As with the telegraph, railways and electricity, photographs changed life in the nineteenth century. The invention of the Daguerreotype in 1839, followed by the Calotype (based on paper negatives) and the easily reproducible glass-plate negative made possible the transition from the visual representation of reality (as in paintings) to, as John Berger pointed out, the ‘quoting’ from it. Malavika Karlekar in Visual Histories focuses, through 32 short essays, on this transformation of visual culture in colonial India: “the camera, its initial locale, the studio...photographers and the growing number of clients”.
Almost from its infancy, the British embraced photography as an important tool to bring order to the overwhelming preponderance of ‘new’ knowledge that India commenced to offer. An early drive commenced when the first Viceroy, Lord Canning, ordered ‘photographic likenesses’ of the ‘remarkable tribes’ of India in 1861, ultimately resulting in the People of India series (1868-72). A vigorous cataloguing of the country’s architectural curiosities, archaeological relics and landscape accompanied this visual archive of ‘native races’. Though much of the work was done by the photography departments of the three presidencies (set up in the 1860s), Capt Linnaeus Tripe’s work in south India and the great Samuel Bourne’s exertions in the Himalayas are remarkable. Another early pioneer was Rajendralal Mitra, the premier Indological authority of the day, known for his pathbreaking work on Bodh Gaya. It’s significant that such work ran parallel to the development of new areas of study such as choreography and anthropology.
Photography had its military, administrative and punitive uses too. The discovery of fingerprinting and its photography led to the classification of thousands of criminals. As William Baker and John Burke were wielding the camera in service of the Great Game, there broke the one event that drove a cleave through British-Indian relations—1857. On hand was Felice Beato, veteran photographer of Balaclava and Sebastopol (Crimean War) and latterly of the Second Opium War, with his spine-chilling enactments of massacres, victories, sacrifices, and the noble brutality of the army of retribution. The most famous of all is the photo of Lucknow’s ruined Secunderabagh, with its grisly foreground of human remains. Staged for maximum cautionary effect on future mutineers—a warning shot of the type that remained curiously popular with colonials for decades.
A visit to the photo studio is still within living memory. The urban Indian middle class started frequenting studios from the late 1850s, and those of famous firms as Bourne & Shepherd, Johnston & Hoffman, S.C. Sen or the lavish establishments of the stupendously successful Raja Deen Dayal came to be sites where a particular colonial encounter was memorialised through the prism of imitation, make-believe, elaborate preparation, theatrical props and a sharing of common space by the ‘master’ and ‘subject’ races—something denied in the real-life public sphere. The formalised set of customs in the studio and the slightly mannerist images they yielded are close to Karlekar’s heart, and she subjects some of the cartes-de-visites and cabinet-size photographs to close analysis. Karlekar shows how the gradually evolving customs of the medium often shadowed, or ran parallel to, changing socio-political reality—urban professions and emergence of the nuclear family (partially reflected by the growing, confident appearance of women beside the men)—and ushered in different forms of modernity. A few photographs are used to provide biographical sketches—of danseuse Rukmini Devi Arundale, social reformer Sister Subbalakshmi, and educationist Sarah Massey.
The true democratisation of the photograph occurred in the 1890s and early 1900s, when film-based negatives, and later the Kodak Brownie, made it cheap and accessible. The era had its distinguished practitioners too—early women pioneers Sarojini Ghosh and Annapurna Dutta, Maharaja Birchandra of Tripura, and the artful domestic portraitist, Umrao Singh Sher-Gil. A rapidly modernising India was also well-served by the Swiss Raymond Burnier (temple architecture and sculpture) and Alain Danielou (social commentary). Karlekar closes her book with essays on the three titans who chronicled the bloody end of empire in India—Homai Vyarawalla, Sunil Janah and Margaret Bourke-White.
Karlekar often bolsters and illustrates her points by citing scholarship from around the world, and her short, lucid essays magnify the particular and take in the general view with equal ease. Though it’s not a straight narrative, a patchwork history of photography in India does emerge. Finally, this is a tribute to the image, taken by a man under a shroud, caught in the frozen instant of the blanching flare of the flash, and pored over for a lifetime by lamplight.
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
Outlook could have shown more photographs. Why just one?
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT