How Indian cinema helped fight fascism during World War II – Quartz

Christopher Nolans film Dunkirk raised questions recently about the erasure of India from the war effortany portrayal of Indian soldiers or reference to their contribution was noticeably absent. But even in India, the countrys role in the conflict tends to be overshadowed by the major events of the Indian independence movement that coincided with the war years.

Within this larger conversation about cultural retellings of the war, it is important to look at the how Indias own film industry responded and how it was filtering the stories of the war through the prism of cinema.

As an editorial in the December 1941 issue of weekly Indian film magazine The Mirror declared, the countrys film industry had a duty in the hour of trial to provide entertainment for a people who are determined to march forward.

Indian film journalism saw no reason to insulate its readers from the news of the war, and looked at war reportage as part of its larger duty, alongside covering the goings on of the Indian film industry and Hollywood.

A full-page illustration ran in the film magazine Picturpost in 1945 under the caption Our War, which depicted Indian civilians of both sexes marching behind a soldier, and proclaimed that: When the Nazi gangsters let loose their war machine against the world, India took a proud place in the fight against aggression. It also reminded readers that, despite the Nazi surrender, the war was not over until there was an end to hostilities with Japan.

The message of Indias solidarity with China and the allies against the Japanese invasion was underscored in Dr Kotnis Ki Amar Kahani, directed by industry stalwart V Shantaram. The film depicted the real-life experiences of five Indian doctors who volunteered to go to China as part of the medical mission during the Japanese invasion. Shantaram also starred in the film as the titular Dwarakanath Kotnis, regarded as a war hero in China to this day.

The poster for the film, designed by renowned Indian artist SM Pandit, depicts the Buddha, serene and still, standing amid the burning remains of war as a lasting image of hope and a reminder of the historical cultural bonds between China and India.

The film refers to the medical mission as Indias duty to help our neighbour, and depicts resistance against the war as a collaborative effort that could only be successful with unity among Indiansfrom the farmer reaping the crop, to the doctor volunteering at the fronta message with clear parallels to the nationalist movement against the British.

A five-minute propaganda feature called Face of India was commissioned in 1942 by the British governments films division that would simultaneously highlight the Allies war effort and Indias role in it, reinforcing a positive narrative of the Empire.

The National Archives in Kew, London, have records of the multiple versions of the script which were drafted by British documentary maker and producer Alexander Shaw, who also headed the Indian governments film advisory board (FAB), which was tasked with making propaganda features in India.

Correspondence between officials of the ministry of information, the films division, and the India Office reveals that no consensus could be reached on how the film could champion Indias role in the war without also addressing the growing civil disobedience movement in India against the British. In the end, the film was shelved over fears that highlighting Indias role would only validate its right to self-rule.

And there are the legacies that remain obscured in India itself, precisely because of the complicated legacy of the war within the history of Indias independence movement.

Born in Mysore, Sabu Dastagir, star of British productions such as The Elephant Boy (1937) and The Thief of Baghdad (1940), was not just the biggest Indian star in the world, he would also go onto be a distinguished war hero. Dastagir became an American citizen in 1944, joined the US Air Force as a tail gunner, and was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for his service.

However, Dastagirs incredible cinematic and war legacy remains largely overlooked in the land of his birth, partly because of his roles in films such as Alexander Kordas The Drum (1938), which was protested in India for offensive caricatures of Indians and was largely perceived as British propaganda.

His contribution to the Indian film industry remains a little-known footnote; Dastagir auditioned for a major role in Mother India (1957)which would go on to become one of the most iconic Indian films of all timeand was turned down.

As these stories show, even in the midst of Indias own struggle against the British, the country shouldered its part of this momentous collective responsibility. The film industry in India chose to not be a mere spectator, instead seeking out a larger role for itself as messenger and ally in the global fight against fascism.

The importance of revisiting these stories is significant beyond the relationship between India and its former coloniser, Britain. Indian support for its Asian neighbors in their own struggles against fascist colonisation is also little remembered. Indias current relationship with China is presently framed through a border dispute in the Himalayasbut Indias wartime cinema shows that the bonds of solidarity are deeper and more lasting.

Shruti Narayanswamy, PhD student in film studies, University of St Andrews. This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article. We welcome your comments at

Read the rest here:

How Indian cinema helped fight fascism during World War II – Quartz

Related Post

August 21, 2017   Posted in: World War II |

Fair Use Disclaimer

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Under the 'fair use' rule of copyright law, an author may make limited use of another author's work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner's exclusive rights.

Fair use as described at 17 U.S.C. Section 107:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phono-records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

  • (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for or nonprofit educational purposes,
  • (2) the nature of the copyrighted work,
  • (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and
  • (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."