, but got screened in Punjab. The
Government of Punjab drew the attention of the Government of
India to this film and suggested that whenever a film was banned
in one province, a copy of that order should be sent to all the
others; the suggestion was accepted with alacrity.20 Though a
certificate from one of the Boards was valid throughout the country,
whenever there was local protest, the concerned board re-examined
the film. But after the ORPHANS OF THE STORM episode, films
banned in one province got uncertified in the others also. In such
cases the order was issued without even examining the synopsis
of the film. FORTIETH DOOR, banned by the Government of
Burma which objected to scenes of conflict between Muslims and
Christians, in the middle east, was prohibited in the other provinces
also.21 The exercise of power over cinema by district authorities,
under Sec. 7 (3) of the Indian Cinematographic Act, further compli-
cated the situation. While examining films for certification, the

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.228 on Wed, 27 Dec 2023 05:29:33 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 498

boards often tried to make the film 'clean* by prescribing excisions,

however ruthless these may be ; but the district authorities straight
away banned the whole film at the slightest suspicion. Thus it was
possible for a police inspector to get a film uncertified by a mere
.report to the District Magistrate, and the provincial government
in upholding the order of the magistrate, banned the film throughout
the province. Once this was done, action followed in the other
provinces also. A police inspector in Dehra Dun, who happened
to watch IMMORTAL GLORY (1931) of Krishna Films of Bombay,
considered it objectionable and on his report the film was uncertified
in the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh and subsequently in the
whole country.22 On top of this, the Government of India, if it
considered a film undesirable, instructed the provincial governments
to ban it. There were even instances of British envoys in other
countries alerting India Office on films which were considered harmful
to British interests in India. Such was the case of AFTER THE
STORM, on which the British resident in Singapore reported to
London, "a white woman is shown drinking in an asiatic saloon,
surrounded by asiatics and very drunk", and got the film banned in
India.2 3

Though the number of members in the boards was increased

periodically to accommodate different interests, the commissione
of police as the chairman had complete control over the board
and members were nominated or jettisoned on his advice only
The non-official members, satisfied with the status-symbol of a
place in the board, restricted their activity to observations on
moral (violence and sex) and religious issues in the films.24 Appeal
to the. government, though few and far between, against the
decisions of the board, was decided by the commissioner himself.
The District Magistrate of Tinnevelly, when called upon to comment
on the censorship set-up, neatly described the position, 'The Madras
Board which is practically the commissioner of police, may well
go. A police officer is not a suitable censor".25

The emphasis of censorship changed according to the issues

to which the British Government were sensitive at a given point
in time, in India and at the international level. While to begin

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.228 on Wed, 27 Dec 2023 05:29:33 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 499

with their main concern was the British image in India, soon a
new factor came up. Indian cinema industry, after a shaky start
fiven by pioneers like R. G. Torney (PUNDALIK. 1912) and D. G.
Phalke (RAJA HARISHCHANDRA 1913) eventually got established
and a steady stream of films began arriving in the market. By
1921, in addition to the sporadic adventurer who produced a
single film and disappeared from the scene, there were 8 companies
in Bombay, 3 in Calcutta and 2 in Madras 25 Indian film-makers,
who were drawn towards the Non-cooperation movement began to
give veiled support to the nationalistic cause in their films. Since,
very often, certificates were issued on the basis of synopses, without
actual viewing, films which used nationalistic symbols in visuals
got past and were taken note of on reports from local authorities.

The Bolshevik Revolution and the unequivocal stand that

the Comintern had taken against the British in India greatly
rerturbed India Off.ce. M.N. Roy and others began to organise
their propaganda agencies and labour in India.27 The appearance
in Englanl of thî alleged 'Zinoviev letter' addressed to the British
Communist Party on the eve of the British elections in 1924 had
aggravated Britain's wariness to external propaganda. 2 8 Russia
entered world cinema through the classics of Sergei Eisenstein in
1925. Izvestia declared that the Soviet cinematograph industry would
acquaint the peasants of India and Afghanistan with the achievements
of the Russian Revolution. The Government of India warned the
censors "to be on the watch for propaganda films of the nature
described."29 The Commissioner of Police, Bombay, who scrutinised
BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN (1925) recorded without hesitation that
"the film was obviously intended for propaganda, justifying the
Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in particular and overthrow of
authority in general."30

Another area of sensitivity was the possibility of causing

diplomatic offence to Britain's international allies by permitting
certain films. Protests from consuls were taken seriously and acted
upon. When the Portugal consul in India protested to SEA HORSES
in 1928 because the film, set in Portuguese East Africa, portrayed
Portuguese officials as corrupt, it was promptly banned, but later

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.228 on Wed, 27 Dec 2023 05:29:33 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 soo

released with excisions.31 In the same year, two shorts screened

in Calcutta, SPORTING LOVER, with a sequence showing German
soldiers bombing hospitals and KICKING THE GERM OUT
OF GERMANY, ridiculing Field-Marshall Von Hindenburg, drew
pretests from the German Consul stationed in Calcutta and got
uncertified.32 There was even a stage when the consuls started
writing to the provincial boards straight.

In Punjab, after the Jallianwalabagh massacre, groups of

Sikhs were trying to establish control over gurdv'aras. Though
this was a local issue, it soon assumed the dimensions of a
movement. Marches (jatha) towards gurdwaras were organised.
For the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, the Shorey
Studio at Lahore produced a film on the jathas titled SHAH1DI
JATHĄ in 1924. The Government of Punjab promptly banned the
film and alerted other governments also.33

While in Britain, the press was periodically raising its voice

against American films screened in India and the damage done to the
honour of British, the Government realised with uneasiness that a
number of films, smuggled into the country, were getting shown, by-
passing the censors. Indian cinema was showing a tendency towards
political propaganda. An early warning came from the Electrical
Inspector to the Government of Madras, a provincial official, who was
a constant adviser to the Government in the early years of cinema :
he recorded in 1921, "I know and it surprises me - of a few cases where
boards have passed films dealing with such inflammatory matters as the
Qandhi doctrines which are undesirable in any province in India."34
BHAiCTHA VIDUR had set the pattern for such propaganda. Once
again the cry for stricter censorship went up, percolated downwards
and resulted in more powers to district authorities. Perturbed by the
developments, the Secretary of State addressed the Governor-General
and expressed concern about 'politically undesirable films.'35 As
six years had passed since Evans conducted his survey, a fresh look
into the whole question of censorship was suggested by India Office
and the Indian Cinematograph Committee came to be formed in
1927. And on the model of the Press Committee of 1921, an Indian,
B. Rangachari, was appointed as chairman.36

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.228 on Wed, 27 Dec 2023 05:29:33 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 501

The committee toured around the country, watched thousands of

feet of film, listened to 350 witnesses, poured through 300 statements
and came up with a case for liberal censorship.73 It observed that
the boards were unduly sensitive to racial, communal and political
themes. The recommendations of the committee, however, were largely
ignored and the voluminous report made little impact on the
censorship policy. In any case, with the arrival of 'talkies' with all
the ramifications, the report soon became out of date except as a source
cf information. Censorship continued to be controlled by the police and
grew in intensity as politicai developments in the country, through
nation-wide movements, moved inexorably towards independence.
iii

By the end of the nineteen-twenties, political events in India

were leading the Congress towards another major showdown with
authority. Following the boycott of Simon Commission, the Congress
declared poorna swaraj as its ultimate goal. The Civil Disobedience
movement wihch beg in with Gandhi's march to Dandi, was met with
severe repressive measures on all fronts. Film censorship once again
intensified but soon fa.ce J a new challenge with the arrival of ALAM
ARA (1931, Hindi ), the first Indian 'talkie'. 'Talking pictures' earned
a much wider audiencí to Indian cinema. The inherent protection
thus gained against foreign competition, encouraged new companies
to come up.38 Keeping up with the political climate of the country,
film-makers began probing social issues with this new-fang'ed medium
and gradually ventured into direct political propaganda. The Govern-
ment of India decided to revamp the censorship machinery ; the
number of members in the boards was increased, the commissioners
of police as chairmen of the boards were given more powers and the
district authorities were reminded of their powers over cinema shows.
Censorship grew arbitrary and the members virtually ceased to work ;
the magistrates resorted to peremptory banning of films. In Salem,
the District Magistrate suspended the screening of WRATH ( 1931 ),
produced by Imperial Film Company, Bombay, as the film was "not
only stupid, inartistic but also low and sordid". The film was
actually on non-violence and the main protagonist was a Gandhi-
like character. 3 9 The Government of Madras supported the decision

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.228 on Wed, 27 Dec 2023 05:29:33 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 502

of the magistrate and the board agreed with the government. IMMOR-
TAL GLORY ( 1930 ), of Krishna Films, which advocated non payment
of taxes as a political weapon, was banned in .1931 for its "blatant
propaganda".40 In the same year, PATRIOT ( 1930 ) of Sri Ranjit
Film Company was uncertified.4 1 The General Principles of Censor-
ship, totally forgotten, were not referred to at all, except when an appeal
was filed against the decision of a board. The issues that really
affected the censorship policy in the 1930s were Hindu-Muslim relation-
ship, pro-tongress and anti-native ruler propaganda, labour, and
insult to friendly nations. Films that dealt with any one of these themes
came in for severe handling.
The communal riots of 1924 had left a bitter memory and the
British grew very sensitive to this issue. Each board had a Muslim
member whose opinion was greatly respected. ANARKALI ( 1928 )
was banned by the magistrate of Mangaloie, where there had teen
communal riots earlier that year. The film soon got banned in the
entire country.42 When a.- question was asked in the House of Com-
mons about LIVES OF BENGAL LANCERS ( 1935, English ) in which
Muslim soldiers were shown as being sprinkled with pig's blood, the
film got uncertified in India.43
The political activities of the Civil Disobedence movement was
marked by a crop of films, oriented towards propaganda. By allego-
rical reference to political events and by advocating social reforms in
their films, many Indian film-makers lent their weight to Congress
ideals. MAHATMA ( syn. 1935 ) produced by Prabhat, the story
of Saint Ekanath ( A. D. 1533-99 ) and his fight against casteism was
uncertified as "it treats a sacred subject unreverently".44 In VAS ANT
BENGALI or BENGALI BOMB ( 1938, Hindi ) of Sagar Film Com-
pany, Bombay, the hero Vasant saves the poor from the harassing police
and uses bombs to fight authority. First in Central Province and then
in the others, the film got banned in the whole country.45

A significant development of this period, both cinematographi-

cally and politically, was the production of documentaries, 'topicals'
as they were then called, covering major political events relating to
Congress and its leaders. Earlier THE INDIAN NATIONAL CON-
GRESS AT COCONADA 1927, produced in Madras had shown the

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.228 on Wed, 27 Dec 2023 05:29:33 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 503

way in this direction. Beginning with a documentary on Dandi march,

MAHATMA GANDHI'S MARCH TO FREEDOM by Sarada Film
Companies, a series of shorts were made on Gandhi's political activi-
ties and all these films, remarkable records of the life of the nation,
were banned.46 Spurred by this novel use of screen, certain Congress
leaders also began to use the medium. S. Sathyamurti, when he
contested for a seat in the Legislative Assembly in Madras, produced a
film appealing to voters and got it screened all over Madras. In Bombay
M. R. Masani produced a one-reeler, THE MESSAGE OF PANDIT
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU, featuring Nehru making a speech. Protest-
ing against permitting such speeches on the screen, the Government of
Bombay wrote to Delhi 4 it is possible that the value of propaganda of
this kind may be greater in this country than in the west."47 The
Government of India decided not to allow such films and Masani's
film was refused a certificate as it could 'foment social unrest and
discontent'. Two more films, one featuring Rajendra Prasad and another
produced by Bombay Provincial Congress Committee, NATIONAL
FLAG-HOISIT IN G AND SALUTION CEREMONY were also banned.
In Madras Sathyamurthy came up with a second propaganda films in
1937 but was not able to get a certificate. He appealed to the govern-
ment in his capacity as the Chairman of Tamilnadu Congress Parliamen-
tary Committee, without much effect.48 Central Government wrote
to the Provinces on the need to prohibit such propaganda films. Many
documentâmes of foreign news agencies, like the British Screen News
Company and Paramount, were banned 4 9 However, ban on these
films was lifted in many provinces when the Congress came to power
in 1937.

As many of the rulers of princely states overtly supported the

British, the Government did not tolerate any attack on the princes.
THE TERROR or CHALTA PURJA ( 1929 ), a story woven around
an imaginary maharaja of Kantipur was banned in Bombay ; explaining
the action the board said "we think the whole plot is nothing but a
parody on the ways and habits of native ruiers

relations existing between the native rul

we are of an opinion that the film canno
same board banned SEARCH LIGHT (syn. 1937) as it "tended to

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.228 on Wed, 27 Dec 2023 05:29:33 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 504

bring into disrepute the rulers of Indian native states4' 51 Žamindars

and big landlords, who had been solidly behind the Government
in South India, particularly during the Civil Disobedience movement,
were extended the same cinematic protection.52 When RYOTU
BIDDA (1940 Telugu), which probed issues like rural indebtedness,
and zamindari system, was banned by the Magistrate of Nell ore, the
government upheld his orders. The Raja of Bobili and the Raja
of Venkatagiri threatened to sue the producers as some of the
characters could be identified with themselves.53

iv

With the outbreak of World War II in 1939 and the stand

of the Congress against India's participation in the war, the censor-
ship of films further intensified. Under Defence of India Rules
Sec. 84 (3), a special board was set up to check if films going out
of India portrayed conditions in Indią adversely. Under Sec. 44A
each cinema house was compelled to screen propaganda films of the
Government.64 Certain provincial officials were empowered to enter
cinema houses and check if these films were being screened. Director
of War Publicity was put on the censor board to check if any
film offended war efforts.55 Britain's changing equations with other
nations, caused by the war, left their ripples in the censorship policy.
CHETNICKS, certified earlier and screened in many towns, was
banned during the war. The Government of India clarified the
position, "it was certified at a time when these Chetnick activities
were directed against German army of occupation in the country
(Yugoslavia) and Chetnick troops were regarded as pro-allied. But
the situation has since changed and the activities of Chetnick gue-
rillas are now largely directed against Marshall Tito's forces which
are recognised as the Yugoslav arm of the UN".56 GUNGA DIN
(1939, English) which had been showing for nearly 2 years in India
was banned as the Government thought that the film would adversely
affect the relationship between the public and the army.5 7 BLACK
FURY ( 1940, English ) was banned as it dealt "in a provocative
fashon with the relation between labour and police".58
With the 'Quit India' movement and the imprisonment of
leaders in 1942, the tempo of propaganda in Indian films increased

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.228 on Wed, 27 Dec 2023 05:29:33 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 505

and the Government responded with intensifying censorship as a

part of its organised effort to disrupt Congress contact with mass
audience. The Advisers to Governors were extremely severe towards
Indian cinema and grew intolerant of introduction of symbols like
pictures of national leaders in films.59 DHIRAJ (1942 Hindi) which
had been enjoying comfortable runs was banned by the Government
of United Provinces which objected to a sequence showing school
children raising money for the teacher, in a typical Congress fashion
of the day, going in a procession holding tri-colour flags and singing
nationalistic songs.60 Songs, a necessary ingredient of Indian filmic
entertainment, came in as a handy instrument for the film-makers.
The Government of India alerted the provinces to this method while
drawing their attention to a song in PREM SANGEETH (1943
Hindi ) which had the line ' we have decided to drive away the
foreigners".61 BADALTI DUNIYA ( 1943 Hindi) had a sequence
showing the hero and the heroine, singing about the imprisonment
of leaders, standing in front of a parrot cage.62 HAMARA DESH
(-1940 Hindi) which focused attention on the ill-treatment of prisoners
was also banned as "seditious and propagating the cult of violence'.6 3
SANGAM (1939 Marathi) which had been certified earlier was banned
as it featured pictures of S. C. Bose and Gandhi.64 In Madras the
Commissioner of Police got THYAGABHUMI (1939 Tamil) uncerti-
fied as the burden of the story was that ''the service for the m )ther
land is a noble ideal and that it should be of Congress pattern".65
The tempo of strict censorship, built up to a peak during
the war years, continued till 1945 when the Congress came to power
in most of the provinces and established popular governments.
v

The characteristics and variations of a cinema are influenced

by the pressures at work, particularly during the eady years. In
India, the British Government displayed a negative attitude towards
cinema all along and looked upon it as a challenge to the hold
they desired to have over Indian public opinion. As an industry,
it received little encouragement ; the talk there was of helping
Indian cinematographic industry, in the initial years, was mainly
aimed against the American domination, vis-a-vis the British, of

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.228 on Wed, 27 Dec 2023 05:29:33 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 506

Indian cinema theatres. Unlike the press and the stage, huge sums
of money are invested in the production of a film and the attitude
of the British Government inhibited Indian film-makers to venture
into anything that might prove controversial and get banned. There
were clear indications of an 'anticipatory censorship' operating. When
National Theatres of Madras planned a film, CONGRESS GIRL,
they approached the Board of film censors to find out if the film
was likely to have any difficulty in getting certified ; the board
bluntly told them that the film would never be passed.66 Certain
completed films never saw the light of the day ; such were MISS
SUGUNA (1937 Tamil) and MAHATMA (1935 Hindi). Censorship
system was never uniform and was often whimsical, practicularly at
the lower levels. The Boards, controlled by the Commissioner of police,
never hesitated to excise portions, the Government of India and
India Office specified eertain films that called for prohibition and
the provincial and district authorities banned films outright, even
those which had been cleared by the boards and were enjoying huge
audience. Protests from different communities were taken seriously
and re-examinations ordered. There were also other pressure groups
like foreign consuls and voluntary agencies.
Indian cinema, therefore, hemmed in on all sides by sensitive
areas of endless variety, lay cramped like an Egyptian mummy ; in
this stultifying atmosphere it shaped into a predominantly escapist
entertainment variety. The few films that differed in content ( discussed
in the foregoing sections of the paper ) formed but a very small
percentage of the total output. At a time when the American and
European directors were tackling social and political issues in their
films (for example D.W.Griffith's WHEAT IN A CORNER (1923).
and Abel Ganze's BONAPARTE, 1924 ), film-makers in India restricted
their activity to stunt and mythologicals, falling back on the tradi-
tional ťsong-drama' variety of the popular stage, a direction from
which they find difficult to break away.

REFERENCES

I wish to acknowledge my gratitude to the Tamil Nadu Couneil of

Historical Research, Tarailnadu Archives, Madras. This paper was prepared while

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.228 on Wed, 27 Dec 2023 05:29:33 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 507

engaged in a research project on Tamil cinema, under a Fellowship from the

Council.

1. See for example, Gerald N. Barrier, BANNED : Controversial Literature

and Political Control in British índia 1907-1947 (Columbia 1974) ; Prema Narain,
Press and Politics in India 1835-1905 ( D¿lhi 197 J ) ; Sumit Sarkar, Swadeshi
Movement in Bengai 1903-19)8 (Delhi 1973 ).

2. The first show in a hall in Watson Hotel was by a Lumiere group

on 17.5.1896, just six months after Lumiere brothers held their first show in
Paris and the same year as Britain, Russia and America. Regular theatre
screenings in Bombay began on 14.7.1896 at Novelty theatre. Brie Barnouw & S.
Kiishnaswamy, Indian Film (New York 1963), p. 3.

3. Wilbur Schramm, 'Communication Development and the Development

Process* in Communications and Poliiical Development , Ed. Lucian W. Pye ( 1963 ).

4. O. O. No. 1348 Judicial (Tamil Nadu Archives-hereafter referred to

as TA ).
5. However, in deference to the request of the Secretary of State, Miss
Allen promised not to perform her favourite number 'The Salome dance'. G. O.
No. 2335 Judicial 18.11.13 (TA).
6. Ibid.

7. G.O. No. 2424 Judicial 9.11.1914 (TA).

8. Letter No. 1087. Home (Political), Government of India dated Simla
23.5.1918 ( in G.O. No. 239 ) Home ( Judicial ) 28.10.1918, TA ).
9. Report of the Enquiry Committee on Film Censorship (Khosla
Committee ) (New Delhi 1969), p. 8.
10. W. Evans, 'Cinema Publicity in India 192P in Letter No. 1237 Law
(General) 12.5.1922 (TA).
11. Letter No. Public 159 from Edwin S. Montagu, secretary to the
Governor-General, dated India Office, London 8.12.1921 (in G.O. No. 804 Law
(General) 24.3.1922, TA ).
12. E.H. Carr, 'Propaganda in International Polities', Oxford Pamphlet
On World Affairs No. 16 ( London 1939).
13. Barrier, p. 92.
14. Barrier, p. 67.
15. Sumit Sarkar, p. 282-301. S. T. Baskaran, 'Popular Theatre and the
Rise of Nationalism in Tamil Nadu : 1919-1944% Journal of Tamil Studies, No. 7
(Madras 1975).

16. The year of release of the film, where available, is furnished along
with the title. If no language is indicated within parentheses, it means the film was

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.228 on Wed, 27 Dec 2023 05:29:33 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 508

a 'silenť one. Information on the silent era of Indian cinema hasto be culled from
references to the films in governmental records and contemporary magazines oniy ;
films of this period have almost been totally lost. Out of 1300 films, not even six
have survived. Some of them were preserved by the National Film Archives of
Britain in London and the Cinematheque Française in Paris. See Bhargava D.
Garga, 'Lost Treasures of the Cinema', Courier , September 1974. The National
Film Archives of India, Poona. established in 1964, salvaged a few thousand feet
of silent film, including some Phalke material, from Bombay.

17. G.O. No. 2260 Law (General) 19.12.21 (TA).

18. G, O. No. 93 Law ( General ) 12 4.1921 (TA ). THE VIRGIN OF

STAMBUŁ was produced by Universal in US and directed by Tod Browning. The
cast included Priscilla Dean and Wheeler Oakman.

19. Produced by United Artistes, US, and directed by D. W. Griffith. The

oast included Lilian Gish, Dorothy Gish and Frank Puglia.
20. C. O. No. 1718 Lbw (General) 2.6,1924 (TA).
21. G.O. 2314-2314A Law (General) 17.7.1926 (TA).
22. G, O. No. 573-574 (General) 9.2.31 (TA).
23. G.O. No. 3871 Law (General) 15.11.28 (TA).
24. G. Oě No. 2986 Law (General) 23.9.27 (TA).
25. Letter 162 Law (General) dated 10.1.1929 (TA).
26. G. O. No. 804 Law (General) 24.3.22 (TA).
27. Barrier, p. 92.
28. E. H. Carr, loc . cit.
29. G. O. No. 1760 Law (General) 11.5.25 (TA). Towards Soviet films,
Britain followed the same policy at home also. Eisenstein's BATTLESHIP
PO. TEM KIN was refused a certificate in England in 1925 and was not passed till
1954. Pudovkin's STORM OVER ASIA was also rejected. Derek Hill, The Habit
of Censorship', Encounter t Vol. XV., No- 1, July 1960.
30. G. O. No. 1760 Law (General) 18. 4. 29 (TA).
31. G. O. No. 528 Law (General) 14. 2. 1928.
32. G. O. No. 1185 Law (General) 8. 4. 1927 (TA).
33. G. O. No. 1505 Law (General) 5. 5. 24 (TA).
34. G. O. No. 804 Law (General) 24. 3. 22 (TA).
But Gandhi himself was not much in favour of cinema and didnot take
congisance of the work done by Indian film-makers towards this direction. In reply
to a questionaire sent to him by the Indian Cinematograph Committee, he wrote
on 12. 11. 1927, "Even if I was so minded, I should be unfit to answer your
questionnaire, as I have never been to a cinema. But even to an outsider, the evil

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.228 on Wed, 27 Dec 2023 05:29:33 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 509

that it has done and is doing is patent. The good, if it has done any at all,
remains to be proved'*. Indian Cinematograph Committee 1927-28., Vol. IV,
p. 56.

35. Despatch from the Secretary of State, India Office, London, to the
Govern or General. No. Public. 90 dated 11. 10. 1923. In G. O. No. 582 Law
(General) 29. 2. 192 4 (TA).
36. Letter No. 3/307/27 of Government of India, Home (Political) dated
>.8.1927 addressed to all the Chief Secretaries of Governments. In Letter No. 2359
Law (General) 1. 8. 1927 (TA).
37. Tej Bihadur Sapru was the Chairman of the Press Committee of 1921.
38. Eric Barnouw & S. Krishnaswamy, p. 65.
39. G.O. No. 582-583 Law (General) 17. 2. 1933 (TA).
40. G.O. No. 573-574 Law (General) 9. 2. 31 (TA).
41. GO. No. 3651 Law (General) 30. 8. 1930.
42. G.O. No. 2454 Law (General) 15. 6. 29 (TA).
43. G.O. N ». 2875 Law (General) 1935 (TA). Produced by Paramount in
US. The cast included Gary Cooper and the film was nominated among the best
10 films of the year by 'The Times'.
44. G.O. 3681 Law (General) 20. 11.35 (TA).
45. G. O. No. 571-572 Law (General) 9.2.31 (TA).
46. The documentaries on Gandhi, produced by Indian fi!m-makerst
included the following titles : Mahatma Gandhi's March to Freedom, 12th March
1930- Sarada Film Co. Mahatma Gandhi's Historic March- Krishna Film Co.
Mahatma Gandhi's March 12th March, Ahmedabad - Ranjit Film Co. Epoch-
making Voyage of Mahatma Gandhi to London-Sara swat i Film Co. Mahatma
Gandhi's return from London - Shri Krishna Film Co. Bombay Welcomes Mahatma
Gandhi- M. B. Billimoria. Return of Mahatma Gandhi from RTC- Imperial Film
Co. Mahatma Gandhi's Return from the Pilgrimage of Peace- Sara&waii Film
Laboratory. Mahatma Gandhi's Speech in the Public Meeting- Krishna Tone.
Topical of Mahatma and others-Indian Topical Company. Mandvi Khadi Exhibi-
tion and Mr. Gandhi at Juhu. Mahatma Gandhi After his Release - Naujuwan Film
Co. Mahatma Gandhi afier the Truce- Imperial Film Co. Mahatma Gandhiji's
punaragaman- Krishna Film Co. Notification of the Government of Bombay,
Home (Political) No. 4583 Political dated 13. 12. 1932, in G.O. 107 Law (General)
dated 14.1.1933 (T A).
47. G. O. No. 2665 Home 10. 10. 1936.
48. Letter No. 451 Home 3. 2. 1937.

49. The films by foreign news agencies banned in India included the
following titles : Gandhi In England - British Screen News Company. Mahatma

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.228 on Wed, 27 Dec 2023 05:29:33 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 510

Gandhi in London- British Screen News Company. Gandhi's visit to Lancashire -

British Screen News Company. Arrival of Mahatma Gandhi in London- British Screen
News Company. Gandhi with Charlie- British Screen News Company. Gandhi sees
King- British Screen News Company. Gandhi's ac ivities in England - British
Screen News Company. Gandhi News- Paramount. Mahatma Gandhi's arrival in
Bombay - Pathe. Gandhi's greets King- Cinematograph Sound News. G. O. 456 Home
26. 1. 38, G. O. No. 107 Law (General) 14. 1. 33 (TA).
50. G. O. No. 4947 (General) 19. 12. 29 (TA).
51. G. O. No. 4210 Home 20. 10. 1937 (TA).
52. The Civil Disobedience Movement 1930-31, p. 1 (TA).
53. G. O. No. 1184 Home 7.3.1941 (TA).
54. G. O. No. 2695 Home 24. 6. 1940 (TA).
55. G. O. No. 4250 Home 26. 11. 1945 (TA).
56. G. O. No. 1798 Home 8. 6. 1944 (TA).
57. G. O. No. 1398 Home 13. 3. 1937 (TA). Story based on Rudyard
Kipling's poem on Norih-Westcrn frontier of India, re-written in 1939 for film by
Jjel Sayre and Fred Guiol. Directed by George Stevens and the cast included
Douglas Fairbanks and Cary Grant.
58. G. O. No. 1788-89 Home 8. 4. 41 (TA).
59. G. O. 4250 Home 26. 11. 45 (TA).
60. G. O. No. 1380 2. 5. 1944 (TA).
61. G. O. No. 528 Home 19. 2. 1944 (TA).
62. G. O. No. 3276 Home 14. 12.1943 (TA).
63. G. O. No. '273 Home 14. 6. 1943 (TA).
64. G. O. No. 1955 Home 14. 8. 1943 (TA).
65. G. O. No. 1378-79 Home 2. 5. 1944 (TA).
66. G. O. No. 5127-28 Home 17. 12. 37 (TA).

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.228 on Wed, 27 Dec 2023 05:29:33 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms