The I&B ministry has written to the producers of Indian Summer, a British film on the “affair” between Pandit Nehru and Edwina Mountbatten, asking them to delete portions of the script.
Political Films And Controversy
They go hand in hand. Whenever a political icon is perceived to be shown in an uncharitable light, protests follow...
Aandhi (1975): Gulzar's film was banned for some time because Suchitra Sen essayed
a character based on Indira Gandhi and the Emergency.
Kissa Kursi Ka (1978): Amrit Nahata’s film was banned on its release and all prints confiscated for its take on Indira’s politics, Sanjay Gandhi and the System.
Mukhamukham (1994): The Kerala Marxists alleged that this Adoor Gopalakrishnan film portrayed the degeneration of Leftist politics in the state.
Iruvar (1997): A fictionalised account of the lives of Tamil Nadu’s political icons, MGR and Jayalalitha, the film’s release led to several protests.
Chand Bujh Gaya (2004): Love saga set in post-Godhra Gujarat, starring Aamir Khan’s brothers, runs into trouble. Reason: reel-life CM resembles real-life Modi.
Gandhi, My Father (2007): Made by Britain-based Indian director Feroz Abbas Khan, the film ruffled feathers for examining the Gandhi-Harilal relationship.
Take II: Lights, Camera, Reaction...
“I think it’s the colonial mantle the Congress finds difficult to shake off. People will talk about the relationship anyway; they have been talking about them for the last six decades. Who says public figures can’t be up for public scrutiny? I’m sure Nehru’s stature won’t be diminished were his personal life brought on screen.”
Ashis Nandy, Social psychologist
“Nehru or Jinnah, their personal lives were not important. A good historian will not focus on the personal lives as history was not affected by what they did in their private space.”
Bipan Chandra, Historian
“Most of the historical view we take of leaders is largely hagiographic. As filmmakers, we have never focused on Nehru’s personal life as he kept it private. Gandhi didn’t. I’m a great Nehru fan. I am sure I would not have found his relationships unattractive. I know of women who fell hopelessly in love with Nehru.”
Shyam Benegal, Filmmaker
“There has been a certain consensus in the Indian press that the personal lives of public figures is never discussed unlike say the US and UK press. It’s not being squeamish but one can legitimately argue that public figures should be allowed their privacy. More seriously, did the relationship impact the course of events?”
Mridula Mukherjee Director, NMML
“I think it’s the personal lives that make our politicians more interesting. Why are our politicians turning more and more Victorian now when they are not in the Victorian age? Why should the Indian government even act as the censor on this matter? What is it going to ban next, memory?”
Shiv Visvanathan, Sociologist
“I have often been asked whether I think Nehru and my mother were in love. The answer undoubtedly is, yes, they were.”
—Pamela Mountbatten Hicks, daughter of Lord Louis Mountbatten, the last viceroy of India
Jawaharlal Nehru, the statesman/visionary. Chacha Nehru, the man who doted on children. A loving father, who wrote letters to his daughter while in prison. Pandit Nehru, committed socialist, architect of modern India, dashing and intelligent public figure. India’s first prime minister was all this and more. But Nehru, the handsome lover, lonesome widower, the man who penned eloquent letters to the woman he loved—wife of India’s last viceroy, Edwina....That is one side of Nehru the Congress would rather keep under wraps. Which is why when British filmmaker Joe Wright—who also directed Ian McEwan’s Atonement and Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice—wanted to capture the last gasp of the British empire in India in the backdrop of a romantic relationship between the first prime minister of India and the last viceroy’s wife, he ran into trouble. It was pretty predictable. The Union information and broadcasting ministry in India told his producers—Working Title—not to cross the line and serve up Nehru’s private life for public consumption on the big screen.
Ironically, the relationship between Edwina and Nehru was never really a secret. The film is, in fact, based on a book by historian Alex von Tunzelmann. Titled Indian Summer: The Secret History of the End of an Empire, the tome did not scorch the Indian bookshelves when it was launched here two years ago, despite its compelling and often controversial narrative. Its proposed celluloid version, however, has the government scurrying to put a freeze on any filmic Indian Summer.
Sources in the I&B ministry revealed to Outlook the exact nature of the five objections the ministry detailed in its July 27, 2009, letter to the film’s producers. The film’s script had been submitted to the ministry four months earlier and it had been sent to a panel of experts (read serving and retired I&B ministry officials) for vetting. It was they who passed the verdict that the script had ‘objectionable’ amorous references which could well hurt the sentiments of the Indian public. The five objections run something like this:
Objection 1 The film’s not based on fact, so call it a work of fiction
The official discomfiture stems from the fact that Tunzelmann’s book is quite upfront and forthcoming about the Nehru-Edwina romance, and the film’s script has followed it pretty closely. An excerpt that a panel member has flagged from the book reads thus: “Meanwhile the relationship became more close. In public, Jawahar and Edwina were formal; in private, they were inseparable. Letters became fervent: ‘The more one talks, the more there is to say and there is so much that it is difficult to put into words’.”
Objection 2 This is a straight injunction: thou shalt not show any intimacy between Edwina and Nehru
The I&B panel says that when it comes to Nehru, only recorded history can be shown. Beyond that, “everything is conjecture. And in this realm of conjecture...falls the love affair between Countess Edwina Mountbatten and the first prime minister of Independent India, Jawaharlal Nehru.” Asks a ministry official: “Where has the love affair been chronicled in history as we know it? More specifically, have Indian historians ever written about the so-called romance and have they said it impacted the course of events in history?”
Indian historians might have desisted but not Tunzelmann. Her book details, for example, the famous trip to Mashobra in Himachal Pradesh, which is also included in the script and for which the producers had sought permission to shoot in Mashobra. “Edwina and Jawahar met early every morning in the garden. They drove together along the Tibet Road stopping for picnics in the woods. They stayed up late and alone after Dickie (Lord Mountbatten) and Pamela (their daughter) had retired to bed. When Jawahar came to see Edwina in her room, he somehow upset an inkstand. ‘They were both too busy mopping it up to be abashed,’ wrote Edwina’s official biographer.” Scenes like this, say officials, when adapted on screen, could be embarrassing.
Cast lines: Edwina (Cate Blanchett); Mountbatten (Hugh Grant)
Objectiob 3 No ‘love’ in the script, we are Indian
The L word figures six times in the script, but I&B ministry officials would not hear of it even once. Why, they don’t want even a hint of love by word or gesture. They object to love scenes cropping up regularly in the script, saying the film focuses more on the romance than on Partition. They would be happier if Indian Summer emerged as a sanitised docu-drama of Partition and not the great romance of the 20th century that they suspect the filmmakers will sell the movie as. But while the ministry mandarins may choose to turn a blind eye to any sign of weakness in Nehru, Tunzelmann is vivid in her description of a pining Nehru. To quote from her book: “After her return to England, Jawahar wrote to Edwina that he could still sense her ‘fragrance on the air’ and that he read and re-read her letters. ‘I lose myself in dreamland which is very unbecoming in a Prime Minister’.”
Objection 4 No gestures or words of love or affection either, please
There is no question of the Edwina-Nehru characters holding hands or being in any romantic or intimate pose on screen. The I&B ministry officials cite Edwina’s daughter Pamela as saying that her mother’s relationship with Nehru was “more platonic” than anything else. It would be scandalous, they say, for instance, to film this from Tunzelmann’s account: “Their relationship had worked because it allowed both Jawahar and Edwina their own private space; but suddenly being together around the clock did not seem so undesirable after all. The intensity of their feelings both exhilarated and frightened them....”
Objection 5 Kissing scenes? No way
It would be sacrilege to have the screen Nehru enacting any sensual scenes. He might come across as only human but for the I&B wallahs, it would be showing him in a poor light.
Meanwhile, the I&B ministry’s squeamishness has put paid to the filmmakers’ original plan to start filming in winter. Take One, the Indian first-line production company, put up a brave front when its officials said the delay in production was due to the global financial crisis. Director Joe Wright has been quoted in the British media as admitting that the script has run into problems. So even as the script is in hand and actors Cate Blanchett, Hugh Grant and Irrfan Khan shortlisted for the leads, the I&B ministry is playing spoiler. Perhaps it is reading too much into one observation Tunzelmann makes in her book. “The security of three nations—Britain, India and Pakistan—rested on this one love affair being kept quiet.” This may be the only thing they agree with Tunzelmann on.
The Nehru-Edwina relationship, healthy or otherwise, platonic or sensual, was never really a secret (Summer Freeze, Oct 12). Then why should the Congress act so priggish? Col C.V. Venugopalan, Palakkad, Kerala
The Congress is no better than the mullahs who cry hellfire as soon as some Islamic cartoons are made. The real problem for the upholders of our morality is not that a movie is uncharitable but that it threatens to show the human side of a carefully cultivated superhuman brand. Anyhow, what place does censorship with dictatorial powers have in a democratic society? Varun Garde, Bangalore
We should ask why at all we need a censor board, a British innovation? Why should the nation be kept away from the facts of the Nehru-Edwina romance? Was Nehru not human? Was he not allowed to have emotions? It’s remarkable how Victorian we can be in the 21st century. Shadi Katyal, Marietta, US
Just goes to show that the clouded vision of our I&B wallahs does not go beyond the tips of their noses. M.A. Raipet, Secunderabad
Not all the fears of the i&b ministry are ill-founded. Given Hollywood’s recent penchant for erroneous and exaggerated facts—Troy, Valkyrie, 300, Inglourious Basterds at al—I half expect them to portray Nehru as a cross between statesman and Casanova. Of course depicting Nehru as human is no sin and he might have been a charmer, but I doubt the film will be anything like Lord Mountbatten: The Last Viceroy (’86) or even Gandhi (’82). Nehru deserves a better platform than a headline-grabbing modern director is capable of offering. J. Chakraborty, on e-mail
India is the only democracy where things are quickly (and democratically!) banned because they might hurt the sentiments of someone or the other. Shakeel, Hyderabad
When will we wake up to the truth that our icons were human beings, and that they came from amongst us? Don’t Jack and Bob Kennedy, and the great Roosevelt himself, shine in history despite their human weaknesses which have been discussed freely? K.S.C. Nair, Indianapolis
Even chronicled facts are often misrepresented, misinterpreted, misused. To let imagination, conjecture and pedestal-envy loose on an impressionable generation ignorant of history will be unpardonable. Leila Nair, Burnaby, Canada
In response to Bipan Chandra’s comments regarding the Edwina-Nehru relationship (Take II...), the history of nations has rightly grown to consider the rounded lives of the people who have led them, in all their complexities. For, Reagan was a little old for his presidency, and Yeltsin was something of a drinker. They weren’t defined by these qualities, but they undoubtedly shaped their character and beliefs and thus, in some manner, their political decisions. If nothing else, I cannot think of a better way of negating the ideological power we grant our historical leaders by creating history in black and white than to recognise their common humanity. David Fisher, Melbourne
How come the champions of freedom of expression are unnaturally quiet on the shelving of a film on the Nehru-Edwina affair (Summer Freeze, Oct 12)? U. Narayana Das, on e-mail
The controversy on the Edwina-Nehru film was an interesting read, considering the fact that it came in a magazine that is always blamed for its pro-Nehru family leanings. I wish to point out an error, though. Adoor Gopalakrishnan’s Mukhamukham was released in 1984, not 1994. And even though there was “ideological opposition” in Kerala, the film did bag national awards for best director, screenplay and audiography that year. Subin Adoor, Pathanamthitta
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.
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