(Bhartiya Cinema Ka Lokshastra)
The uniqueness of the narrative structures and cinematic visions of Indian Cinema: An indigenous-classical continuum or the dialectical relationship between indigenous and classical
‘Lokshastra’ is a unique concept of the narrative structures and cinematic visions in Indian Cinema. Usually ‘Lok’ is translated as indigenous or little tradition, whereas ‘Shastra’ is translated as classical in sociology of culture, arts and aesthetics. In Indian culture also, there are concepts of ‘Desi’ and ‘Margi’, which are homologous to indigenous or little tradition, particularly in the fine arts of India and classical tradition respectively. Cinema however is a modern western technology of communication as well as a popular form of culture industry, which emerged in the year 1895. However, cinema was invented in France by Lumiere Brothers on 22nd March 1895, which was adapted or transformed in other countries and other languages to suit the taste of the audiences in respective countries. In India, cinema emerged in the Bombay presidency as the cultural logic of the freedom movement, spearheaded by the Congress party under the leadership of Balgangadhar Tilak. Although the first film Raja Harishchandra (1913) was made by Dada Sahab Phalke (Dhundiraj Govind Phalke), but the grammar of cinema was manufactured by Balgangadhar Tilak, Raja Ravi Verma and Dada Sahab Phalke between 1906 and 1913. Later on, Babu Rao Painter of Kolhapur, D.K. Bose, P.C. Barua and R.C. Boral of the New Theatres Calcutta (Now Kolkata), V. Shantaram of Prabhat Pune, Himanshu Roy, Debika Rani, Shashadhar Mukherjee and Anil Biswas of Bombay Talkies; Dalsukh Pancholi, A.R. Kardar and Ghulam Haider of Lahore; and Uday Shankar of Almora added, refined and systematised this grammar of Indian cinema, which is unique, rare, uncommon and without any precedence. ‘Lokshastra’ of Indian Cinema grew out of diverse sources of indigenous and classical traditions of storytelling, dance, music and narrative strategies. In Indian Cinema, the elements of indigenous and classical were continuously transformed by the filmmakers and their team members.
Before trying to understand popular Hindi cinema, it is necessary to understand India in terms of time and space. It is necessary to understand the tradition of folk, classical, dance, song and music. India is a unique country where the instruments of traditional civilisation can be seen through the beliefs, customs and in the daily conduct and routine of the common people and are not just on display in the museum. Even today, the ‘mythic period’ of religious festivals, celebrations and rituals have not been swallowed by the historical time. A man can rise above his worldly preoccupations and enter the domain again at any time or immerse himself in them for life. Despite all the turmoils of history, there is continuity in India. India’s so-called mindless but popular films are a testimony to this. In order to understand the uniqueness of Indian films, it is necessary to compare them with Hollywood cinema.
Hollywood movies have turned America into a superpower. The US military has maintained this achievement. American institutions like Hollywood and Pentagon are engaged in transforming natural human behaviour into the American Ideal type and narrative structure in the controlled ‘world village’. Only China, Japan and India have succeeded in retaining their independence from them. At the level of governments, there is no effective resistance to American supremacy, but it exists at the level of public consciousness. This resistance can be seen in the cinemas of these countries, especially in the cinemas of India and China. The temperament of Iranian cinema after the 1980s is an attempt to conserve this very cultural identity. It is necessary to keep the above points in mind while identifying or investigating Indianness in Hindi cinema.
The Indian oral tradition, which has sustained for thousands of years, has gained strength from popular cinema, while popular cinema has gained its strength from the indigenous tradition and indigenous culture since 1913. With the creative use of contemporary technology, cinema can become a cottage industry in India. For this, it is necessary to remove the fear of technology and capital from the minds of common youths. Films like Chak De India (2007), Bhool Bhulaiyaa (2007), Guru (2007), Lage Raho Munnabhai (2006) or Lagaan (2001) will have to be made with low budget and corporate funding and by a trained team of filmmakers. Film craft will have to be taught. There can be a difference between the capabilities of Indian filmmakers and Indian viewers. Both Indian filmmakers and Indian viewers have the ability to see what is hidden or built-in the given objects, but a filmmaker has the ability to uncover those ‘hidden’ elements; this is the basic difference between a viewer and a filmmaker. The God-element (Ishwar-tattva) is in an underdeveloped state in the viewer, whereas it is in a developed state in the filmmaker in the form of an artist. The ability to create is known as the God-element in Sanatan (perennial) life philosophy. An artist creates or recreates as a poet, sculptor, painter, musician and filmmaker. As a poet, he rearranges the words in such a manner that he extracts the source of rasa from within the language, just as a sculptor engraves an idol hidden inside a stone or as a musician draws out the music, that is, ‘harmony of notes’ amidst the cacophony of voices. He hears the ‘call’ of the yearning of reality to be ‘perfect’ or ‘whole’. Just as reality attains its ‘Truth’ after being transformed by man, in the same way, it contributes in transforming the man into ‘artist’, and helps him to attain the ‘completeness’ of his being.
In order to understand these stories of art, it is necessary to understand the qualitative difference between India and the West regarding time and chronicles. Almost all historical novels and films in India do not meet the criteria of Western historiography. In all of these, the mythological element and the tradition of archaeological-narratives prevail over the sear history. In fact, even in Western historiography, the historians’ prejudices, personal loyalty and ideological inclinations do not represent the truth as it is. After Immanuel Kant, it was even accepted that his history, philosophy and social science could neither express nor study the truth or ‘the reality as it really is’. (Nevertheless, there is a fundamental difference between the art forms of Western and non-Western historical discourse). At the centre of the Western history-centred discourse or art form, there is a linear, limited and mechanical concept of sense of time that is controlled and operated by the Gregorian calendar and automatic mechanical clocks, which are considered convenient for modern systems which were established by Western Christianity on artificial norms or standards. In contrast, non-Western discourses or art forms have a cyclical form of the sense of time. It is part of the perennial, eternal time called Mahakal which is Svayambhu (born out of its own self), which moves the world cycle; here the principle of Karma becomes paramount, and the cycle of birth-death-rebirth continues through the eighty-four lakh yonis. This cycle continues till the soul attains Moksha, Kaivalya or Nirvana and gets absorbed back into eternal time, Mahakal. Art, on the one hand, is related to the above time period and, on the other hand, it is also related to the arts of the moon, described in the Panchangs (calendar), and the cyclical motion of the changes of the seasons.
Film is also an art in the Indian perspective. Every art is traditional. There is also a tradition of modern art, and of modernity. Similarly, there is a tradition of film making in India. In Indian cinema, in the fulfilment of the responsibilities of man, his independent consciousness also emerges. Man has obligations towards creation, Nature, living and non-living; the creative power of art resides within this country’s land of responsibilities. In contrast, ‘modern western cinema’ emphasises on the rights of man. But how shall he use these rights? The natural development of this moral consciousness is a big question that remains for the modern man. The development of languages becomes incapable of expressing the modern experiences. It is in this tragedy that Kant’s philosophy of ‘phenomenology’ is born. Modern man has wonderful things to say; there is an abundance of experiences of suffering, deprivation and pleasure; however, modern philosophies and cultures do not have the capable language, techniques and grammar to express these deep feelings, experiences and the fractions of truths.
