The Great Speeches of Modern India

by Rudrangshu Mukherjee

  You have declared Emergency. The people of the country known why. You declare Emergency on the plea of internal disturbances, when there was already an Emergency. Because of the powers under the Constitution of India, which you wanted to exercise or which you did not want to take the trouble of having obligations under, you could do it under the existing Emergency of 1971. All the powers, the Defence of India Rules and so on, have not been promulgated now. They were actually promulgated in 1971 and this is now being used under the new Emergency. Not a single extra-constitutional power was obtained by proclaiming this new Emergency. Then, what was the Emergency for? Was it for economic reasons? Then, there is a specific provision under the Constitution, Article 360, for declaring a financial emergency. You did not take recourse to that. When there was rampant inflation, when the whole economy was out of gear, as Dr Rao has said, as he has reminded us, when the Government of India was not functioning so far as the finances of the country were concerned, you did not take recourse to financial emergency. And what emergency powers for internal disturbance are necessary to meet an economic situation? Sir, ‘internal disturbance’ has been used as a plea because the position of a particular individual became at stake. This is the reality. It should be understood. I am sure members opposite realize it in their own heart of hearts. But they cannot say so. The press in this country has been gagged. The Opposition has been mercilessly gagged. Their own people have been gagged. Today the whole intention has been to create a fear psychosis in the country to bring about a feeling of terror in the minds of the people. People are not allowed to open their lips. This is a stark reality in this country. No good denying it. If you deny it, you are denying it for the purpose of record only, not in your own heart of hearts.

  What I was asking the government, the Prime Minister and others was this: What extraordinary powers did you need for which a second proclamation was made? Now, if there was internal disturbance alone, why have you brought out so many other justifications for this Emergency? How can you take the pretext of late running of trains for internal disturbance? This party has been in power since independence in this country. If the trains had not been run in time, it is very easy to go on blaming the workers. Why have you not been able to inculcate a sense of discipline among the workers? Why have you not been able to make them feel part and parcel of this country, make them feel that they are one with the administration? Why are they alienated from you? Why are the common people alienated from you? You have no answer. You never ask yourselves those questions. For everything that is not happening properly in this country, an emasculated Opposition is supposed to be responsible. You ridicule the Opposition and say ‘the people are not with you’, but you hold that very emasculated and miniscule Opposition supposedly responsible for the ruination of this country. You have been in uninterrupted charge of the government of the country. You have not delivered the goods to the people. Poverty has been accentuated. People’s miseries have increased a hundredfold, and you say you are not responsible for that.

  This is why I say that your right to govern this country now is based on repressive power. You cannot function without draconian laws. You cannot function under ordinary laws of the country. The Constitution of India which twenty-five years ago had been commended to the country by no less a person than Jawaharlal Nehru, the Constitution does not suit you, because it gives some powers even now to the people of the country. You do not like the people of this country to have any power. You do not want that the people of this country can raise a voice of protest. That is why you have come up with proposals, those obnoxious proposals, the source of which has not been denied.

  As I was saying, if discipline was the reason, then a false reason has been given in the proclamation of Emergency that internal disturbances were there, which threatened the security of the country. If Mr Jayaprakash Narayan had been guilty of treason, try him for treason. Give him exemplary punishment under the laws of the land. If Morarji Desai, or for that matter any person, has been guilty of sedition try him. Give him an opportunity. Let the people of the country know. Mr Jayaprakash Narayan has been arrested. He is a right reactionary. In the name of fighting fascism and right reaction, you have arrested MPs like Mr Jyotirmoy Bosu and Mr Noorul Huda. Do they belong to right reactionary parties? You have arrested trade union workers. You have dismissed trade unionists, government servants, under MISA. You have detained them. You have dismissed them under Article 311 (2) without even letting them know what is their fault. Even the present Constitution, as it stands today, gives enormous powers to the government. A government servant can lose his job in a minute. A person can be kept in detention indefinitely. Even his right to move the court is extremely limited. What have you done? You are afraid to face the people. The Supreme Court of India has given clearance to the Prime Minister’s election. One of the judges who upheld her election had made an observation. I do not know whether she has had the time to go through the judgment which has been delivered in her own case. Mr Justice Chandrachud has observed that law should not be what the King Emperor thinks is law; it should be decided in the anvil of constitutionality; it should be tested on the principle whether it is for public good. … Today an attempt is being made to stifle popular and democratic movements, and stifle the ventilation of the people’s grievances. If I say something here which is not to your liking, the people outside will not know; they do not know that there is another version possible on a particular issue. People may think: we have sent him to Parliament; we want to know whether our representative toes the line of the government or he has some alternative proposals to make. But now people will not know. Look at today’s papers and see how Mr Samar Mukherjee’s speech has been reported. It is a travesty of reporting parliamentary proceedings. Is this the way you are going to take the country along the path of progress?

  Mr Chairman, I want to make this appeal to the members opposite through you: do not feel that patriotism is your monopoly; or the desire to do good to the country is only your monopoly. We are as much anxious that this country should be governed and governed properly; we want that this country should proceed on right lines; if my line is a little different does it mean that I do not have patriotism? If I do not want the zamindars, the landed gentry and the black-marketeers to control our country, does it mean that I am not patriotic? If I want to say something which the people of the country want me to say, should I not be allowed to say it? If a judge delivers a judgment which you do not like, you say that the judge is wrong and therefore you want to take away the court’s powers. Why are you so arrogant? You do not want anybody to judge your action. Why should not the judges decide whether you do something rightly or wrongly? It is a system which has worked for so many years. Take the last amendment of the Constitution which this Parliament adopted. We were willing parties to it. We had been demanding that the Constitution should be so amended that no vested interests can take advantage. We have enlarged the powers under Article 31 of the Constitution; we have given enormous powers to the government. But how has this government utilized those powers? What legislation has stood in their way? How have the courts stood in their way?…We on this side have extended our support even to a capitalist and reactionary government as this when they thought of welfare legislation. Whether they were implementing that or not, we had extended them full support. Let them give one example of one single welfare legislation which had been held up by us in Parliament? I challenge them. On the other hand, in the name of bringing about a balanced society, egalitarian society, and welfare and socialism in this country, they have reduced the quantum of bonus without reducing the cost of living. They have taken away the rights of the workers even to hold meetings and demonstrations. They have not even the right to go to their managers to ventilate their grievances. There is a case in regard to the Bank of India, I am not going into merits because the matter is subjudice. It is a nationalized bank and I want to tell the members what happens there. The authorities there issued a circular deducting t
he salaries of the employees, because their representatives had gone to a meeting with the manager for ventilating employees’ grievances who even entertained them. But after the meeting, the manager issues a notice to them; you did not work during the time you came to see me and therefore you are not entitled to wages for that period.

  Is this the way of getting the willing cooperation of the ordinary people of this country? Is this the way you want their participation in your so-called nation building? Mr Chairman, Sir, the position is this. In the garb of Emergency, what is being sought to be done is to create and maintain a hegemony. We are opposed to that. The attempt is to create and maintain a particular attitude of government which is not in tune with the national aspirations of this country. You are utilizing this not for the betterment of the people because inflation has been contained. It is said that Emergency should remain and continue not because of inflation but because of other economic reasons and therefore elections should not be held. See how the reason is put forward by this government. Sir, what is the position in the economic field? What is the position in the small industries, small-scale industries like bulb manufacturing industries? Mr Maurya is here. He has got the statistics fully. The small-scale industries are almost closed down. The wagon-building industries in West Bengal are completely at a standstill. J.K. Aluminium is being closed. Hindustan Motors has introduced a rotational system of layoffs of employees.

  Now, who is coming to their protection? Are you using Emergency powers against the management of Hindustan Motors? You have got all the powers under the sun. You don’t care for the people’s rights under Article 19 and under Article 14 you have suspended them. But you have not suspended Article 31 which guarantees property rights. You have forbidden my right to free speech. You have taken away my right of equality to be treated equally amongst equals. But you have not taken away the right of propertied class. That is why Article 31 has not been touched. This is the true position of the government.

  Sir, in the jute industry, what is happening? Concession after concession has been made but layoffs and closure are continuing. More layoffs and more closure and more retrenchments are continuing. In the jute mills, even the jute growers are not getting concessions. Concessions have been given to the jute mills but jute growers are not getting even the support price. Same is the thing with regard to the textile mills. In those mills which have been taken over the Textile Corporation, the workers are extending all support, not a single complaint has been made against workers. They are doing extra work. But they are in doldrums because the management is still as bold as it was. No attempt has been made to have the stocks cleared. The retailers cannot even taken them, far less the consumers because of high cost of textile goods.

  Sir, this is the position in this country and we are only told that something was being done for which Emergency must be imposed. Therefore, I request my friends, through you Sir, do not take the people of this country for a ride. Try to do something good for them. If the people are with you, why are you afraid of them?

  The education of a filmmaker (Calcutta, September 1982)

  SATYAJIT RAY (1921–1992)

  When Ray was requested by friends to deliver the Amal Bhattacharjee Memorial Lecture, he agreed with great reluctance since he rarely gave speeches. The lecture was delivered at the small auditorium of the Academy of Fine Arts. The hall was packed and the audience remarkably silent—not a cough was heard even though Ray spoke for over an hour. Ray sat alone on the stage with a table in front of him, a single lamp illuminated the script from which he read and a spotlight created a halo of light around where he sat. I was fortunate enough to be present and it is one of the most unforgettable occasions of my life.

  When I was asked to deliver their annual lecture by the Amal Bhattacharji Centre for European Studies, my immediate response was to say no. It was easy for me to do so, since 15 years of saying no to such requests has turned it into a habit. The only occasion when I didn’t decline, the lecture never took place. Although I had, in the end, to yield to persuasion, a great deal of diffidence remains. It is difficult to dissociate the idea of discourse from the idea of erudition; especially in the present case, where the enterprise is meant to perpetuate the memory of an outstanding scholar. Now, erudition is something which I singularly lack. As a student, I was only a little better than average: and in all honesty, I cannot say that what I learnt in school and college stood me in good stead in the years that followed. I studied for a degree, of course, but my best and keenest memories of college consist largely of the quirks and idiosyncracies of certain professors. College was fun, but college, at least for me, was hardly a fount of learning. All my useful reading has taken place since I finished my formal education. This reading has been wide and varied, but it has not been deep. Even on films I am not particularly well read. When I got interested enough in films to start reading about them, there were hardly a dozen books in English on the subject. By the time I finished them, I was already at work on my first film. One day’s work with camera and actors taught me more than all the dozen books had done. In other words, I learnt about filmmaking primarily by making films, not by reading books on the art of the cinema. Here, I must say, I am in very good company. This is how all the pioneers of filmmaking learnt their craft. But for a few exceptions; none of these pioneers was a learned scholar. Rather, they liked to think of themselves as craftsmen. If they were also able, on occasion, to produce works of art, they often did so intuitively. Or at least, that is how most of them feel. The famous American director John Ford was once asked by an admiring critic how he got the idea for a particularly felicitous touch in one of his films. Ford said: ‘Aw, I don’t know, it just came to me.’

  Which brings me to the second reason for my diffidence. Filmmaking is such a demanding process that directors—especially those who keep up a steady output—rarely have time to assemble their thoughts. Of all the major directors in the world, only one—Sergei Eisenstein—lectured and theorized on the cinema, and described his own creative process at length. But we must remember that in the space of nearly 20 years, Eisenstein made only seven films, of which two were never completed. I have regularly pursued my two vocations of filmmaking and writing for young people, untrammelled by any thoughts of ever having to describe or analyse why I do certain things in the way I do them.

  Yet a third reason concerns a special problem that faces one who must talk about films. Lectures on art should ideally be illustrated. One who talks on paintings usually comes armed with slides and a projector. This solves the difficulty of having to describe in words, what must be seen with the eyes. The lecturer on music must bless the silicon revolution, now that he can cram all his examples on to a cassette no bigger than a small bar of chocolate. But the lecturer on the cinema has no such advantage—at least not in the present state of technology in our country. If he wishes to cite an example, he can do no more than give a barely adequate description in words, of what is usually perceived with all one’s senses. A film is pictures, a film is words, a film is movement, a film is drama, a film is music, a film is a story, a film is a thousand expressive aural and visual details. These days one must also add that film is colour. Even a segment of film that lasts barely a minute can display all these aspects simultaneously. You will realize what a hopeless task it is to describe a scene from a film in words. They can’t even begin to do justice to a language which is so complex.

  So when it was suggested that I talk on the European cinema, I declined. I didn’t wish to talk about films which would be unfamiliar to many of the listeners. Even reading about such films can be tiresome. But at least, with a book, one can stop reading, and think, and try to visualize. Unfortunately, it is not easy to stop a lecturer, and ask for time to think. At least, it is not conventional to do so.

  So I shall avoid describing films which the majority of my listeners are unlikely to have seen. I should also make it clear that I do not propose to discuss the cinema in all its aspects. You will n
ot learn about its history from this talk, nor about its sociology, its economics, its semiology. Nor will you learn about the New Wave, the star system, or the regional cinema, and what the governments are doing to help or hinder its growth. I shall confine myself mainly to the language of films, and the possibilities of artistic expression inherent in it. This will involve an occasional glance at the other arts, as well as at films from other countries and other epochs. My main concern, however, will be Bengal, the Bengali cinema, and my own films.

  But before I get on to the subject of films, I should like to recall the gradual stages which led to my being involved in this very versatile, very popular and very chancy medium. One thing I cannot avoid in this talk is the first person singular. This is a fact which had better be conveyed now, lest the listeners spot it on their own and begin to question my modesty. There is no one I know better than myself, and no one I have a better right to talk about. On the strength of my first film and the wide success it won, I have heard it said that I was a born filmmaker. And yet, I had no thoughts, and no ambitions, of ever becoming one even as late as three or four years before I actually took the plunge. I have loved going to the cinema ever since I can remember, but I must have shared this love with millions of others, or there wouldn’t have been such a flourishing film business in India for such a long time.

  I was born in the heyday of silent cinema. Chaplin, Keaton, and Harold Lloyd were producing what then were uproarious comedies, and are now seen as timeless masterpieces. Living in North Calcutta then, and most of the cinemas showing foreign films being around Chowringhee, going to the ‘Bioscope’ was a rare event. So I never had a surfeit of films. Every visit was a very special occasion, and every film was followed by weeks of musing on its wonders. When the talkies came, I was just old enough to realize that a revolution had taken place. There were two kinds of talkies to start with: partial talkies—which had bursts of dialogue, followed by long stretches of silence; and one hundred percent talkies. Newspapers in those days carried large pictorial ads of the foreign films. One look at them, and a glance at the headlines were enough to tell the elders whether or not the films were likely to tarnish innocent minds. Those were the days of the flamboyant Hollywood stars, and what they were good at was not considered particularly suitable for a boy barely in his teens. So ‘sizzling romance’ was out, and so was ‘tempestuous, hotblooded passion’. I saw jungle stories, slapstick comedies, and swashbuckling adventures. But occasionally there were chance visits to supposedly adult movies. Ernst Lubitsch was a great name in the cinema in those days. As an Austrian who had settled in Hollywood, he had a highly sophisticated approach to romantic comedy. I saw three of his films, around the age of ten: Love Parade, The Smiling Lieutenant, and One Hour With You—a forbidden world, only half understood, but observed with a tingling curiosity.