‘NEHRUVIAN’ CINEMA AND POLITICS

Author(s): PARTHA S. GHOSH

Source: India International Centre Quarterly , AUTUMN 2019, Vol. 46, No. 2 (AUTUMN
2019), pp. 90-99
Published by: India International Centre

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26856500

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

India International Centre is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
India International Centre Quarterly

This content downloaded from

14.139.45.244 on Thu, 18 Apr 2024 07:19:16 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
‘NEHRUVIAN’
CINEMA AND
POLITICS
PARTHA
S. GHOSH

INTRODUCTION

H
‘ ow is the Josh?’—Prime Minister Narendra Modi, quoted from
the Bollywood film, Uri: The Surgical Strike (2019), while
addressing eminent film personalities after the inauguration of
the National Museum of Indian Cinema in Mumbai, on 19 January
2019. His audience, which was virtually Bollywood’s who’s who,
cheered in applause, ‘High, Sir’. On the same day, railway minister
Piyush Goyal, while flagging off a new Rajdhani Express in Mumbai,
said: ‘We got to see a majboor (helpless) leadership in the Accidental
Prime Minister (2019) and a majboot (strong) leadership in Uri.’ A
week later, while campaigning for her election in Amethi, minister
Smriti Irani organised special screenings of Uri to woo her voters. In
light of these messages, and given the fact that Modi so often derides
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first prime minister, for his alleged
failures, it might be interesting to see how Nehru politically used
the medium. In Nehru’s Hero Dilip Kumar, Meghnad Desai writes that
‘one should look at politics through the prism of cinema’ (2004: x).
But I think it is equally important to see it the other way round.

THE BACKDROP
The independence of India and the partition of the country both
took place on 15 August 1947. The latter was a massive tragedy,
the scars of which are still fresh. Since cinema bypasses our
consciousness by going directly into our feelings, it would be
instructive to see how the two events influenced Indian cinema
and, in the process, how the latter too was influenced by them.
Autumn 2019, Volume 46, Number 2
90

This content downloaded from

14.139.45.244 on Thu, 18 Apr 2024 07:19:16 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 P A R T H A S . G H O S H : ‘ N E H R U V I A N ’ C I N E M A A N D P O L I T I C S

Our enquiry is limited to Hindi cinema. Of the five film studios

that existed at the time, viz., Bombay, Calcutta, Lahore, Madras
and Poona, the events of 1947 helped the Bombay film industry
tremendously as many artistes and technicians of Lahore migrated
to Bombay (Ahmed, 2012: 60–61).

PRE-INDEPENDENCE CINEMA
Pre-independence Indian cinema had to negotiate three forces:
the colonial censor, the freedom movement, and the conservative
outlook of some top nationalist leaders. The British were worried
that the liberal and socialist impact of English, American and
Russian cinema would influence the Indian mind. Even the liberal
English press thought so (Bhaumik, 1992: 178–96). They were also
worried about the growing surge of nationalist sentiments. This
was evident when they banned in 1921 the silent film Bhakta Vidur
(Vidur the Obedient). Vidur, a character from the Mahabharata,
resembled Mahatma Gandhi in the film: wearing khadi, sporting the
typical Gandhi cap, and using a charkha. Some of its scenes were
anarchist, such as the villagers’ refusal to pay taxes or to evacuate
homes in defiance of government orders (ibid.: 147–48).
It is remarkable, however, that even against the background
of growing Hindu–Muslim tension, V. Shantaram produced Padosi
(The Neighbour; 1941) as an appeal for inter-communal harmony.
The story was set in a small multi-community village where all
lived in harmony. Pandit, a Hindu, and Mirza, a Muslim, were
old friends. To achieve geniality, Shantaram cast Mazhar Khan,
a Muslim, in the role of Pandit, and Gajanan Jagirdar, a Hindu,
as Mirza. Onkar, an industrialist, decided to construct a dam in
the village, to which everyone was opposed, including the two
friends. He created communal distrust, turning Pandit and Mirza
into enemies. Finally, the dam collapsed, causing misery, but in the
process reunited the two estranged friends who came together to
save lives, but lost their own in the attempt (Bhaskar, 2019: 44;
Bose, 2006: 82–84, 104).
Strangely, however, such nationalist leaders as Mahatma
Gandhi and Vallabhbhai Patel were hostile to cinema, Gandhi in
particular. In 1927, when the Indian Cinematograph Committee
approached him for a message on the occasion of the Silver Jubilee
of Indian cinema, Mahadev Desai, Gandhi’s secretary, responded by

91

This content downloaded from

14.139.45.244 on Thu, 18 Apr 2024 07:19:16 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
I I C Q U A R T E R L Y

saying that since Gandhi had least interest in cinema, no message

should be expected (Kidwai, 2018). In an interview with them,
Gandhi was categorical: ‘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 that it has done and is doing is patent’
(Tripathi, 2015). It is not surprising that he would refuse to watch
even Achhut Kanya (Untouchable Maiden; 1936) which talked about
his most favourite theme, the eradication of untouchability. Its
producer Himanshu Rai’s several efforts in this regard failed (Guha,
2007: 721–38).
In the 24 March 1927 issue of Young India, Gandhi wrote:
‘You will avoid theatres and cinemas. Recreation is where you
may not dissipate yourself but recreate yourself. You will therefore
attend bhajan mandalis (prayer meetings) where the word and the
tune uplift the soul.’ He went to the extent of saying that going
to the cinema was like a ‘drinking-bout’—‘the results of both are
the same’. He attributed children’s headaches and loss of thinking
power to cinema. In 1934, when he heard that the Congress
session was planning some film shows, he ridiculed the idea:
‘Do they wish to turn the Congress session into a Felix Circus or
Barnum show?... [N]o such programmes can be arranged at the
place where the [nation’s] parliament meets. But we have turned
Congress into a tamasha.’ Just before India’s independence, he even
indicated the total banning of cinema: ‘If I had my way, I would see
to it that all the cinemas and theatres in India were converted into
spinning halls and factories for handicrafts of all kinds....I would...
surely prohibit music and dancing which tend to pervert the minds
of young men and women. I would stop the sale of gramophone
records’ (Bhavsar, 2018).

OTHERS IN GANDHI’S FOOTSTEPS

Not quite to the extent of Gandhi, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, who was
Nehru’s first information minister (1946–1949), also looked down
on cinema. He was particularly disrespectful of those aspects which
depicted too much Hindu–Muslim bonhomie. When a political
controversy arose in respect of the relative presence of Hindu
and Muslim communities in All India Radio (AIR) programmes,
Patel held that the Hindu presence should predominate. He tried
to achieve this by barring singers and musicians from courtesan

92

This content downloaded from

14.139.45.244 on Thu, 18 Apr 2024 07:19:16 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 P A R T H A S . G H O S H : ‘ N E H R U V I A N ’ C I N E M A A N D P O L I T I C S

backgrounds ‘whose private life was a public scandal’. Since most

such artistes were Muslim, in effect the policy barred a good number
of Muslim artistes (Lelyveld, 1994: 119).
Besides Patel, the right-wing Congress leader K. M. Munshi
also hated cinema, although, paradoxically, as a lawyer he did not
mind serving as an advocate on behalf of film companies (Bose,
2006: 205). This contempt for cinema was not limited to the
political class. Calcutta University too attributed the failure rate of its
students to their addiction to cinema. At the popular level, 13,000
housewives, under the leadership of Lilavati Munshi (MP and
K. M. Munshi’s wife), petitioned the Rajya Sabha in November 1954
to restrict cinema, particularly because it displayed women’s bodies,
which was harmful for the nation (Guha, 2007: 721–22).

WHAT ABOUT NEHRU?

Compared to Gandhi and Patel, Nehru was quintessentially
liberal, although some critics found fault with his censorship law.
To understand his relationship with cinema, let us analyse it in
five segments: (i) his equation with the Bombay film fraternity; (ii)
his use of the fraternity to promote his political interests; (iii) why
it mattered little to him what Hindi cinema did, or did not do, for
he was primarily preoccupied with India’s development goals and
nation building; (iv) his approach towards the question of film
censorship, and; (v) did he choose to look the other way when
B. V. Keskar was implementing policies meant to affect some critical
interests of Hindi cinema?

NEHRU AND THE FILM WORLD

Nehru was close to several leading film personalities like Dilip
Kumar, Prithviraj Kapoor, Mehboob Khan, Sohrab Modi, Raj Kapoor,
Nargis and K. A. Abbas. Dilip Kumar was his staunch supporter.
In 1948, when his Shaheed (Martyr) was released, it was specially
screened for the All India Congress Committee to coincide with
India’s first independence anniversary (Desai, 2004: 6, 21–22, 33).
In 1957, at Nehru’s request, Dilip Kumar addressed several electoral
rallies in Bombay on behalf of V. K. Krishna Menon. Similarly,
Prithviraj Kapoor, a Nehru fan, staged many plays highlighting
the Nehruvian ideals of secularism and socialism. In 1960, Nehru
nominated him as a Rajya Sabha member. After the 1962 war with

93

This content downloaded from

14.139.45.244 on Thu, 18 Apr 2024 07:19:16 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
I I C Q U A R T E R L Y

China, Nehru persuaded several Bombay film stars to raise funds for
the armed forces (Kidwai, 2018).
Nehru contributed significantly to the cause of the film
society movement. In a total departure from Gandhian reasoning,
he said that Indian films should ‘be exhibited to crowded houses all
over [the] world [to] earn not only money for our country but also
a reputation for beauty, goodness and truth.’ Countering criticism
that Pather Panchali (Song of the Little Road; 1955) ‘sold’ Indian
poverty to the world, he argued, what was ‘wrong about showing
India’s poverty? Everyone knows that we are a poor country. The
question is: Are we Indians sensitive to our poverty or insensitive
to it? Ray has shown it with an extraordinary sense of beauty and
sensitiveness’ (Cherian, 2017: 10, 15, 112).

POLITICAL MESSAGING
Cinema of the 1950s was essentially Nehruvian, i.e., ‘opposition
to casteism and religious superstition, a sensitivity for the poor
and their plight, but not endorsement of violent revolution’ (Desai,
2004: 64–66, 103–4). This was particularly evident in film songs,
often with Nehru’s picture in the background. For instance:

[T]he visualisation of the Rafi number ‘hum laaye hain toofan se kishti
nikaal ke (we have successfully braved the cyclone to bring the ship
ashore)’ in Jagriti (1954) zooms in on Nehru’s photograph, as if it’s
a cinematic address to the nation, while the lines go: ‘dekho barbaad
na ho ye bageecha (see to it that the garden is not ravaged),’ only to
be followed by elements of Nehru’s pacifist international outlook:
‘atom bammo ke jor pe baithi hai ye duniya, barood ke ek dher pe baithi
hai ye duniya, rakhna har kadam dekh bhaal ke (world struts with
the power of atom bombs, it’s sitting on a heap of gunpowder, take
every step very carefully) (Vardhan, 2017).

Nehru’s image was that of a well-meaning patriarch who would

listen to you if you were able to take your grievances to him. In Ab
Dilli Dur Nahin (Delhi is within Reach; 1957), its child protagonist
travelled many miles to personally hand over a letter to the prime
minister to demand justice for his wronged father (Ramnath, 2014).
But alongside hope, there was some critical questioning too
about the darker side of Nehruvian developmental strategy, typical

94

This content downloaded from

14.139.45.244 on Thu, 18 Apr 2024 07:19:16 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 P A R T H A S . G H O S H : ‘ N E H R U V I A N ’ C I N E M A A N D P O L I T I C S

of the liberal atmosphere that the period represented. The idea was
to constantly remind him about his unfinished and unaddressed
tasks. Films such as Do Bigha Zamin (Two Bighas of Land; 1953),
Footpath (1953), Boot Polish (1954), Shree 420 (Mr. Fraud; 1955),
Pyasa (The Thirsty; 1956), Naya Daur (The New Era; 1957) and
Hum Hindustani (We Indians; 1960) fell in this category. Naya Daur,
released against the background of the launching of the Second Five
Year Plan (1956–1961), with its emphasis on rapid industrialisation,
was ‘quintessentially Nehruvian’ (Desai, 2004: 104).

DEVELOPMENT: THE PRIORITY

Nehru knew the importance of visual media to communicate
with the masses. Under his leadership, the Films Division of India
regularly produced documentaries on how the state was committed
to delivering its development services. During the first 20 years of
independence, as many as 1,742 documentaries were produced.
Their purpose was to tell the audience about the national project
of development through the construction of bridges, dams,
electricity plants, establishment of engineering colleges and other
public services (Taneja, 2009: 1–4). There was no reference to
partition or communal disharmony. Drawing from the theories
of memory research, one may argue that in all probability the
memory of partition was too cruel to recall without any purpose
being served, and hence forgetting them and emphasising the tasks
ahead in building the nation on a modernist mode was considered
more appropriate.

THE ISSUE OF FILM CENSORSHIP

It has been argued that as far as film censorship was concerned,
Nehruvian liberalism failed (Bhowmik, 2003). But perhaps a
more nuanced approach is needed in this regard. It is true that,
legally, the Indian Cinematograph Act 1952 was no different from
the Indian Cinematograph Act 1918. Nevertheless, it should be
noted that in the early days of independence, it was feared that
dangers to the Indian state could emanate from three quarters:
Hindu–Muslim communalism; territorial disintegration, as
security threats had already been posed by Pakistan through its
Kashmir adventure; and inherent class-based militant challenges
as posed by the Communist-sponsored Telengana movement.

95

This content downloaded from

14.139.45.244 on Thu, 18 Apr 2024 07:19:16 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
I I C Q U A R T E R L Y

Nehru believed that the last two could be tackled by the state’s fire
power, but the first needed a societal response since it was deep-
rooted. The partition of India and the consequent Hindu–Muslim
riots had left no scope for mere academic discourse. This emphasis
on the communal threat was clear through his campaign speeches
in the first general election held in 1951–1952 (Guha, 2019). In
keeping with certain provisions of the Indian Constitution, the
Cinematograph Act 1952 specifically notified that ‘a film shall not
be certified for public exhibition if…it is against the interest of the
security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public
order, decency or morality, or involves defamation or contempt of
court, or is likely to incite commission of any offence’ (Bhowmik,
2002: 3576).

POLITICAL FINE-TUNING
It is intriguing why Nehru was indifferent to B. V. Keskar gagging
film music. After Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination, when Mohammed
Rafi sang ‘suno suno aye duniyan waalon, Bapu ki yeh amar kahaani’
(Ye people of the world, listen to the immortal story of Bapu, the
Mahatma), Nehru was so moved that he invited Rafi to his residence
to sing it to him. He honoured the 24-year-old Rafi with a silver
medal on the first anniversary of India’s independence (Dev, 2015:
41–42). How could the same Nehru allow Keskar to ban Hindi
cinema songs from AIR?
Keskar showed the same disdain for courtesan artistes
as Patel. Eminent artistes like Rasoolan Bai, Siddheshwari Devi
and Begum Akhtar fell victim to his ban. So far as his attitude
towards Hindi cinema was concerned, it smacked of Gandhian
condescension. He completely banned all film songs and music
from AIR programmes. Being a musical purist, he believed that the
classical Indian musical tradition had been corrupted by Muslim and
Christian influences that ought to be purged to restore the pristine
glory of Indian (Hindu) classical music (Lelyveld, 1994: 118–19).
It is tragic that in the process he deprived the Indian masses of what
future music historians would call the ‘Golden Age’ of Hindi film
music. Praising classical music was all very well, but to view film
music as its corruption was an overstatement. The art of playback
singing is no way any less demanding. It is an altogether different
art, which classical singers do not necessarily possess. In a recent

96

This content downloaded from

14.139.45.244 on Thu, 18 Apr 2024 07:19:16 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 P A R T H A S . G H O S H : ‘ N E H R U V I A N ’ C I N E M A A N D P O L I T I C S

interview, noted classical and folk musician Shubha Mudgal said

exactly that (2019: 39).
For Bombay film music it was a boon in disguise. Radio
Ceylon had a powerful transmitter which could cater to the Indian
audience with better performance in terms of sound quality. One
of the most popular programmes of Hindi film songs that the radio
station had started broadcasting was the weekly ‘Binaca Geetmala’,
hosted by Ameen Sayani. All lovers of Hindi film music in large
parts of India eagerly waited for the programme (I myself recall this
from my youth). Radio Ceylon’s popularity was in stark contrast to
AIR’s virtual relegation to nothingness. Eventually, Keskar realised
his mistake. In 1957, AIR launched Vividh Bharati, a version of
Radio Ceylon, which soon picked up. It succeeded partly because
it broadcast Hindi film songs with equal gusto, and partly because
Sri Lankan (Sinhalese) cultural nationalism in the meantime
discouraged anything foreign to be broadcast from the country’s soil
(Lelyveld, 1994: 120–21).
Regarding Nehru’s silence on Keskar’s anti-music extremism,
two guesses can be hazarded. One, Nehru did not give much
importance to radio programmes, and two, he was indirectly happy
that Keskar was taking care of the conservative Hindu fringe of the
Congress party which was down, but not out. One reason that the
Hindu-nationalistic Bharatiya Jana Sangh could not become a strong
political force in north India in the 1950s and 1960s was because
the Congress party had stolen the Sangh’s thunder at the grassroots
by projecting itself as the defender of Hinduism (Graham, 1990:
256; Ghosh, 2017: 82–83).
A second explanation could be that since, in the initial years,
Nehru had had to deal with all kinds of forces within his cabinet
and at the top echelons of the party, he did not want to open yet
another front over the question of film music. Some regional leaders
were powerful, which at one level helped build India’s federalism,
but on another created difficulties for the central government.
Krishna Jha and Dhirendra Jha’s study on Ayodhya (2012) tells how
G. B. Pant, the chief minister of UP, knowingly concealed facts of
the controversy regarding the overnight installation of Ram Lalla
(idol of Lord Ram as a child) in the Babri Masjid on the night of
22 December 1949. It comes as no surprise that Nehru would take
recourse to writing weekly letters to the chief ministers to apprise

97

This content downloaded from

14.139.45.244 on Thu, 18 Apr 2024 07:19:16 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
I I C Q U A R T E R L Y

them of the state of the union. There were all manner of intrigues
within the Congress party, which was in any case not sure of its
own popular base. The elections of 1952 did ensure a comfortable
Congress majority in Parliament (364 seats of 489), but the popular
vote cast in favour of the party was only 45 per cent.

CONCLUSION
Politics and cinema are closely linked. Cinema draws its inspiration
from politics, and politics uses the medium for messaging. From
Nehru to Narendra Modi, the story is the same. Nehru’s Dilip
Kumars and Prithviraj Kapoors are Modi’s Salman Khans and Akshay
Kumars. Of late, with a clear assertion of Hindu nationalism, it is to
be seen how this is reflected in Indian cinema, as Nehruvian cinema
reflected his emphasis on secularism and socialism.
Over the years, there have been straws in the wind indicating
some kind of intolerance for inter-communal harmony. In 1997,
when Dilip Kumar received the highest Pakistani civilian award,
Nishan-e-Imtiaz, he was exposed to the ire of Hindu nationalistic
forces (Desai, 2004: 2–3), as are Amir Khan, Shah Rukh Khan and
Naseeruddin Shah today. Is a Muslim celebrity not allowed to make a
critical patriotic remark? They were only referring to the suffocating
state of affairs in India, which many Hindus too do routinely.
Mercifully, the other side of the story is also equally powerful, as
reflected in the runaway success of Bajrangi Bhaijan (Beloved Brother
Bajrangi; 2015) and PK (2014).

REFERENCES
Ahmed, Ishtiaq. 2012. ‘The Lahore Film Industry: A Historical Approach’, in Anjali
Gera Roy and Chua Beng Huat (eds.), Travels of Bollywood Cinema: From Bombay
to LA. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Bhaskar, Ira. 2019. ‘The Fleeting Allegories of Filmistan’, Outlook, 4 February: 43–45.
Bhaumik, Someswar. 1992. ‘A Medium under Siege: Film Censorship in Pre-
Independence India’, PhD dissertation. Kolkata: Jadavpur University.
Bhavsar, Nilay. 2018. ‘So what exactly were Mahatma Gandhi’s thoughts about
Cinema?’ 19 July. https://www.thequint.com/news/india/mahatma-gandhi-views-
on-cinema-gandhi-on-films, accessed on 13 January 2019.
Bhowmik, Someswar. 2003. ‘From Coercion to Power Relations: Film Censorship in
Post-Colonial India’, Economic and Political Weekly, 26 July: 3148–52.

98

This content downloaded from

14.139.45.244 on Thu, 18 Apr 2024 07:19:16 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 P A R T H A S . G H O S H : ‘ N E H R U V I A N ’ C I N E M A A N D P O L I T I C S

———. 2002. ‘Politics of Film Censorship: Limits of Tolerance’, Economic and Political
Weekly, 31 August: 3574–77.
Bose, Mihir. 2006. Bollywood: A History. New Delhi: Roli Books.
Cherian, V. K. 2017. India’s Film Society Movement: The Journey and its Impact.
New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Desai, Meghnad. 2004. Nehru’s Hero Dilip Kumar in the Life of India. New Delhi:
Roli Books.
Dev, Sujata. 2015. Mohammed Rafi: Golden Voice of the Silver Screen. New Delhi:
Om Books International.
Ghosh, Partha S. 2017. BJP and the Evolution of Hindu Nationalism: Savarkar to Vajpayee
to Modi. New Delhi: Manohar.
Graham, Bruce D. 1990. Hindu Nationalism and Indian Politics: The Origins and
Development of the Bharatiya Jana Sangh. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Guha, Ramachandra. 2019. ‘Recalling Jawaharlal Nehru’s Campaign in 1951–52’,
Hindustan Times, New Delhi, 18 May, accessed on 18 May 2019.
———. 2007. India after Gandhi: The History of the World’s Largest Democracy.
New Delhi: Picador.
Jha, Krishna and Dhirendra K. Jha. 2012. Ayodhya: The Dark Night. New Delhi:
HarperCollins.
Kidwai, Rasheed. 2018. ‘Indian Politics has a Long History of Seeking Help from
Bollywood’, Quartz India, 13 November. https://qz.com/india/1460002/how-
nehru-modi-used-bollywood-stars-in-indian-politics/, accessed on 13 January
2019.
Lelyveld, David. 1994. ‘Upon the Subdominant: Administering Music on All India
Radio’, Social Text, 39 (Summer): 111–27.
Mudgal, Shubha. 2019. Outlook, 4 February: 39.
Ramnath, Nandini. 2014. ‘Cinema in the Age of Nehru (Happy and Sad
Versions), Nehru’s India’, Livemint, 27 May. https://www.livemint.com/
Leisure/9x8RPd562DusWqVQQ91NfN/Nehrus-India.html, accessed on
13 January 2019.
Taneja, Anand Vivek. 2009. ‘Muslimness in Indian Cinema’, Seminar. http://www.
india-seminar.com/2009/598/598_anand_vivek_taneja.htm.
Tripathi, Akul, 2015. ‘Gandhi on and in Cinema’, One India One People, 19 (3),
October. https://www.mkgandhi.org/articles/gandhi-on-and-in-cinema.html,
accessed on 13 January 2019.
Vardhan, Anand. 2017. ‘Hindi Cinema: Being Political in the Nehruvian Era—Part I’,
Newslaundry.com, 4 August. https://www.newslaundry.com/2017/08/04/hindi-
cinema-nehruvian-era-political-awareness, accessed on 13 January 2019.

99

This content downloaded from

14.139.45.244 on Thu, 18 Apr 2024 07:19:16 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms