India’s Rockefeller Artists India’s Rockefeller Artists

An Indo-US Cultural Saga

kishore singh

2 | India’s Rockefeller Artists India’s Rockefeller Artists | 3 India’s Table of Contents NOTE FROM THE CURATOR...... 6 Rockefeller INDIA’S ROCKEFELLER ARTISTS The Twentieth Century Snapshot...... 11 Artists Fuelling Philanthropy...... 16 Early Nudges for a Visual Arts Grant...... 19 Council on Economic and Cultural Affairs...... 22 Copyright: 2017 DAG Modern, New Delhi The JDR 3rd Fund/Asian Cultural Programme...... 22 Porter McCray...... 27 The Issue of the Culture Vultures...... 29 From the Heady 1960s and 1970s to a Slowing Down from the 1980s...... 33 The Experience of the Grant...... 36 The Change of Guard at the Fund...... 36 11 Hauz Khas Village, New Delhi 110016, India The Asian Cultural Council...... 39 Tel: +91 11 46005300 • Email: [email protected] And, in Balance...... 40 58, Dr. V. B. Gandhi Marg, K.S. KULKARNI: Taking a Long Step Forward...... 44 Kala Ghoda, Fort, Mumbai 400001, India KRISHEN KHANNA: Visual Diarist...... 64 Tel: +91 22 49222700 • Email: [email protected] S.H. RAZA: Gestural Abstraction...... 86 The Fuller Building, 41 East 57 Street, Suite 708 V.S. GAITONDE: Meditative Quietness...... 112 New York, NY 10022 • Tel: +1 212-457-9037 AKBAR PADAMSEE: Existential Sorrow...... 132 Email: [email protected] AVINASH CHANDRA: Art Deeply Sensuous...... 154 Website: www.dagmodern.com NATVAR BHAVSAR: The Freedom to Paint...... 174 JYOTI BHATT: An Observer Rather than a Participant...... 202 K.G. SUBRAMANYAN: Between the Real and the Imaginary...... 226 PROJECT EDITOR: Kishore Singh ADI DAVIERWALLA: To the Heart of the Subject...... 252 EXECUTIVE EDITOR: Ritu Vajpeyi Mohan TYEB MEHTA: Of Apocalyptic Possibilities...... 264 production editor: abhilasha ojha KIRAN AND SATISH GUJRAL: Crafting a New Art...... 282 PROJECT RESEARCH & ARTIST TIMELINES: HAKU SHAH: Master of Cultural Anthropology...... 300 Poonam Baid, Krittika Kumari, Simer Dhingra, Vrinda Agrawal ARUN BOSE: As the Eye Sees or Memory Retains...... 314 DESIGN: Durgapada Chowdhury PARITOSH SEN: Mirroring Lives...... 330 PHOTOGRAPHY OF ARTWORKS: Durgapada Chowdhury and Saurabh Khandelwal RAM KUMAR: Structural Abstraction...... 350 PRINT: Archana Advertising Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi BAL CHHABDA: Of Cinematic Shadows...... 372 VINOD DAVE: Creating Frozen Images that Melt Away...... 386 All rights are reserved under international copyright conventions. No part of this catalogue BHUPEN KHAKHAR: Asserting a Gay Sexuality...... 404 may be reproduced or utilised in any form or by any means, electronic and mechanical, REKHA RODWITTIYA: Feminist Trysts in Art...... 424 including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, AND THOSE THAT FOLLOWED...... 442 without prior permission in writing from the publisher. Addendum I: List of Grantees...... 444 Addendum II: Countrywide Grants...... 450 ISBN: 978-93-81217-67-2 Endnotes...... 452 Bibliography...... 454

4 | India’s Rockefeller Artists India’s Rockefeller Artists | 5 Note from the Curator

When first the idea of a project that involved an exhibition It was, therefore, not only metro-centric, there appeared excitement of practicing artists in New York specifically and prove to be an important pivot for those who benefitted of works by the grantees of the John D. Rockefeller III no way for its director, the venerable and hugely popular the US generally. from the grant. Fund (and its later iteration as the Asian Cultural Council) Porter McCray, to understand the nuances of the art scene suggested itself, enthusiasm was somewhat lacking. A fund in even Calcutta (now Kolkata), or, indeed, Madras (now The Fund seemed to be on adrenalin at the time, and to What that takeaway was provides the crux of this curatorial or fellowship or scholarship by its very nature is limiting. Chennai), leave alone centres such as Baroda, Lucknow or study it only from the perspective of the visual arts would exercise and the reason for this exhibition. It also documents While an institution or foundation giving such grants Jaipur. And since McCray, as also the Fund, depended on a be to take a jaundiced view of its overall aim of exposing the history of what can now be seen to have been an may feel justified in documenting its work and those of its network of friendly associates to recommend the names of to Indian art historians, archaeologists and others associated important and fruitful relationship. Its history provides an grantees, for a gallery and as a curator the reason was more artists whose work might be considered worthy of the Fund’s with the fields of music, dance, theatre and other disciplines, interesting narrative that resonates with the somewhat amorphous. What would we achieve through such a process, ambitions, it promoted, to a large extent, a sense of coterie, the developments and nuances of their counterparts in guarded relationship between the two countries not entirely and why expend labour over what was, necessarily another a network of the like-minded or, at least, those who tended America. Not only was the Fund engaging with scholars comfortable with one another. institution’s body of work? to hang around together. That it included within this fold and participants from these diverse fields, it was equally some of the most respected names in Indian art is, therefore, engaged with similar peer groups from countries across Asia The challenge was not so much in writing this history – True, the JDR 3rd Fund was an important one for Indian a credit to either McCray’s screening process or the initial – arguably among the largest such programmes undertaken which, for most part, was exciting and full of surprises – as artists in the 1960s and 1970s, when India was, to a selection that led to recommendations of the names of at any one time in the world. If, therefore, the representation much as in understanding the visual history that required large extent, cut off from the world, if not politically or approved grantee-artists. of Indian artists across India was not as comprehensive as representation. There is no gainsaying that works from the geographically, at least through a shortage of funds and it should ideally have been, that shortcoming was not on period of the grant would be extremely difficult to acquire foreign exchange that made international travel prohibitive But from an art-historical perspective, the selection was account of intent as much as a limitation of knowledge and for the purposes of the exhibition, so this book has aimed for most. And though several important Indian artists had subjective, limiting, and necessarily flawed, a few jigsaw human resource. to document the range of an artist’s works, but particularly travelled to the US thanks to its largesse, the Fund was pieces against what was a churn as modernists sought to those from around the period of the grant. What the unlikely to have provided a comprehensive, or inclusive, find contexts and resolutions that were ‘local’ instead of It becomes evident on hindsight that this engagement exhibition may have as a lacunae is more than adequately selection and overview of the art scenario in India. In the being delivered from the West. India had a great tradition between Indian artists and the US provided them great space compensated in this publication. country, the art infrastructure was abysmal and where the of art but its manifestations as twentieth century art was and room for thinking and experiencing alternate realities Fund helped in providing a window to a select few to travel yet to find root. Already, the Bengal ‘School’ and the and knowledge. As we can see, in some case a change in Working on the projects opened up a Pandora’s Box for us. and observe developments in New York and around, the Progressive Artists’ Group had moved into the realm of the perspective, or practice, was immediately discernible; The first Indian artist to have benefitted from the Rockefeller fortunate artists could hardly be thought to be representative ‘establishment’ and the exciting wink-of-the-eye creation in others, it probably just accentuated their thinking, or munificence was K. S. Kulkarni as early as 1950. At the time, of artist movements and practices in that period in India. and exit of Group 1890 had proved to be ephemeral. It liberated their sensibility, freeing them to the possibilities of the grant had come directly from the Foundation. But even was in that sense that the selection in the formative years working in ways, or in styles or on subjects they may have before the JDR 3rd Fund was established, Krishen Khanna This did, indeed, prove to be true when, on later research, it of the grantees of the JDR 3rd Fund provided a dialogue previously not considered. And though, holistically, the Fund had been actively pursued by another Rockefeller entity, the became evident that the Fund’s activities were confined, with for an engagement of artists practicing in, particularly, the did not provide (nor was it its stated objective) a crossroads Council on Economic and Cultural Affairs, and became its few exceptions, to Bombay (now Mumbai) and New Delhi. decades of the 1960s and 1970s, and the movements and for Indian and American artists to meet and react, it did first and only beneficiary, though S. H. Raza, at the time in

6 | India’s Rockefeller Artists India’s Rockefeller Artists | 7 Berkeley, was offered a stipend to extend his stay and soak in home the immense scale of the Rockefeller operation that Finally, of course, there was the cut-off for the exhibition. the art scene in New York. The JDR 3rd Fund was the most did not end with the release of a grant but included drawing DAG’s mandate is confined to the modernists, but the Asian active and hosted thirteen artists between 1962-73, and it up itineraries for the artists’ travels, their appointments with Cultural Council has embraced the contemporaries, and as is this critical period when the Fund probably had its most heads of museums, universities and galleries, procuring and artist Vanita Gupta pointed out, they were certainly part of impact. Without in any way taking away the huge support issuing invitations to important openings and events in New India’s Rockefeller Artists and needed to be acknowledged as offered by the subsequent Asian Cultural Council, it must be York City, and managing everything from accommodations such. While this anomaly cannot be plugged in the exhibition, said that today there are many more opportunities offered to interactions. cognizance of ACC’s continuing role in this important to Indian artists who are no longer confined to silos in their contribution has been taken in this book where we have home country, and the world of the internet has made the Including works for the exhibition was equally a trial in tried to provide as comprehensive an overview as possible. globe a much smaller space where no information is further which I was assisted in the selection by Vijay Kumar from Just as some artists represented here were not invited by the than a click of the mouse. DAG’s own archives, and by Ashish Anand who suggested JDR 3rd Fund as artists, but under the discipline of crafts, so those we might take on loan from elsewhere. Pearl and too, some grants have been in the form of stipends. We have That is what made our task somewhat easier too, but the Akhil Mago were willing to have Akbar Padamsee’s iconic tried to be inclusive of all these in attempting a history that is project has required a good deal of both secondary as well Greek Landscape documented in the book—it was made comprehensive, but any document with a history that spans as primary research. Where possible, we reached out to shortly before the artist’s departure to New York—but six decades (or more, if it includes Kulkarni) is bound to have grantee-artists, or, in their absence, their families, in search found it impossible to transport from their apartment on interpretations or facts that may be wrongly construed. Such of material, whether by way of documents or photographs. account of its size, therefore suggesting its digital version errors, while regretted, are not intended to be mischievous. Interviews were done in person, over telephone or via email. for purposes of the exhibition. In New Delhi, the Kiran And while every attempt has been made to provide citations In New Delhi, a colleague, Vrinda Agrawal, triggered off the Nadar Museum of Art and the artist Manu Parekh were and credits, once again, any that have been overlooked research, ploughing through the internet, to find only two generous with loans of works, and friends in USA proved are regretted. I hope this book, and exhibition, will come Indian scholars, Christine Ithurbide and Brinda Kumar, had equally considerate. to represent a stepping stone to a slice of art history that, worked on the amazing Rockefeller contribution for their previously neglected, has now got the fillip it deserves. PhD theses. We were able to obtain two books published For the book, the picture research proved a challenge for by the JDR 3rd Fund and the Asian Cultural Council Abhilasha Ojha, even as work on the design with Durgapada – kishore singh respectively, but these required more research. In New York, Chowdhury continued apace. Apart from the text, we another colleague, Josheen Oberoi, put on her scholarly hat decided on extensive timelines to outline the highlights and and made appointments at the Rockefeller Archive Center turning points in each artist’s career, and in this task I was in Sleepy Hollow, trawling through drawers full of files and ably assisted by Poonam Baid, Krittika Kumari and Simer notations, to send exhaustive pages of official (and often mind- Dhingra who, along with Ojha, turned it into a team task numbing and repetitive) documents that nevertheless brought that was completed against all odds.

8 | India’s Rockefeller Artists India’s Rockefeller Artists | 9 India̕s Rockefeller Artists

Who was John Davison Rockefeller III, and why is he Twentieth century art tends to be studied in convenient significant for the history of Indian art? silos that include the Bengal ‘School’ of the turn of the century that favoured a return to past imagery—best In the answer to these questions hangs the tale of a well- exemplified in the works of ‘revivalists’ Abanindranath known American collector of Asian art who, though largely Tagore, Nandalal Bose and others—the individual oeuvres unknown to Indian artists and art historians, gave an of Raja Ravi Varma, Jamini Roy and Amrita Sher-Gil, the unprecedented fillip to modern Indian art practice in a way expressionist sensibility nurtured in Rabindranath Tagore’s that has neither been fully appreciated nor acknowledged. university town of Santiniketan, and the pan-Indian impact of the Bombay-based Progressive Artists’ Group who, The Twentieth Century Snapshot collectively, make up a large sum and substance of the To fully grasp Rockefeller’s role in the narrative of modern Indian art market. Indian art, it is important to understand the context, or the milieu of the time. India entered the twentieth century as The Progressives played an important role in the development a British colony, but one which was slowly awakening to of a model for modernism in the country, though, in fact, a an anti-imperialist fervor. As World War I was ending, this collective, unified language was anathema to them. In 1947q, struggle turned into a mass movement, with Indians across reacting to the binding strictures of the Bombay Art Society the length and breadth of the country rallying around. that corralled the practice of art within rigid parameters, the This feat was partly a result, rather ironically, of two young and precocious Francis Newton Souza decided to give British introductions to India: Western education and the voice to the need of establishing a liberal art practice free of railways. Both served to unify the country—one providing any ideology. In fact, he effectively wrote the manifesto for access to ideas of liberty, equality and nationalism while the new art practice. The lack of ideology was, of course, the other facilitated the movement of people and, hence, a chimera, but it brought in a language of robustness and ideas. Though seemingly led in English, this resistance stubborn resistance that freed up the artistic space of any gave an impetus to the creation of local syntaxes in poetry requirements of belonging to a tradition. It was a refreshingly

Born in 1906, the eldest among six siblings born to John and ‘new’ writings in the vernacular, the development of liberal and, to a fault, cheeky—and it worked. D. Rockefeller, Jr. and Abby Aldrich, a Princeton graduate cinema, a stirring form of theatre, and, certainly, changes in economics, John D. Rockefeller III or ‘Demi’, as he in art practice that rejected academic realism in search of Souza’s co-conspirators, not all of whom either understood was known, showed early interest in philanthropy and directions that had their roots and their hearts and minds or kept their assignation with the manifesto—though, that international relationships. The JDR III Fund was founded in 1963 to carry out a programme of cultural exchange with Asia within an Indian context. Nationalism, thus, sought an too was written into the document—were Syed Haider Image credit: Rockefeller Archive Center assertion of an indigenous cultural identity. Raza, Maqbool Fida Husain, K. H. Ara, Sadanand

10 | India’s Rockefeller Artists India’s Rockefeller Artists | 11 K. Bakre and H. A. Gade. Their debut exhibition in 1948 was both controversial–for Souza’s nude self-portrait–as well as path-breaking in creating a new popular. It launched their careers as well as those of several others who bought into their idea of an expression freed of the weight of the past while embracing what they considered current.

In the backdrop of a country newly independent, the Progressives were restless to put history firmly in the past and get on with the present. Their cause was supported by collectors who represented this zeitgeist, and also by powerful critics who served their interest, critiquing their works in The Times of India and The Illustrated Weekly of India. That they were European emigres with a background in art better served the purpose of tutoring and mentoring that went hand-in-glove.

It is somewhat ironic that the Progressives, who had got off to quite a start in Bombay would soon flee from the city to Henri Matisse cut outs, Tate Modern, The Snail, 1953 settle in Paris (Raza), London (Souza, Bakre), New Delhi (Gade), Husain proving to be famously peripatetic, with works of Henri Matisse, the beautiful paintings on only Ara remaining behind in Bombay to handle the baton glass by K. G. Subramanyan, which recall earlier that he had been left to hold. For the market that they soon works by Matisse, we find ourselves asking what came to command, the Progressives whittled away the gains the value is of having more Matisse-like work of their labour, something that their ‘Associates’, a group of long after Matisse. But if this is how we approach seven artists that had aligned themselves to the movement, art, we miss how beautifully its apparent Western came to seize with somewhat mixed results at the time. derivation mixes automatically with strangeness and idiosyncrasy. These questions bring us deep into There is no doubt that the Progressives as well as other issues of art history and derivations. The question modernists in India were informed by art that had been of chronology—who was first in making things look created earlier in Europe, and without diminishing its like that?—needs to be viewed within the larger relevance within the Indian context of a newly created context of cultural diffusion.1 nation and the excitement of finding its place in the world, there was still the abiding influence of their European Incidentally, both Tyeb Mehta as well as K. G. Subramanyan counterparts that could hardly be ignored. If Pablo Picasso were part of the group of artists sponsored by the John D. provided the inspiration for so many of them, the influence Rockefeller III Fund to travel and experience art in America Top: Catalogue of the Progressive Artists’ Group, Bombay, July of others could hardly be ignored. As American art scholar in the 1960s. 1949, in which F. N. Souza had recorded the Manifesto that was to and critic Thomas McEvilley observed: be their guiding light Thus, by the time Rockefeller came on the Indian art scene Above: Members of the Progressive Artists’ Group assembled at the Bombay Art Society salon in 1947. Displayed behind are paintings of …when seeing [Tyeb] Mehta’s thrilling oil paintings, in the early 1960s, the Progressives had already made enough Kashmir by S. H. Raza, who received a Rockefeller stipend which to Western eyes recall the paper-cutout of a name for themselves, and it was their Associates who

12 | India’s Rockefeller Artists India’s Rockefeller Artists | 13 Top: This page, taken from Span Magazine, New Delhi, published Facing page: Press clippings of various American publications citing in 1962, shows a visitor studying a painting by S. H. Raza, which the seminal exhibition, ‘Trends in Contemporary Painting from India’, was loaned by Mrs. John D. Rockefeller III for a show of fifteen which was held in Graham Gallery in 1959. The flagship travelling Indian painters in Asia House in 1962. The others included Jamini exhibition, sponsored by Asia Society, featured abstract landscapes from Roy, K. S. Kulkarni, Mohan Samant, M. F. Husain, Satish Gujral, S. H. Raza, Fish Market by Mohan Samant, Meera by Krishen Khanna, Ram Kumar, H. A. Gade, V. S. Gaitonde, among M. F. Husain, two paintings of London from F. N. Souza, others among others Top right: The verso detail, which mentions that the work was Image credit: Modern & Contemporary South Asian Art, loaned by the Rockefellers New York, 19 March, 2012, Sotheby’s catalogue

14 | India’s Rockefeller Artists India’s Rockefeller Artists | 15 level, and consisted of works that they displayed first in their home and in his office. In this, they were guided by art historian Sherman Lee who was a curator of Asian art at the Cleveland Museum of Art. Lee and John D. often had long conversations, whether in person or via detailed correspondence, regarding the acquisitions. Aschwin Lippe at the Metropolitan Museum in New York, Laurence Far left: JDR III and Blanchette Hooker Sickman of Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art in Kansas City, Rockefeller with their collection displayed at the and dealers Adrian Maynard in London, Alice Boney in reception of his office in NYC, 1968 Tokyo, and Nasli Heeramaneck and Doris Weiner in New York fed his curiosity and his increasing interest for these Left: In June 1979, Asia Society broke ground acquisitions, though it was Blanchette who seemed to enjoy After graduating from Princeton University in 1929, John D. on its New York City headquarters, designed by these trysts more. ‘I always felt sorry for Mr. Rockefeller Rockefeller III embarked on a global journey culminating with stops in Japan, Korea, and China. These travels—the first of Edward Larrabee Barnes. Pictured here are then because he was doing the collecting while I was the one Board Chairman George W. Ball, Blanchette over 20 subsequent trips to Asia—left a lasting impression on Hooker Rockefeller, and then President Phillips having the fun of learning about it,’ she observed, as quoted Rockefeller and sparked a lifelong fascination with that continent. Talbot in papers housed in the Rockefeller Archive Center oral In this photo from his trip, Rockefeller (far left), poses on the Great Image credit: Rockefeller Archive Center history notes, as quoted by Brinda Kumar.2 Wall of China with Columbia University Professor Joseph Perkins Chamberlain (centre), Hobart Young (second from right), and an unidentified man and woman were most able to reap the Rockefeller benefit. Five of the couple began the process of collecting Japanese as well as This collection was viewed in parts in 1970 and 1975, and Image credit: Rockefeller Archive Center seven would enjoy grants from the Rockefeller Foundation Asian art from an amateur’s interest perspective, something bequeathed to the Asia Society in 1978, following John D. that would take them to America, exposing them to trends in that would develop into a passion with the passage of years. Rockefeller’s death in a car accident. It was first exhibited in American art practice, creating a segue between India and its entirety in 1981 when the new Asia Society building was He was no stranger to India too. On a visit to the country the US that would, to some extent, help in the creation of By the 1950s, his philanthropic contributions were bearing inaugurated, and has since been bequeathed with further in 1958, he and his wife met Prime Minister Jawaharlal India’s modern art market. considerable fruit, even as he was instrumental in pushing objects that were acquired by his widow. In particular, the Nehru, and in a letter penned in long hand, he wrote, ‘As for tax reforms allowing private philanthropy to flourish. His collection’s highlights include Chola bronzes from India, we leave your great country, may I express to you and your Fuelling Philanthropy commitment to issues of economics and birth control led to Song and Ming period Chinese ceramics, and Southeast daughter my deep appreciation of your warm and friendly To understand the import of Rockefeller’s assistance, it the formation of the Population Council in 1952. In 1953, Asian statuary. hospitality. If more of my countrymen could experience this is important also to understand who he was and how his he set up the Council on Economic and Cultural Affairs friendliness of your people towards us and appreciate more interest fuelled one of the most exciting developments in the which, later, was renamed the Agricultural Development John D. Rockefeller III first travelled to Asia in 1929, fully the accomplishments and aspirations of India under history of twentieth century art in India. Council with the aim of providing assistance to farmers in continuing thereafter through the 1930s and 1940s. In 1951 your leadership, the misunderstandings which sometimes Asia. In 1956, he set up the Asia Society, initially founded he was instrumental in drawing up a report on cultural lie between us would be reduced to a negligible minimum.’4 Born in 1906, the eldest among six siblings born to John D. to promote a greater knowledge of Asia in the US. He relations between Japan and the US. ‘Acting on some of his In many ways, it was prescient of what the Asian Cultural Rockefeller, Jr. and Abby Aldrich, a Princeton graduate in emphasised the role of cooperation between private and own recommendations in that report and extending them Council would set out to do as its objective. economics, ‘Demi’, as he was known, showed early interest public institutions about which he wrote in his book, The to other Asian countries as well, Mr. Rockefeller then took in philanthropy and international relationships. These Second American Revolution, published in 1973. By the time of the lead in revitalising the Japan Society and in establishing Brinda Kumar notes: interests reflected in the work of the Foundation when he his tragic death in a road accident in 1978, he had given shape and developing the International House of Japan, the India was later at the helm. Not only that, his experience while to enough of his ideas to ensure a continuation in spite of International Centre, and the Asia Society.’3 Subsequently, Although JDR 3rd himself was not a formal student serving in the navy during the war years prepared him well his absence. Rockefeller supported several important exhibitions of of Asian art, it is nonetheless important to note that for his appointment as a cultural consultant during the Asian art, and remained, outside of cultural affairs, a great through the initiatives of many of the organisations Japanese peace treaty negotiations undertaken with John The Rockefellers’ interest in Asian art—Japanese, Chinese, exponent of development concerns, chief among them he founded and funded the study of Asian art and Foster Dulles. Married by then to Blanchette Hooker, the Korean, Sri Lankan and Indian—started at a private being agriculture and population control. culture, both within America and abroad was greatly

16 | India’s Rockefeller Artists India’s Rockefeller Artists | 17 promoted. Just one example of this was through the Asian Cultural Program (ACP) of the JDR 3rd Fund. From the late 1960s through the 1970s, young scholars who would go on to become preeminent in the field of Indian art history had been funded through this organisation to support their research into the field of Indian art. These included the likes of Pradipaditya Pal, B. N. Goswamy, Saryu Doshi, Michael Meister, Stuart Cary-Welch, and Catherine Glynn, to name a few.5

Early Nudges for a Visual Arts Grant While John D. Rockefeller III’s personal interest in Asian art has widely—and perhaps rightly—been considered the catalyst for the cultural grants they formalised, it is possible that the trigger might actually have come from artists themselves. As early as 1950, K. S. Kulkarni had been sponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation to represent India at the International Arts Program, USA. There is evidence of some artists from India writing to the Foundation for support for visits to America as early as 1955.

On November 2, 1955, artist Laxman Pai, who was then in Paris, wrote to Chadbourne Gilpatric at the Rockefeller Foundation in New York: Top: John D. Rockefeller III with Parliamentarian Morarji Desai, New Delhi, 1962 I am writing to you on the suggestion of Mr. Nicolas Above: Natvar Bhavsar (left), who was given the John D. Rockefeller Nabokov, the Secretary General of the Congress for III Fund in 1965, with Saryu Doshi who was funded through the Cultural Freedom. Asian Cultural Program (ACP) of the JDR 3rd Fund as a young I am an Indian painter, born in Goa, and scholar working in the field of Indian art history Image credit: From the personal archives of Natvar Bhavsar presently residing, temporarily, in Paris. I am sending you under separate cover a short biography of mine as well as newspaper clippings and photographs of you know how difficult it is in the West for a young my work. painter to live on his own production, not to speak Clockwise from top left: Indira Gandhi with William Schumann I spoke to Mr. Nabokov about my desire to go of my own country. and John D. Rockefeller III, New York, 1966; John D. Rockefeller Mr. Nabokov suggested that I write to you in III in an image from 1962 with Jawaharlal Nehru and S. for a year to the United States to work there and order to find out whether there would be a chance Radhakrishnan; John and Blanchette Rockefeller with Prime Minister study the artistic work of your country. I would like, Jawaharlal Nehru, 1963; a letter written by John D. Rockefeller III of course, to visit all the museums possible and get for me to obtain a fellowship from the Rockefeller to Nehru in 1958 in contact with contemporary American painters. Foundation for that purpose. I would be very much Image credit: Rockefeller Archive Center; the images were published in obliged to you if you kindly let me know whether Modern & Contemporary South Asian Art, New York, 19 I am unfortunately in no position to afford a trip such a possibility exists.6 March, 2012, Sotheby’s catalogue of this kind. I live entirely of my own work and

18 | India’s Rockefeller Artists India’s Rockefeller Artists | 19 see why India should become concerned about American Now about his problem: Mr. Laxman Pai was working hard on its humanities programme, activities, even philanthropic ones, where members of the would like very much to go to the United States for you could do them a real service by placing such a former intelligence service found access. More on this later. a period of a year to make contacts with American person in their art department for a year—provided artists, study the trends of contemporary painting it is a department which creates art as well as talks Nicholas Nabokov, whom Pai referred to in his letter to in the United States, to visit the country and make about it—so he could both learn about our art and Gilpatric, was a part of Congres pour la Liberté de la Culture his work known to the Americans. We are all here teach a bit about theirs.11 in Paris, a prominent cultural organisation which had, in the very much in favour of his going to America and past, had philosopher and social critic Bertrand Russell as its think that the contact with the U.S.A. would be Gilpatric was unable to oblige. While the Foundation had, president d’honneur. On the same day that Pai wrote to him, extremely good to him and his work. I feel that if it surprisingly, and as an isolated case, funded the grant of the Nabokov too wrote to Gilpatric: were at all possible for the Rockefeller Foundation Indian artist K. S. Kulkarni as early as in 1950, it would to grant Mr. Laxman Pai a fellowship, it would be be a while before a formal programme would be set up to When we met in India, you very kindly suggested an extremely fruitful investment, and hence I would allow more artists to make the most of the opportunity the that I should keep my eyes and ears open as regards like to recommend him whole-heartedly to you and Rockefeller Foundation, in whatever form, began to offer gifted people whom I may meet in India, and who your colleagues.8 artists and other cultural exponents in India. could be of interest to the Rockefeller Foundation. Gilpatric, unfortunately, was unable to extend such a Wesley had earlier studied at the University of Lucknow’s Following this suggestion, I am writing today on fellowship, and wrote as such to Nabokov. To Laxman Pai, art school, and painted in the tradition of the Bengal School behalf of a young Indian painter, Mr. Laxman Pai, he wrote: and M. A. R. Chughtai. Little known in India, he stayed for with whose work my colleagues and I have come to five years in Kyoto and fulfilled his ambition of travelling to be acquainted in the course of last year. I am sorry to write to you at the present time that America with a two-year stint at the Art Institute of Chicago First a few words about Mr. Laxman Pai this Foundation is not in a position to consider before moving and settling in Australia. himself and then about his problem: In the opinion fellowship awards for painters, and so I could not Chadbourne Gilpatric, whose work with the Rockefeller Foundation of many people in Paris and in India—and certainly encourage you to expect the financial assistance In the year these letters were being written, the Rockefeller began in 1949, was a former Office of Strategic Services operative in my opinion—Mr. Laxman Pai is one of the most you want. It is always possible, of course, that the Foundation was grappling with its intent in India. Its interest gifted young painters of our generation. His work is Arts programs of this Foundation may change and at that point was purely in development, chiefly in education It is interesting that Pai’s suggestion for funding an Indian original, consistently of a high standard and has the expand, and in view of such possibilities, I am glad and agriculture. A July memo, for instance, records that: artist in America is similar to that followed a decade later curious and rare quality of being both profoundly to know about your interest.9 when, in fact, Rockefeller’s support did kick-start the grounded in the national tradition and, at the same AM [American town planner and architect, Albert entire programme. time, constructively reflective of the most advanced About the same time, Kenneth Morgan of Colgate University, Mayer], with impressive evidence, points out that trends of contemporary Western painting. We have Hamilton, New York wrote to Gilpatric about Frank Wesley, there are few job opportunities for the thousands Even more interesting is that Chadbourne Gilpatric who had for a year now a standing friendly relation, and an Indian artist studying art in Kyoto, Japan. Wesley had of Indians who have come and are coming to the Pai wrote to at the Foundation was, in fact, a former OSS the Congress has helped him—to the extent of its written to Morgan reminding him of their meeting where United States for specialised training. He’d like to see operative. The OSS, or Office of Strategic Services, was limited possibilities—to get known here in Paris and the latter had bought his works, and mentioned: ‘I tried to a foundation like the RF [Rockefeller Foundation] a wartime intelligence agency of the United States, ‘But in his own country. Matters are complicated by the find means to come over to [the] U.S. for a short time but so give concentrated attention to maximising the there was no prejudice against OSS veterans, who were fact that he is a native from Goa and as such in the far nothing has come this way’.10 learning experience of selected Indians while in the recruited to the Rockefeller Foundation in droves,’ writes difficult position of not being able to return to his U.S., but even more, give attention to their proper Saunders, mentioning that Gilpatric was appointed to the country, i.e. he could, in fact, return but would not Morgan did write to Gilpatric. placement and productive work after return to India. Foundation ‘directly from the CIA’.7 Following India’s war be allowed to leave it again. Mr. Laxman Pai has This is a crucial ‘must’ if talented and well-trained with Pakistan and the creation of Bangladesh in 1971 recently returned from India to Paris; he had a very He is an Indian Christian, third generation, but Indians are to get on escalators towards positions which saw American warships appear threateningly in the successful exhibition in Delhi and is now working on very closely tied to the Indian traditions of art. If of responsibility in government, universities, and in international waters surrounding the country, it was easy to a portrait of Nehru. you happened to be interested in a college which other fields.12

20 | India’s Rockefeller Artists India’s Rockefeller Artists | 21 A June 1955 diary notation in the Foundation’s archives separated later into the Agricultural Council, and the John mentions the necessity for the Foundation to first understand D. Rockefeller III Fund. So, I was in CECA, and Raza was on-ground reality in India without rousing its ire. ‘In the called from Paris under the same grant.’14 first place,’ the notation reads, ‘this might take the form of travel and living expenses for up to nine months for a The Council’s business was being handled at the time by highly-qualified American to reconnoiter in India. This A. Weizblatz, Porter McCray coming to and driving the should be done with great care so as not to arouse further office soon after. ‘I came to know them both extremely Indian resentments against Americans trying to sell them on well,’ Khanna claims. Raza’s stipend, however, was not at something they don’t particularly want.’13 The Foundation Khanna’s behest. ‘Of course, I would have said yes, if they needed to be cognizant of the Indian government’s self- had asked me, but he was in Paris. He had gone to Berkeley worth as well as priorities, and needed to appear supportive as artist in residence, so the grant allowed him to extend his rather than assertive. stay to live in New York and be a part of this.’15

Council on Economic and The Council had its task cut out for it, at least in the early Cultural Affairs years, when a referral system would have been difficult to put Not many know that the precursor to the John D. Rockefeller into place. With most of the Progressives absent from India, III Fund was the Council on Economic and Cultural Affairs the Associates might have seemed the right choice, and the (CECA). While its mandate was ‘to stimulate and support well-spoken Krishen Khanna might have seemed a safe bet economic and related activities important to human welfare’, given his Anglophile ways that eliminated the possibility of it was the source of grants for two of the earliest Indian any culture shock. artists to receive the fellowship. The JDR 3rd Fund/Asian The CECA invited Krishen Khanna to the US, and followed Cultural Programme it up soon after with a stipend to S. H. Raza to extend his Christine Ithurbide writes of how the John D. Rockefeller III stay in the US. While Khanna’s grant took the form that it Fund was set up: would take for artists later funded by the John D. Rockefeller III Fund—a funding to travel and observe art in America— JDR 3rd’s personal diary of 1963 reveals how in Raza’s case it was shaped differently. At that time, Raza he eventually achieved his project of creating a was already practicing in Paris and, so, strictly, did not qualify particular art programme with Asia. On August for the purpose of bringing to Indian art in India the sense 8, he had lunch with Porter McCray, the previous of American experience. Even so, a precedent was set, one director of circulating exhibitions at the MoMA which helped other artists who were overseas at the time to during the first contemporary art exchanges with avail of the award. Natvar Bhavsar was able to use it not just India. He told McCray that he had long felt that to extend his stay temporarily but also to become a permanent resident and artist of Indian origin based in America.

Press clipping from Tarrytown News announcing the incorporation ‘I was the first artist from India to get the grant,’ Krishen of the John D. Rockefeller III Fund which describes its ‘guiding Khanna says. ‘Of course it wasn’t called the John D. principle… that the national life of all countries is enriched by Rockefeller III Fund then, it was given by the Council of association with other cultures, Tarrytown, New York, is where John D. Rockefeller built his mansion, home to four generations Economic and Cultural Affairs, which was funded by the of Rockefellers Rockefellers. Basically, it was the same outfit, but it was Image credit: Asian Cultural Council: 50 Years, 2014

22 | India’s Rockefeller Artists India’s Rockefeller Artists | 23 culture and the arts could play an important part in a ‘Cultural Exchange Program in the Arts’ that reported depth between the peoples of Asia and the United fostering better understanding and mutual respect the following: States was announced here yesterday by John D. and appreciation between the U.S. and Asia. Rockefeller 3rd, its founder and president. Despite a number of grants made through the Asia Basic objective: to foster [the] understanding, and Japan Societies and through CECA toward respect and appreciation between [the] peoples of The fund is another enterprise in the saga of this end, he had never approached the subject on Asia and [the] U.S. through cultural interchange. the Rockefeller brothers, who, as individuals and a really ‘thoughtful and organised basis’. JDR 3rd Focus: because of [the] vastness of Asia, a group, have fostered worldwide social action told McCray that he was planning to set up a new emphasis of programme must by necessity be to programmes embracing education, welfare, fund that he had in mind, under its aegis, to make bring Asian culture to the people of the U.S.A. science, culture, civil rights, conservation and a survey as to the possibilities in this direction and Subject area: the performing and visual arts related fields. hopefully develop a programme. JDR 3rd, who liked but not necessarily ruling out motion pictures and The lengthening list of domestic and foreign McCray, was impressed with him, eventually asked literature. programmes of the Rockefeller brothers has him whether he might be interested in heading up Geographical area: all of Asia from Japan not been compiled for publication, and the best such an effort, at least in the survey stage. The next through Afghanistan. unofficial estimate is that they cover several score of week they met again to further discuss a cultural Grant areas: fellowships, scholarships and travel general areas and include 200 specific activities. interchange programme primarily with Asia and grants; grants to assist in the exchange of individual Mr. Rockefeller, chairman of the board of primarily in the arts. ‘We seemed to be together artists, companies and exhibitions; assistance for directors of the Lincoln Center for the Performing in our thinking and I am very much inclined to centres fostering international exchange; backing Arts, has long been associated with Asian go ahead and take him on to lead a programme conferences or other promotional efforts to cultural affairs. under the so-called JDR 3rd Fund which I am advance objectives. Although the fund’s programme will involve about to establish,’ JDR 3rd wrote in his diary on Form of assistance: generally working with or cultural exchanges between Asia and the United August 13, 1963. Hence, a powerful programme through other organisations by means of grants States, the main emphasis will be on bringing for the future of the contemporary Indian art scene only operating directly where no alternative exists front-rank Asian performing artists, painters, was created.16 to obtain objectives.18 sculptors, writers, architects, and other works to the United States. Already in 1962, the Council for Economic and Cultural In a press release announcing the setting up of the Fund, Porter A. McCray, the fund’s director, formerly Porter A. McCray, the first director of John D. Rockefeller III Fund Affairs ‘had issued a report entitled Asian Arts: Who is Doing John D. Rockefeller observed, ‘The programme of the Fund of the Museum of Modern Art, said American What?, which concluded that despite a wide spectrum of will involve the exchange between Asia and our country audiences usually were exposed only to Asian the principal beneficiaries of the visiting Asians, activities concerned with the arts in Asia, the dimension of of persons, ideas, creative work, materials and techniques performing artists of international repute. He said since institutions of higher learning are already depth was lacking and many programmes were peripheral to primarily in the fields of the visual and performing arts. In there were many front-rank artists in Asia who were doing much to study Asian cultures. the main functions of the organisations involved. The report general, the Fund will work through existing organisations unknown in this country and should be invited here. In its early phase the fund will operate with a posited that successful programmes in the future would by means of grants.’19 Such visits, he said, would broaden and deepen small staff and modest outlays, but as the field is have to have more knowledge of “the sensitivities and the American interest in Asian culture. explored, expenditures will be increased to give resources of Asian countries” and would have to tackle the ‘A guiding principle of the programme will be the Mr. McCray recently concluded a year’s travel additional impetus to the exchanges. difficult problem of locating the key individuals who could conviction that the national life of all countries is enriched in Asia and Africa under the joint auspices of the Mr. McCray said that while the visiting Asians lead the way to distinctive developments in the arts.’17 by the association with other cultures,’ noted McCray at its Stare Department and the Museum of Modern Art. would expose the Americans to their culture, establishment. On October 2, 1963, M. S. Handler of The He said that the field of cultural exchanges would they themselves would be exposed to American The lunch meeting between Rockefeller and McCray, which New York Times reported: have to be thoroughly explored and that the fund techniques—for example, in the theatre, the dance would result in the latter becoming the first director of the would draw heavily on the advice of many Asian and fine arts. Asian Cultural Program of the JDR 3rd Fund, was premised The formation of a new Rockefeller fund, the JDR experts affiliated with American universities. The fund, he said, will also consider supporting on a note that McCray wrote on August 13, 1963 regarding 3rd Fund Inc., to promote cultural exchanges in On the other hand, the universities will be among translations of Asian literary works into the English

24 | India’s Rockefeller Artists India’s Rockefeller Artists | 25 1971-73: Central Museum Conservation Projects in Bombay, only to be redirected to Calcutta after the (multiple grants) atomic attack on Hiroshima. It was Nelson Rockefeller, 1974: Maharaja Sawai Man Singh II Museum (Textile John D. Rockefeller’s brother, who asked him, in 1947, Conservation Project), Jaipur to join the Museum of Modern Art and plan tours of 1975: Council for Tibetan Education some of its highlights to Europe and Latin America 1977: Tibetan Music, Dance and Drama Society as part of its international programmes. While the 1984: Tibetan Institute of Performing Arts circulating exhibitions programme was exciting enough, 1986: Theatre Academy of Pune the international programming opened newer vistas 1987: Padatik Cultural Centre and opportunities: Memorandum from Porter McCray to John D. 1998: Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts, Rockefeller III to discuss ‘plans for creating a New Delhi The French, for example, approached us and foundation to nourish cultural growth between the U.S. 2005: Sanskriti Pratishthan, Delhi asked us if we would consider putting together an and the countries of Asia’ (above); the press release 2007: Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage exhibition of major French works in American issued by the JDR 3rd Fund on October 2, 1963, announcing its incorporation (centre and right) (INTACH), New Delhi; Maharashtra Culture Centre collections. We did that, borrowing—since the Image courtesy: Asian Cultural Council: 50 2008: Upayan Sansthan Institute French wanted to go back to that era prior to the Years, 2014 2010: Darpana Academy of Performing Arts; Adishakti Modern period, which was quite rich—in areas Laboratory for Theatre Art Research; Chorus that were not most characteristic of the MoMA, as language to provide Americans with greater access prompted the trustees of The JDR 3rd Fund to Repertory Theatre a matter of fact, so that the first big French show to Asian culture. initiate its Asian Cultural Program in 1963. They 2014: Laihvi Centre for Research on Traditional and that was lent of American collections was called The traffic, Mr. McCray said, will not be believed that enhanced knowledge of other cultures Indigenous Performing Arts De David a Toulouse-Lautrec. For this show we entirely East to West. Distinguished Americans will was a worthwhile end to a further end––through 2015: Nrityagram Dance Ensemble got the major museums in the U.S. interested and, be sent to Asia.20 knowledge and respect for other cultures we come as a matter of fact, asked most of the directors to respect and appreciate the peoples themselves. Porter McCray or the curators of painting and sculpture in these Rockefeller himself was aware that a greater or, at least, In turn, this provides a more effective setting for Porter McCray, the programme’s founding director, was institutions to join a committee in The Museum of dominant American culture tended to subvert other global carrying out political and economic affairs.21 at least as important for it as Rockefeller himself. Born in Modern Art and to make the selections for the show. cultures, however well established and recognised. He West Virginia in 1908, his childhood was not one that The purpose, really, was to strengthen the possibility articulated this clearly in the Foreword to a report on the The Asian Cultural Program of the JDR 3rd Fund ‘made allowed much exposure to the arts. Though his interest of borrowing major things from those museums, Fund’s performance published much later: eighty to a hundred grants annually to artists, scholars, and for the arts and theatre was whetted in the years he was and it worked like a charm as it progressed, because students for research, travel, and study’.22 It also made grants studying architecture in New York, it was later, at Yale, that the members of the various top museums of the Traditionally, Americans have viewed international to institutions, and in India it has included the following: this interest was consolidated: ‘…there were these brilliant country would sit around a table in the morning and relations primarily in political and economic terms people coming from Yale, mostly all from Paris. Josef Albers vye with one another on which was going to lend with comparatively little attention given to the cultural 1964: India International Centre, New Delhi came from Paris. Then, when I got into architectural school the better picture.24 dimension. This has been true whether one considers 1964, 1966: Bal Bhavan and National Children’s Museum, proper, the technical part of it, we had people like Fernand academia, press coverage of world events, or formal New Delhi Leger and Amedee Ozenfant, even Corbu (Le Corbusier)–– McCray went on to take exchange exhibitions around the governmental relationships. The result is that our 1964-72: International Cultural Centre (multiple grants) he was not a regular, but he was an occasional lecturer on world as part of his Department of Circulating Exhibitions world outlook has tended to be bound by our own 1966: The American Academy of Benares various subjects. Oscar Nitzchke, the French architect who at MoMA and, from 1961 to 1962, over a one-year period, culture instead of being broadened by a sensitivity to 1967: Calico Textile Museum, Ahmedabad just died the other day; even that fascinating fashion designer made an extensive survey of cultural activities in thirty- other cultures; this remains largely so today. 1967, 1968: International Centre for the Study of the Madame Schiaparelli.’23 eight Asian and African countries and Australia for the The recognition that the cultural dimension Preservation and the Restoration of Cultural Property Department of State before accepting Rockefeller’s offer to was neglected, coupled with the belief that it is 1967, 1971: National Museum, New Delhi As a volunteer for the American Field Service organisation, head the Asian Cultural Program for the JDR III Fund. Its crucial to genuine international understanding, 1970: Kalakshetra Academy of Arts McCray had his share of war experiences and even trained scope included countries such as Afghanistan, Bangladesh,

26 | India’s Rockefeller Artists India’s Rockefeller Artists | 27 have been tailored to meet specialised needs and many of the other countries we were dealing with. circumstances. Rather than make grants to other And even though at times, particularly toward the institutions for administration and disbursement, in end, it became increasingly difficult to maintain almost all cases the Fund has dealt directly with those satisfactory reciprocity with the Indians… who have received funds to carry out activities. This Mr. Cummings: Oh, really? has required the staff to devote a great deal of time Mr. McCray: …we did continue to operate. and energy to very specific needs and requirements, Mr. Cummings: Why? including not only selecting individual candidates Mr. McCray: Well, they became much stickier for grants and determining which American about allowing Americans in to do research, institutions could best serve the needs of each Asian graduate work and things. grantee, but also finding housing for grantees and Mr. Cummings: Really? For what reason? their families and unravelling customs and transport Mr. McCray: Well, I think it sprang from the details for shipments of materials to Asia.26 early abuses of the CIA activity there, probably. We had to live with that. I mean, the fact that you McCray’s task was cut out for him. Even given his are always subject to that accusation that you are experience, it was difficult to select the nominees for the Trustee and Asian Cultural Council Chairman Emeritus Elizabeth really an agent disguising as a cultural vulture, I’ve grant. How were they to be chosen? Who should nominate McCormack (left) with 1992 grantee Kapila Vatsayan always had that hanging over me from time to time them? Might it be better to work through the government, Image credit: Asian Cultural Council: 50 Years, 2014 almost anywhere. Press clipping from New York Times, published in 1963 on the or privately, or as mostly happened, by word of mouth and Mr. Cummings: When did that start, that Rockefeller fund (right), which was introduced by John D. Rockefeller personal recommendations? ‘There has been no formula for The Issue of the Culture Vultures accusation? III (left) finding these people. Sometimes official recommendations Porter McCray, who was interviewed in 1977 by Paul Mr. McCray: Well, it started—it was planted, I have led to them, sometimes not. Often such considerations Cummings for the Archives of American Art, Smithsonian think, during the Cold War. Burma (now Myanmar), Cambodia, China, Hong Kong, as local hierarchies and language proficiency have been Institution, spellt it out for the interviewer: Mr. Cummings: Oh, so it goes back? India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Laos, Malaysia, Nepal, complicating factors, since the most suitable candidate may Mr. McCray: It goes way back. And in India, Pakistan, the Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand, not have the best command of English or be considered by Mr. McCray: So you had to define the categories the noticeable change came when we sided and Vietnam. ‘When the Asian Cultural Program first his or her superiors to be the best choice for study abroad. in which you were going to work, the levels at which with—quite the contrary—with Pakistan in the began, the director looked for information and advice Thus identifying the most promising candidates for project you were going to work, the balance that you felt Bangladesh business. That’s when India really from such people as the staff members of CECA, the or fellowship assistance has been a major aspect of the you could get in visual performing, the balance you clamped down.28 Rockefeller Foundation (which had earlier conducted a director’s job.’27 could get in India versus China versus Japan and so substantial programme in the field of Asian arts), the Asia forth. And it has been a constant balancing act in India’s apprehensions weren’t entirely unfounded, for the Foundation, and the Ford Foundation; those involved with The grant, which was set up in 1963, began to seed artists that respect. In many instances, in the beginning, it US—and the CIA—had been known to use cultural outfits the Fulbright and the International Institute of Education from 1964 onwards, beginning with V. S. Gaitonde. Fourteen was very easy, for example, to work with the Japanese to gain sensitive leverage and plant agents in countries where (IIE) programmes; the personnel of American embassies and artists (and hundreds of others: art historians and writers, because it was before the Japan Foundation was it had interests. In his book, The Cultural Cold War, author British Council offices in Asia; scholars of Asian arts; and musicians, singers, architects and theatre professionals among created and a great many Japanese were bursting to Frances Stonor Saunders drew just such scenarios, offering longtime American residents in Asian countries.’25 While them), found themselves benefitting from the grant through get out of Japan to undertake their favorite projects names of those who infiltrated the system: the Fund had the kind of freedom government programmes an interesting cycle of recommendation and referencing. At in this country. Mr. Rockefeller had a particular are unable to provide, its greater challenge was in its head, directing its selection and activities, was McCray, interest in the Japanese, but he did not want that to The Rockefeller Foundation, no less than the Ford, personalising them: who met with most of the selected artists, but also with the dictate the choice of programs. He wanted a balance was an integral component of America’s Cold War cultural elite of the country, both in India and outside, a task to be established and we ended up realising that machinery. Incorporated in 1913, its principal In keeping with the Fund’s basic philosophy that was made difficult because the Indian government did India, with its immense population and with its very donor was the legendary John D. Rockefeller III. of providing personalised assistance, its grants not view the Fund’s activities above suspicion. poor economy, needed more help proportionate to It had assets exceeding $500 million, not including

28 | India’s Rockefeller Artists India’s Rockefeller Artists | 29 an additional $150 million in the Rockefeller was reason to celebrate their proximity to the Rockefeller JDR Fund because I think it has been one of the Mr. Cummings: But still, you were associated Brothers Fund Inc., a major think tank which was Foundation’s grants which they enjoyed seemingly without more public but yet a very personal foundation. I’ve with… incorporated in New York in 1940. In 1957 the fund any brainwashing—a soft power establishment, while always gotten the feeling from reading the reports Mr. McCray: And being able to deal directly brought together the most influential minds of the placing, in India and in other Asian countries, former CIA and kind of seeing what they’ve done and kind of with people, rather than governments. Because the period under a Special Studies Project whose task operatives in a new role. talking to people that Mr. Rockefeller really knew danger, I suppose in all governments to some extent, was to attempt a definition of American foreign where it was going, what it was doing. You know, but it seemed a slight threat in some places that we policy. Subpanel II was designated to the study of Interestingly, given the concerns that cultural NGOs were you and the other people there were quite aware were working in Asia, we were trying to avoid—we International Security Objectives and Strategy, and a nest of CIA operatives, a large number of such people of his presence. It’s not like some foundations that were trying to maintain our right of selection. And its members included Henry and Clare Boothe from the cultural field closely associated with the ruling seem rather distant from the donor. Is that so? since visas—not visas but passports were issued Lance, Laurence Rockefeller, Townsend Hoopes dispensation of the Nehru-Gandhi family (in particular Mr. McCray: Well, yes. You know, we were small. and since permissions were given to—all museum (representing Jock Whitney’s company), Nelson Indira Gandhi) availed of what the Fund had to offer them, We were a rather intimate operation. Mr. Rockefeller people, you must realise, in India and most of the Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, Frank Lindsay, and among them Kamaladevi Chattopadhyay, Pupul Jayakar, is, you know, involved in lots of things. And he did Asian countries are in civil service. So in order to William Bundy of the CIA. Homi Sethna, Rajeev Sethi, Kapila Vatsyayan, Jyotindra not want to be bothered by much detail. There get those people, the people that you want, out, The convergence between the Rockefeller Jain and his wife Jutta Neubauer-Jain. were formal museum meetings done with quite you have to get the government to agree to release billions and the U.S. government exceeded even extensive docket memoranda made for everything them from their jobs and also to give them a leave that of the Ford Foundation. John Foster Dulles and Mr. McCray: We could not get—at that time, that was proposed and Mr. Rockefeller is one who of absence, with or without pay, but allow them a later Dean Rusk both went from the residency of the India established a lot of very rigid regulations reads every last word, you know, in those and asked passport that will permit them to complete their Rockefeller Foundation to become secretaries of state. about doing research in that country. It had to be questions himself at the meetings and before the assignment. And with those elements of control, Other Cold War heavies such as John J. McCloy and done in association with a university under a specific meetings, I think, consulted by telephone a lot of they were accustomed in some instances to naming Robert A. Lovett featured prominently as Rockefeller faculty supervisor. In many instances we had very the trustees. So he came to the board meetings their own man. trustees. Nelson Rockefeller’s central position on this expertly trained people here who could not find a quite well informed and almost invariably favouring Mr. Cummings: I see. foundation guaranteed a close relationship with the counterpart in India and they were blocked. the proposals that came up. He gave us the most Mr. McCray: And there was a danger of these U.S. intelligence circles: he had been in charge of Mr. Cummings: Just couldn’t do anything? extraordinary cooperation. I look back on it, in the people becoming political oriented—not oriented, all intelligence in Latin America during the Second Mr. McCray: Because they were not willing to take twelve years, we never had a significant turndown but politically chosen, rather than getting the most World War. Later, his associate in Brazil, Col. J.C. a less than satisfactory supervisor. And, oh, it got on a proposed project. professionally qualified… King became CIA chief of clandestine activities in awfully messy because the implication was that they Mr. Cummings: Really? the Western hemisphere. When Nelson Rockefeller should not only work under the university but the Mr. McCray: Because they were carefully was appointed by Eisenhower to the National person had to be—the grant had to be increased evaluated before being recommended. I had an area Security Council in 1954, his job was to approve so the person could register and matriculate in the of discretion, of course. various covert operations. If he needed any extra university and do so many credits and so forth and Mr. Cummings: Right. information on CIA activities, he would simply ask so on. Mr. McCray: Certain small grants, I could make his old friend Allen Dulles for a direct briefing. One Mr. Cummings: Oh, really? at my own discretion and simply report to the board of the most controversial of these activities was Mr. McCray: And it got so complex that we and get their formal approval after the fact… CIA’s MK-ULTRA (or ‘Manchurian Candidate’) dropped most every case. Mr. Cummings: Now, what—you know, what programme of mind control research during the Mr. Cummings: But you could still get people kind of response did you get from, I guess, the 1950s. The research was assisted by grants from the from India to come here? political sectors in these various countries? Were Rockefeller Foundation.’29 Mr. McCray: Oh, yes. There was no decrease in they interested in your appearance and your adding Porter McCray visited artist V. S. Gaitonde in his studio—this was that flow at all. their cultural activities? actually before he accepted the position as head of the Fund, in his role India, clearly, had reason to be wary. But while the distrust Mr. Cummings: Because I know I keep running Mr. McCray: Well, I operated with a fairly low as representative of MoMA—and offered him the chance to come to New York. The grant, which was set up in 1963, began to seed artists between the governments continued to rise, artists—and into them these days, here and there. You know, profile if possible, because that was the great from 1964 onwards, beginning with Gaitonde who received the grant the ‘cultural vultures’ McCray alludes to—found there one thing that has always interested me about the advantage we had of being a private institution. in 1965

30 | India’s Rockefeller Artists India’s Rockefeller Artists | 31 Mr. Cummings: How did you circumvent that? museum, [inaudible], got caught between these two Mr. McCray: Well, by—just as I said, by operating fires and he could not get out, he could not get his a very low profile and not by dealing through, as passport. Then if he got his passport from the federal some of these programmes have been, through our government, the provincial government would not own embassy to their government, but to go right give him leave of absence from his job. So… to the institution or the individual and propose Mr. Cummings: One way or another. something. You see, for example, it’s against the law Mr. McCray: It took almost two years to get him in India for an Indian to apply directly to a private out. That was the most difficult case we had. foundation for a grant. Mr. Cummings: Why—why was there a law in Mr. Cummings: Oh, really? India where people couldn’t apply to a foundation? Mr. McCray: Yeah. Do you have any idea? Mr. Cummings: But you could go to him if you Mr. McCray: Well, they were trying to hold down knew… on the brain drain for one thing, understandably. Mr. McCray: I joined the club rather quickly and And they felt that it was just the appropriate channel would seek out the people that we would know to deal through one government to the other rather and would consult the local people, experts, whose than an individual foundation coming in and dealing recommendations guided us in our choice. I mean, with a citizen. A lot of––I must say, the Indians people who were not looking at it from a political particularly have accommodated a great deal within point of view. And would then invite the person to the regulations that they have to operate under.30 come, you see. Mr. Cummings: I see, which was acceptable. But the suspicions and wariness came in much later, and the Mr. McCray: And in most instances, it worked. In initial years were smoother sailing. McCray was able to visit one very significant case, it did not work in India for artist V. S. Gaitonde in his studio—this was actually before almost two years to get the director of the Madras he accepted the position as head of the Fund, in his role as Museum on leave of absence to come to the States representative of MoMA—and offered him the chance to Artist Krishen Khanna on getting the Rockefeller funding: ‘I was the to study his special area of interest. We got a denial come to New York as part of the group. first artist from India to get the grant… it wasn’t called the John D. of the request from the Federal Government of Rockefeller III Fund then, it was given by the Council on Economic India, Delhi, and an approval from the Tamil From the Heady 1960s and 1970s to a and Cultural Affairs, which was funded by the Rockefellers… So, I government, which is the provincial government. Slowing Down from the 1980s was in CECA, and Raza was called from Paris under the same grant’ And as you know, the Tamil government and the As we have stated earlier, by the time of the start of the central government were in a great controversy and Rockefeller grants, ennui had begun to set into the Indian art it was sporadic, and understanding of art itself was low, particularly under Mrs. Gandhi, the Tamils or the movements. The Progressives, who had provided a bold and and doomed to sink further even as practitioners of high South Indians refused to accept the government dynamic thrust from 1947 on through much of the 1950s, modernism in India’s art centres experimented to bring new request—the federal government requirement that were tiring and had become, by then, the establishment techniques and subjects into their practices. Hindi be inaugurated as the official language. Tamil against which new voices had begun to raise themselves.

was the older Hindu language, and the Tamils were Top: Akbar Padamsee, F. N. Souza, S. H. Raza and Laxman Pai in Some of the headiness of a new country coming face-to- Rockefeller’s philanthropy, therefore, may have come when not willing to give that up. So they proceeded along Padamsee’s hotel room in Paris, September, 1951 face with challenges that were proving overwhelming led to the art fraternity was at a crossroads in India, and not a two fairly parallel lines, with very little overlapping, Above: S. H. Raza, when he received $1,000 from the Council on a degree of fatalism, of a failing state and nation. Shortages, moment too soon. However, it did not in itself lead to any so that it was almost invariably to be expected that Economic and Cultural Affairs, was teaching at the University of strikes, a sense of hopelessness and, soon, a war with China form of collective. As Khanna reiterates, ‘I always knew Berkeley. By the time he received the grant, he had won the Prix de if one approved one and the other—that the other la Critique in Paris, the coveted critics award, the first time a non- that India lost, bred a feeling of failure. To an extent, America was trying to build itself as a leader culturally and one would disapprove. And the director of the European had claimed it protest art as a panacea for social ills began to appear. But had wonderful dancers, musicians and artists. No other

32 | India’s Rockefeller Artists India’s Rockefeller Artists | 33 country could compare. And we had free access to this, but would manage in his absence. I wrote to Porter to strangely, it did not play to his strength as an art historian American outing. While the decade of the 1990s was poorly I also never lost sight that I was going to come back home.’31 explain Tyeb’s financial position with respect to his and author. While his paintings have been collected, and served by the Council given that the South Asian region family, and Porter wrote an angry letter saying that I he has taught at the Faculty of Fine Arts in Baroda, it is was almost entirely ignored during this period, activities did The initial years of the grant were the busiest with a number was trying to twist his tail. When the grant did come his writings that he is best known for. Asok Kumar Das was resume from 2000 onwards. But the shrunken grants and of artists following thick in each others’ footsteps, creating through for Tyeb, I was the caretaker for Tyeb’s awarded the grant in 1978 as an artist, when he should the move away from visual arts saw a slowing down not a camaraderie. If Krishen Khanna and S. H. Raza were children, taking care of them and their education.35 have been invited under the category of museum studies. A dissimilar to starving. Under the Foundation’s many faces beneficiaries of the CECA, Gaitonde became the first artist well-known art historian, he has been director of Maharaja and the different names the programme has had since the under the Fund to be invited to spend a year in New York While Tyeb’s insistence on clarity in terms of financial support Sawai Man Singh II Museum, Jaipur; senior visiting beginning, the following artists have benefitted: (November 1964 to November 1965); Akbar Padamsee was for his family did create a brief unpleasantness between fellow, Victoria and Albert Museum, London; Jawaharlal invited from Paris, where he was based at the time, from Khanna and McCray, their friendship soon overcame this Nehru Fellow; Satyajit Ray Chair, Kala Bhavana, Visva- Rockefeller Foundation June 1965 to June 1966; at the time Avinash Chandra, also a hiccup. Khanna’s other recommendation, Gaitonde, too Bharati, Santiniketan; and has had assignments and K. S. Kulkarni (1950) grantee, was in London; and Natvar Bhavsar was in New York. ran foul of McCray. Khanna’s term under CECA and associations with Smithsonian Institution, Getty Museum, Gaitonde’s under the Fund partly overlapped, and they both Los Angeles, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Council on Economic and Cultural Affairs (CECA) Bhavsar claims to not have known about the grant, which stayed at the Chelsea Hotel. ‘Porter told me that Gaitonde Museum of Islamic Art, Doha, Indian Museum, Kolkata, Krishen Khanna (1962) he was awarded while studying art in Pennsylvania, and was a bit of a disappointment to him because he seemed to and School of Arts and Aesthetics, Jawaharlal Nehru S. H. Raza (1963) which allowed him to stay on in the US. ‘My visa was spend a lot of his time going to the movies! I said he’s a good University, New Delhi. A scholar and museologist as well running out, I was due to return to India, When I received fellow, he likes movies, he likes music too, and works quietly. as an eminent author, he was however certainly not an John D. Rockefeller III Fund (JDR 3rd Fund) a communication in formaing me of the Fund’s sponsorship His painting was the first to go to a museum in New York.’36 artist. Similarly, Dr Sudheendra Sharma, who won the V. S. Gaitonde (1965) grant theat had been proposed unknown to me.’32 However, grant in 1979, was a senior and renowned theatre artiste Akbar Padamsee (1965) Christine Ithurbide recorded that: In its early years, the John D. Rockefeller III Fund’s funding and teacher. It would appear that these awardees were Avinash Chandra (1965) via the Asian Cultural Program kept a sharp spotlight either listed under the wrong category in the compilation Natvar Bhavsar (1965) The fact that each artist would require focussed on India where, over the decades of the 1960s and of grantees published in Asian Cultural Council, 50 Years Jyoti Bhatt (1965) recommendation letters to receive a grant highlighted 1970s, its two hundred and forty-seven grants were split (New York, 2014), or invited outside their category per K G Subramanyan (1966) the role of networks among artistic society. It was between individuals (two hundred and fifteen) and institutions a list. Arun Bose (1969) difficult to suggest names of the artists not belonging (thirty-two). The grant was awarded across a wide range of Paritosh Sen (1970) to his fraternity, mentioned Jyoti Bhatt retrospectively. disciplines which included archaeology, architecture, art L. P. Sihare, one of the best-remembered directors of the Ram Kumar (1970) Padamsee recommended Davierwalla and Tyeb history, conservation, crafts, dance, design, film video and National Gallery of Modern Art, was invited by the fund as Adi Davierwalla (1968) Mehta, the latter was also recommended by Krishen photography, literature, museum studies, music, theatre, an art historian (1965), while two artists, Satish Gujral and Tyeb Mehta (1968) Khanna and M. F. Husain.33 something it described as ‘multiple disciplines’ (under which his wife, Kiran Gujral were invited to New York intriguingly Bal Chhabda (1972-73) the scholar, doyenne of cultural practices and head of Indira under the head of Crafts (1965). Such anomalies may have Khanna had become friends with McCray before he came Gandhi National Centre for the Arts, Kapila Vatsayan been exercised because the Fund committee could not Asian Cultural Council to head the Fund, following which, of course, ‘he’d pick was awarded twice, in 1970 and 1992), and, of course, rationalise more than a certain number of cultural grantees Vinod Dave (1983-84) my brains about who should be next and so on’.34 Khanna visual art––the last totalling twenty-three, but of which the in any one category within a year, but would have found it Bhupen Khakhar (1985) recommended both Gaitonde and Tyeb Mehta, who came actual artists awarded included only while two artists were difficult to resist pressures from the political establishments Rekha Rodwittiya (1989) to New York in 1968 on the grant. Yet, Mehta, at the time, separately included under the crafts category. The rest, it of the time. Gujral, for instance, was the brother of one of Pema Rimzim (2006) had been unsure of accepting the grant, calling on his friend seemed, were made up of those whose careers seemed not the more important of Indira Gandhi’s cabinet ministers. Mnam Apang ( 2012) Krishen Khanna to intercede on his behalf and explain his entirely devoted to the making of visual art. Pradeep Mishra (2012) financial position: By the 1980s, the funding, now routing its grants through Vanita Gupta (2014) There was some level of category confusion, which is the recently created Asian Cultural Council (established in Rohini Devasher (2015) Tyeb told me since he was not flush with money, he curious. In 1974, when Ratan Parimoo was awarded the 1980), slowed down, but it did also support the Festival of Vibha Galhotra (2016) wanted clarity from the Fund about how his family grant, it was as an artist—and he was certainly one—but India celebrations along with the Government of India at its Utsa Hazarika (2017)

34 | India’s Rockefeller Artists India’s Rockefeller Artists | 35 Chandra’s was the odder choice given that he had been based New York, McCray stayed in touch with the nominees and of one’s thinking powers in one’s own sphere of creative in London and stayed in New York for eight years before grantees, not just in India but all over Asia. His ability to activities.’ He goes on to mention that he painted his largest deciding to return to the UK. Natvar Bhavsar, Arun Bose strike up friendships and maintain them is evident from the canvas, a work 18 ft. x 7½ ft. ‘during the end period of my and Vinod Dave were studying in the US when awarded the inexhaustible letters he exchanged with the grantees, sending stay in New York’. grant. It might have been expected that they would return to a box of chocolates from Vienna to someone, asking for the country of their origin at the conclusion of their studies another’s help, and often referring to spouses by their first Sculptor Adi M. Davierwalla said: ‘It infused new energy and period of grant, and it probably upset the committee name. His retirement, therefore, was received with a sense into [sic.] me and confirmed my belief in internationalism when they decided to stay on. of dismay. in the arts. I see that freedom of development in the arts is more vitally necessary than ever before! “Freedom” should However, these were but a few aberrations. By and large, On the occasion, McCray wrote to all the grantees not, however, be interpreted as a grand license to destruction the Fund ran successfully in intent and execution. It was not to advise them about a report to be published on the and nihilism backed by the love of sensationalism of the only generous in ideas but also financially comfortable. The completion of twelve years of the Fund ‘from its beginnings word and the media!’

Artists Natvar Bhavsar, V. S. Gaitonde (centre) and Bal Chhabda generosity of the Fund was such that it was sufficient for most in 1963 through my retirement’. The letters included a (right) used the grant for their artistic and personal growth. Image to consider taking their spouse along, the opportunity being questionnaire requesting information on the grantees’ But it was Vasudeo Gaitonde who nailed it with his credit: From the personal archives of Natvar Bhavsar rare enough to warrant it. ‘They gave me $600 a month and positions and accomplishments, but two questions were, in observation that ‘It gave me (being a grantee) a reputation an additional $100 per month for library and materials,’ particular, relevant. in India. I met [a] number of artists, saw their paintings and The Experience of the Grant Khanna recalls. ‘My wife and I had to manage within the more so of a great American artist Mark Rothko. Now I can The grant in all its avatars was clear about one fundamental amount—which was not difficult.’38 The stipend ensured The first asked: ‘What impact, if any, has your experience work on my own without doing any job for sustenance.’40 issue: not to award those who lived, or chose to live, or that the grantees were able to fully exploit the purpose of the while a JDR 3rd Fund grantee had on your present career practice, in either America or even elsewhere other than grant, to travel and experience the cultural milieu. and undertaking?’ Another pertinent question posed by the Fund for the in the country of the emigre. The idea of the grant was purposes of the report was: ‘Could you share with us any to pollinate a larger section of the creative fraternity and The Change of Guard at the Fund Jyoti Bhatt responded saying it had made printmaking comments or thoughts that would aid us in planning future intelligentsia about America’s cultural dominance and to In 1975, Porter McCray retired as director of the Fund. Its activities possible for him in India. Natvar Bhavsar grants in your field?’ seed some of it in the native country of the grantee not by success, to a large extent, was due to him. During this period mentioned that, while difficult to calculate, ‘It did help me to way of American supremacy as much as its engagement with he had ‘developed an innovative and highly effective model carry on my independent work without any hindrances that Jyoti Bhatt red-flagged the recommendation-based selection new techniques and the usage of art and culture as a tool. ‘In of international philanthropy based on fellowship awards. the problems of survival poses. Along with this continuity, process, because of which the grantees remained confined to bringing talented Asians to the West for training or surveys, He placed great emphasis on the search for and selection of it helped me to develop meaningful associations with many Delhi and Bombay, saying that ‘artists not residing in large cities the Fund has always placed great emphasis on grantees’ talented individuals with exceptional motivation, openness, involved personalities in the art community. The learning may not be seen often by the representative of the Fund visiting returning to Asia and has made this a condition of grant and potential,’ wrote Miho Walsh, executive director of the process through such experience is very much on my mind India for the purpose of selecting artists or for planning grants’. acceptance. It has actively avoided granting fellowships to Asian Cultural Council. ‘He also understood that money when I do think of the impact the grant year could have He mentioned that he got the grant by the happenstance of individuals who were likely never to return home and sought alone could not create a successful learning experience, on me. My maturity, at whatever stage it is, is not divorced being in the US and being able to show his works. out people with strong commitments to using their skills in and he implemented a personal approach to grantmaking from the experience of that year when I did receive the first their own country. In most cases, grantees have adhered to based upon a sensitive appreciation of each grant recipient’s opportunity of meeting the artists who aspired [sic] me and I was fortunate to avail the grant because I this policy and have returned to Asia. In those instances in interests and goals. As a result, grants included not only the art that still holds my thoughts.’ Bal Chhabda wrote, ‘To happened to be in the U.S. and could show my which Asian grantees have remained in the United States, fellowship funds but also individually tailored programmes be a self-taught painter as myself, this grant by the JDR 3rd work to the Fund selection committee. None of political circumstances have often dictated their decision.’37 designed to help ensure that grantees fully realised their Fund to travel not only in United States but also to other the artists who had received this grant before I got objectives, and grantees were given the freedom to revise centres in the world and to view and study original works of it would have nominated me for it, as I was not This explanation notwithstanding, there was certainly their goals if necessary.39 art in museums, private collections and other art institutions, close to any of them.Similarly, I too would not nothing political in either the selection or the decision of to be able to meet creative artists and to be able to exchange have nominated several of their grantees, such as some artists from India to stay on. S. H. Raza, under the The Rockefeller Archives have a section where McCray’s one’s views and problems on art with them, can, I believe, Arun Bose, Adi Davierwalla, Avinash Chandra CECA, was already in Paris and returned to France. Avinash considerable correspondence is stored. From his office in only lead to a most healthy understanding and widening or Paritosh Sen, whom I didn’t know personally.

36 | India’s Rockefeller Artists India’s Rockefeller Artists | 37 work better. Artist communities like SoHo may be Sihare was director of the National Gallery of Modern Art a fruitful proposition. and a recognised scholar: Some institute may be willing to organise a group exhibition of these grantees works—this could If I am not wrong, perhaps in India the largest be a good celebration gathering for the grantees and number of fellowships of the JDR 3rd Fund seems for the new friends they may have made. to have been received by the practicing painters Educationists and artists are often on totally and sculptors. The number of fellowships awarded opposite peaks in their ambition and aims. I have to Indian students of art history and museology taught since I was only eighteen and I have met was rather meagre. In India, unfortunately the many teachers and as many or more artists. Yet, my importance of art history is not properly recognised. conviction on separating these areas for the purpose In fact, even the most responsible and influential of aid for the development is firm. Confusing one persons neither understand its meaning nor its with the other might strangulate the cause. Giving importance. Therefore it is necessary that the JDR Above: Mrs. Rockefeller III with her son at the new building of Asia individual artists support in their advancement 3rd Fund may consider granting more fellowships Society. The mother-son duo look at the portrait of John D. Rockefeller of their aim is very crucial. Art schools have only in the field of art history and criticism. Practicing III Image credit: Rockefeller Archive Center produced art students, never an artist. artists and sculptors can make money by selling their works. However, art historians and critics do

Right: Not just fine arts and crafts, the Fund was also for performing Bal Chhabda too thought that meeting and engaging with not find any scope to earn money to go abroad to arts; seen here in an undated image is Pandit Ravi Shankar who artists, artist groups and institutions and art centres would pursue their studies.’ received the grant for music in 1964 be a good idea, but it was his considered opinion that ‘an exhibition of paintings of their work, done during two-three In 1977, work on the report was still continuing, and To remedy such a situation, I suggested that Travelling exhibitions and more short term years after their return from [the] States, was organised by McCray wrote to grantees in India of the arrival of Elaine somebody from their office should visit India to travel grants could also help a larger part of the Fund and held in New York’. A. M. Davierwalla made a Moss, ‘the young woman writing the report’, accompanied get first-hand information about the art scene. the artistic community. This could help create case, like Bhavsar, for younger grantees: by Patricia Lucas, ‘who has been an officer of the Fund since I am happy that the director agreed with me a healthy dialogue. Films and slides of all artistic 1968’. Appointments were fixed for the two ladies to meet and, later, started inviting applications directly activities could easily be transported and can benefit Methods of teaching sculpture in our country are most of the grantees, and along with the itinerary, their hotel from artists.41 many interested. still, to put it mildly, very inadequate. Future invitees bookings and travel arrangements, the former director of During the grantees stay here, I believe to should not be from amongst full-fledged artists. the Fund seems to have had his hands full ensuring that all Bhatt also recommended that artists and art teachers from facilitate him in his early recovery from social They should be from 1) promising students, two or aspects of the report were catered for. America be invited to come to India to work with Indian and cultural inhibitions a practical solution has to three in a year, for short periods of say four months artists and art schools. be presented. Briefing him or her with as much of travel and exposure; 2) teachers and professors The Asian Cultural Council information regarding major public and private of sculpture to open their minds to fresh and more The Asian Cultural Council was created in 1980, following Natvar Bhavsar must have given it a good deal of thought for collections, art schools, art galleries and centres liberal methods of teaching and experimentation.42 John D. Rockefeller’s unfortunate death in a car accident in he came up with a formidable list of suggestions: of art activities along with some information on 1978. A year previously, Porter McCray had handed over the art personalities could be of assistance. Invitations And Gaitonde thought that ‘one year is a short period to reins of the Asian Cultural Program to Richard S. Lanier, In my judgement, younger artists could benefit a to gallery and museum openings can serve in this know what is happening in any field anywhere’ and made having run it for twelve years. great deal through this exchange. Their energy exchange too. If possible, getting them to meet the suggestion that a longer period of study might have more and enthusiasm, along with lack of inhibition, in some established artists in their environment can be benefits for the grantee. McCray’s ‘intensive and nurturing mode of individual contrast to established artists having difficulty in of great importance. grantmaking’43 suffered a hiccup following Rockefeller’s death extending themselves due to their status problem, Housing these artists in studio-loft situation It is interesting to list here Laxmi P. Sihare’s response to and India’s reticence in engaging with America. The trustees may lead to greater usefulness. instead [of] Lincoln-towers might help them to McCray’s question too, since it flags an important point. of the JDR 3rd Fund were keen to continue with its US-Asia

38 | India’s Rockefeller Artists India’s Rockefeller Artists | 39 cultural exchange, but decided on a separate grantmaking Having been quiet on the grants front for a long while, it is four decades later, again, in 2009); Dashrath Patel (1965) excited the Fund’s participation, with a mere eighteen organisation that combined funding from public and private possible that fewer artists were writing to the Asian Cultural in design; writers Sunil Gangopadhyay (1964 and ’65) and individual and two institutional grants. Understandably, donors, and so the Asian Cultural Program gave way to the Council for these grants, and certainly the earlier system of Balwant Gargi (1966); Ravi Shankar (1964) for music; and Bangladesh, which came into being as an independent Asian Cultural Council with initial financial and administrative recommendations seems to have passed into history. Ebrahim Alkazi, Som Benegal, Sombhu Mitra (all 1967), Joy country in the winter of 1971, missed much of the early support from the JDR 3rd Fund. The Starr Foundation, Michael (1972), Alyque Padamsee (1977), Rustom Bharucha excitement of the 1960s when the highest number of grants under which Rekha Rodwittiya won her grant, along with And, in balance... (1978-2000 on multiple grants) and Ratan Thiyam (2008) were given out, and has seventeen individual and two the National Endowment for the Humanities, were part of From the first CECA-funded grant to Krishen Khanna to were benefactors. institutional grants to its credit. Similarly, Myanmar (formerly the Council’s programming. The chairmanship of the Asian 2012, a total of twenty-nine grants were given in the area of Burma) managed seventeen grants, of which thirteen Cultural Council was held by Blanchette Hooker Rockefeller, the visual arts. If we were to remove the ones which either The most attempt to diversify and penetrate parts of India were individual. Of other South Asian nations, the JDR as much for her personal generosity and endowment to the did not fit the category of visual arts or those who were not that were not considered elitist or metro-specific has been 3rd Fund allocated thirteen grants for Afghanistan (eleven Fund as for her shared love of Asia along with her husband’s. practicing artists—Pallavi V. Raval in 1974, Asok Kumar under the museum studies programme where individuals to individuals), four to Bhutan, all to individuals, twelve In 1990, the chairman’s seat was turned over to Elizabeth Das, a writer and museologist, in 1978, Sudheendra Sharma such as Mahendra Singh (1997) and Karni Singh Jasol to Nepal (eleven to individuals) and sixteen to Sri Lanka McCormack (until then its vice president), and, in 2012, to in 1979, Pema Rinzin in 2006, and Mnam Apang in 2012, (2003) both of the Mehrangarh Museum Trust, Jodhpur, (fifteen to individuals). Wendy O’Neill, great niece of John D. Rockefeller. we would have only seventeen (not including Raza, who gave shape to more than just state-run museums, highlighting gained a small stipend and not a grant). how the grant could make an enormous contribution to the China dominated the grants programme with three hundred But if the person occupying the chair on top changed, little preservation of India’s ancient but often-neglected through and forty one grants (three hundred and twenty-five else did operationally, as we will see from Rekha Rodwittiya’s In comparison to these seventeen, several other categories lack of knowledge heritage. individual, sixteen institutional) followed by Hong Kong at account later. If it changed at all in any respect, it was a seem to be infinitely better served by the appear much three hundred and twenty-six grants (two hundred and ninety request for a photographer to capture the artist in a candid larger: museum studies at sixty-seven, theatre at twenty-nine, One question that bears posing is the grant to writers that individual, thirty-six institutional), but higher still were Japan moment. Richard Lanier wrote to Arun Bose asking music at twenty-eight, art history at twenty, architecture began on a vibrant note and was well seeded, but which at four hundred and eighty-one grants (four hundred and him to ‘arrange to have one or two lively black and white at an equivalent seventeen, and dance at just one under was abruptly cut off, with no more writers from the field six individual and seventy-five institutional) and Indonesia photographs taken showing you engaged in some aspect of at sixteen. The list of art historians is certainly large. It of literature being considered or invited following its last at three hundred and forty-nine (two hundred and seventy- your work’.44 But by the time it was Rodwittiya’s turn, it had included some of the most important commentators on selection in 1967. Perhaps it was a considered decision on six individual and seventy-three institutional), leaving India decided it was better to send a photographer over instead. the Indian art scene, whether Mulk Raj Anand (1976), behalf of the Rockefeller Foundation though the reason is at fifth place. Some others with a visible presence forthe ‘At the end of my stay in New York the ACC office’s only Richard Bartholomew (1970; his son, Pablo Bartholomew, not known. Fund included Taiwan at two hundred and twenty-six request was that a professional photographer would visit also got the grant under the film, video and photography (individualal two hundred and six, institutional twenty; only me in my studio, at their expense, for a photo session. The category in 1987), Karl Khandalavala (1971), B. N. *** marginally lower than India), the Philippines at one hundred photographs were taken in black and white. This was the Goswamy (1972), Saryu Doshi (1973), Jagmohan Mahajan and eighty-two (individualal one hundred and sixty-one, only thing that the office asked from me.’45 (1985), Geeti Sen (much later, in 2005 and 2006), and, India by and large did well when one compares the grants institutional twenty-one) Korea at one hundred and thirty- more recently, Kavita Singh of the School of Arts and per country. India received a total of two hundred and six grants (one hundred and twenty-three individual and What changed, though, was the energy of the grant-giving Aesthetics at Jawaharlal Nehru University (2006), who have forty seven grants, two hundred and fifteen for individuals thirteen institutional). in India. The 1980s saw a dimming in the Rockefeller Fund’s all shaped our understanding of Indian art to a greater or and thirty-two for institutions, no mean number given interest in the visual arts; the next two decades saw the lesser extent. the actual number of years during which the Rockefeller But the highest number, of course, was reserved for the interest completely disappear. After Rodwittiya in 1989, it Foundation facilitated these. While the actual period of over United States of America itself with a total of two thousand was only in 2006 that the grant was brought back to life and Equally, other interesting and important names form part of five decades might appear a long one, there are decades and twenty-one grants (nine hundred and ninety-four of offered to Pema Rinzin, and then in 2012 to Mnam Apang the landscape of grantees from India: architects B. V. Doshi in between when India dropped off the map, and the them individual, and an extremely high one thousand and and Pradeep Mishra. (1966), Patwant Singh (1967; he also edited the influential Foundation’s own attempt to come to terms with changes twenty-seven for institutional). magazine, Design), Achyut P. Kanvinde (1975); dancers Birju and its own account of cultural and development practices These few selections, all of them occurring in this century, Maharaj (1985), Sunil Kothari (a dance writer, 1992-2009), and pursuits resulted in several years when no grants One last thing needs to be added here. The John D. Rockefeller point to a diversion from the Fund’s earlier interest in choosing and in a bid to establish modern dance practice, Astad were given. 3rd Award was instituted at inception as an endowment gift already established and recognised artists as grantees. Deboo (2006) and Uttara Asha Coorlawala (1971 and, nearly Pakistan, a close US ally for most part, seems not to have to the Asian Cultural Council to honour individuals from

40 | India’s Rockefeller Artists India’s Rockefeller Artists | 41 Asia or the United Stated who have made an outstanding contribution to the international understanding, practice, or study of the visual or performing arts in Asia. Of the twenty- two Awards given to date, only two have been to Indians. The first was won by Kapila Vatsyayan in 1992, and the other by Ratan Thiyam in 2008.

***

How much does the Asian Cultural Council grant account for today? From its inception in 1963, the change in India has been momentous. While the money itself remains significant, allowing an artist to travel and live in the United States for up to a year, complete with living expenses, travel and per diems, in a changed world where many more artists are able to also travel on their own, or by invitation, and with the advantage of cyber technology that has shrunk the experiential world to a virtual one, its single most important contribution remains the ability to set up a platform for artists to meet with their peers from around Asia and those in America, to get personalised meetings with the movers and shakers of the artist community in the US, whether museum directors or curators or eminent faculty at art departments in prestigious universities—something that might be impossible without its networking assistance.

But the Rockefeller community in India is also an insular one. Grantees have rarely bothered to create platforms or opportunities to meet; perhaps the opportunities have not existed; but there is enough alumni (if that term can be used for its grantees) to attempt to come together: art writers, filmmakers, musicians, dancers, theatre practitioners, architects, art historians, architects, archaeologists. The soft power of the Rockefeller kinship, though untapped as a group, is significant and its impact in India has not been insignificant. That so few outside its charmed circle know of it, therefore, is the pity.

42 | India’s Rockefeller Artists India’s Rockefeller Artists | 43 K. S. Kulkarni taking a long step forward

K. S. Kulkarni was no stranger to America, having first travelled he borrowed his penchant for nudes and erotic works from to the USA in 1949 as part of a six-month international arts the sculptures of Khajuraho, but various influences, not programme. He was the only Indian artist of the programme, least primitive Mayan and Etruscan images, manifested and travelled extensively, visiting museums, meeting artists, themselves in his work. His cityscapes were a part of his attending lectures on art—many of the things the JDR 3rd Western training that looked at works by his peers in that Fund would later formalise through its grant. The grant was, continent. In a review of his work around the mid-1960s, the in fact, supported by the Rockefeller Foundation, making Washington Post observed: Kulkarni the first Indian artist to benefit from its largesse, and it was perhaps the reason some artists continued to write His influences come from many sources: Indian to it for a while before the programme was formalised and sculpture, carving, paintings, Picasso, the decorative artists began to be invited on a continual basis, along with arts, but they are slowly being welded into a personal representatives from other cultural disciplines. This made expression whose greatest characteristic is an him one of the earliest artists to start travelling out of India, exuberant vitality. A series of formalised drawings, following in the footsteps of the Progressives, but unlike them, taken from Indian sulptures, are unusually free and his port of call had been to America, not Europe. loose in their handling. Compositions based on dancers and drummers employ angular and curved In 1954 Kulkarni did another six-month stint, this time as a lines in decorative designs. working artist in the US. He returned to New York to teach painting, as visiting professor at Skidmore College, from But contemporary Indian art takes a long step 1969-72. Travel seemed to be part of his lot, for, in 1958, he forward in the work of Kulkarni leaving the over- journeyed to Mexico, Guatemala and Peru, and in 1963 to decorative, two-dimensional designs of such artists the USSR. He continued to return to America in 1975 and as Jamini Roy far behind in its search for a valid 1978 on teaching and lecturing assignments. form in which to express itself. He is nevertheless the most stimulating and provocative new talent to Besides being peripatetic, Kulkarni was also an able emerge from India so far.46 administrator and was closely associated with the national art body, the Lalit Kala Akademi, in New Delhi and Lucknow, In the same catalogue, critic Jaya Appaswamy noted: As early as 1950, Krishna Shamrao Kulkarni had as a teacher with Triveni Kala Sangam in New Delhi, and been sponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation to was dean at Banaras Hindu University’s Faculty of Music Kulkarni’s colour is of a peculiar-strange richness, represent India at the International Arts Program, USA and Fine Arts. Trained at Sir J.J. School of Art in Bombay, unusual hues meet in juxtaposition. Black is a

44 | India’s Rockefeller Artists India’s Rockefeller Artists | 45 | Untitled | | Flute Player | Acrylic on paper Oil on canvas 20.2 x 27.0 in. / 51.3 x 68.6 cm. 30.2 x 40.2 in. / 76.7 x 102.1 cm. Signed in English (lower left) ‘K.S. Kulkarni’ Signed in English (lower left) ‘K.S. Kulkarni’ Verso: Titled, inscribed and signed in English ‘Flute Player / 900/- / K.S. Kulkarni’ Published: Singh, Kishore, ed., Indian Abstracts: An Absence of Form (New Delhi: DAG, 2014), p. 233

46 | India’s Rockefeller Artists India’s Rockefeller Artists | 47 sufficiently to cause a problem in recognising even people around him. Though a surgery in 1982 was able to correct his loss of vision, in those intervening three years Kulkarni continued to paint, not letting the handicap overcome his natural propensity to look ahead and deal with things as they came.

Coming to New York so early in his career, Kulkarni was able to cleave a path away from the cloying sentimentality (through refined technique) of the Bengal wash style in which he had trained, but in so many ways he stayed true to his roots and context. J. Swaminathan, another artist who believed, like Kulkarni, in paring down the irrelevant to concentrate on the instinctive and spontaneous crux of the matter under consideration, recognised this quality about him:

The world of Kulkarni is essentially the world of the An early image of K. S. Kulkarni from DAG Modern Archives: Indian peasant, a world still throbbing to the drum- The artist travelled extensively through the Rockefeller grant, borrowed beats of the folk-dancers, swaying with rapture influences from everywhere but created a unique visual vocabulary to the hypnotic melody of the shepherd’s flute, jogging along in the ancient bullock-cart. It is also a major colour even when used in the smallest areas world which reveals the tensions and travails of the for it is often structural or links the merging planes peasant, caught in the vortex of this fast-changing one with the other; through colour he creates the world yet stolidly withstanding its blows and buffets. sense of interpretation and depth. The lighter In depicting this world Kulkarni is not a chronicler tones are spare and used to highlight areas or to of events; nor does he idealise pastoral stagnation sharpen edges. as an escape from the humdrum existence of the The forms of his paintings lean towards the modern city. He distils the poetry of life from the toils angular but the harshness is mitigated by colour of the peasant adding to it a timeless dimension of tones and by lines which make their own motifs or authenticity by delving for the images he resurrects patterns that break the surface. The whole theme into the well of his own memories. His themes are emerges from a colour space like the strange insignia not chosen to present the ‘typically’ Indian; nor of some forgotten world. Painted large or small the are they the choice of a painter insensible to the monumentality of these motifs is the same. They challenges of modern times.48 | Untitled | are fixed in the painting by some immutable law Oil on canvas and from within this frame seem to live and glow Art writer A. S. Raman summed up his seguing of the 48.0 x 48.0 in. / 121.9 x 121.9 cm. Signed in English (lower right) ‘K.S. Kulkarni’ like coals in the dark.47 burgeoning India-America relationship beautifully, Published: Singh, Kishore, ed., Manifestations X: 20th observing: ‘His motto apparently is: By all means, do enter Century Indian Art (New Delhi: DAG Modern, 2013), p. 57 An unusual and little known facet of his personality was the East-West encounter. But ensure that the East is the the quality of persistence. In 1979, Kulkarni lost his sight ultimate winner.’49 Private collection, New Delhi

48 | India’s Rockefeller Artists India’s Rockefeller Artists | 49 Krishen Khanna visual diarist

Krishen Khanna was the first grantee of the CECA. In a sense, this first choice established a pattern for the Rockefeller committee in New York, for several of the Progressive Associates went on to benefit from the grant. Clearly, the web of relationships and recommendations played an important role in this, and India’s emerging voice of modernism, as recognised through the market domination of the Progressives, served to steer their fortunes towards the Fund. The clear domination by Bombay artists is apparent in the final choice of those selected (though some of themhad moved by then to New Delhi), and a nod in later years to Baroda. The representative voices from the east were those of Calcutta-based but Paris-trained artists Arun Bose and Paritosh Sen, and no one based in the south made it to the hallowed guild of the Rockefeller artists.

I was still working at the bank in Madras when a person from the fund, Chadbourne Gilpatric, asked me to stop by at the Connemara Hotel for a drink. He asked me how I’d like to receive the grant to spend a year in New York. I told him I could not give up my job at Grindlays for the opportunity. So I rejected the offer at the time. When I resigned from the bank, they found out somehow and they approached me again on behalf of CECA. I then wrote to CECA and said it was a tempting offer, but I would like to know what my obligation would be, and they wrote back to say there was none. In essence, they said, go and look and extend your Invited by the Council on Economic and Cultural Affairs in 1962, Krishen Khanna came to represent the model vision because we think it will benefit you. So my wife and artist the JDR 3rd Fund hoped to have on its roster. I went via Pakistan to Rangoon and the Far East, including Here, the 92-year-old artist at an interview recording at three weeks in Japan, and then sailed from Japan to Hawaii, a DAG booth at India Art Fair, New Delhi, in 2017 and then to San Francisco.50

64 | India’s Rockefeller Artists India’s Rockefeller Artists | 65 In New York, Khanna came in contact with the community in-residence at the American University in Washington, of artists, including Mark Rothko (but it was Natvar Bhavsar DC, and the following year the Council rewarded him who would go on to count him as slightly more than an with a fellowship. The result of his American visits helped acquaintance). He was helped in his task by a visit to New consolidate his urge to paint in the figurative style. But Delhi by Jacqueline Kennedy who the artist met at the despite a more colourful canvas, he seemed to enter a zone ambassador’s house. During their conversation, learning where society’s marginalised appeared to appeal more to Khanna was headed for New York, Kennedy offered to him, an effort at drawing in a more diverse and egalitarian make introductions to a few influential people—dealer and society that cast a light on the condition of the marginalised collector Betty Parsons among them—and these were to but meant not as a rebuke as much as drawing attention to prove useful to the artist. them. In shining a light on those in our midst who managed to pass unnoticed, he was integrating them within a social In many ways, Khanna laid the foundations of what was to fabric that was joyous, chaotic, frenzied, visible and based follow for the other artists, all of whom used the opportunity on intertwined relationships—a comment on India’s vibrant to meet museum directors, interact with prominent galleries fabric that thrives on contradictions and anarchy. in the hope of finding representation—though their temporary residency was not viewed favourably by gallerists interested in long-term prospects.

At the time that Khanna set out for New York, he was struggling to find a resolution between the abstract as well as the figurative that appeared to blend in his work from this period. The figures in his paintings tended to blur, their activity more interesting for the artist than the abstraction. ‘I used to do abstracts earlier and I have now moved on to human forms. I thought that the person or the individual is being neglected—the person in a particular situation who is influenced by the conditions around,’ he said in an interview. ‘I want to now emphasise the human beings caught up in their particular condition.’51

Around the 1960s, Khanna’s colours too tended to be sombre, consisting of greys, umbers, siennas, dull blues and browns. He often reacted to current affair situations and the news, journeying in his breadth from the news of the | Che Dead - The Photograph | day to digressions into exploring India’s past not through its Oil on canvas myths as much as its achievements, dredging up scientific 59.2 x 50.2 in. / 150.4 x 127.5 cm. and medicinal discoveries to communicate the idea of its Published: Singh, Kishore, ed., Mumbai Modern: Progressive Artists’ Group, 1947-2013 (New Delhi: DAG, 2013) p. 389; greatness. In that sense, he served as a visual diarist. Singh, Kishore, ed., Krishen Khanna: A Procession Called Life (New Delhi: DAG Modern, 2015), p. 15 However, his palate and its components seem to have altered post his visit to New York. In 1964, he was invited as artist- Collection of Kiran Nadar Museum of Art, New Delhi

66 | India’s Rockefeller Artists India’s Rockefeller Artists | 67 Paritosh Sen mirroring lives

The year following Arun Bose’s arrival saw the only other conjuring up the horrors of the innocent poor and middle artist from India’s east make the cut for the Rockefeller class caught in a web of violence from which they could grant. Paritosh Sen, like Bose before him, had also studied in not escape. Paris and been a founding member of the Calcutta Group, a collective formed in 1942 in that city. While in Paris, he had One year’s stay in New York in 1970-71 where the good fortune of meeting and spending time with Pablo violence was a way of life and my subsequent return Picasso, a meeting that would continue to inspire his thinking to Calcutta, shattered by violent political upheaval, and work for the rest of his life. Henri Matisse would be the a desperate economic situation and corruption at other influence on him in his Paris years, and he borrowed the highest national level, led me to believe that man freely of his sense of colour as well as of creating a setting, for everywhere in the world was inescapably confused scenes intended to reflect a sense of joie de vivre. A figurative and frightened by the violence of the environment painter, Sen’s habit of exaggeration and the theatre of the around him,’ he wrote in an introduction to an absurd characterised his works. exhibition of his paintings in the early 1980s. ‘We were constantly reminded that we lived in While in New York, a documentative process began to mark portentous times. I wanted this concern to show up his work, but he was also drawn closer to distortion, and though in my work in the form of motifs of the deepest level he experimented with abstracts, they never did find a place of feeling and apprehension.81 in his oeuvre. Instead, he continued to focus on the everyday and the ordinary, mirroring the lives of thousands who pass Later, based on a series of experiences and encounters in one by on the street. The Rockefeller grant was preceded by Baltimore where he was invited as visiting professor at the a French one, and he travelled in Europe, particularly France, Maryland Institute of Art, Sen did a number of works on soaking in the aesthetic, before coming to New York where Isabelle, a black woman, emphasising her sexuality but ‘One year’s stay in New York in 1970-71 where the intellectual overrode all other concerns in art practice. also shedding light on colour politics in the state. However, violence was a way of life and my subsequent return He was particularly drawn to the cerebral arguments of following both his US visits, Paritosh Sen found his way back to Calcutta, shattered by violent political upheaval, Marcel Duchamp. But New York was also a city where crime to his own individualistic manner of painting in which wit a desperate economic situation and corruption at was rampant. His return, therefore, to Calcutta paralleled and humour formed a part, a way to rise above the dark, the highest national level, led me to believe that man everywhere in the world was inescapably confused the city’s rapid decline due to Naxal violence, crime and hard edge of reality. Along with the miniature-inspired, and frightened by the violence of the environment unemployment, and for a while he remained an observer Bengal School manner of painting of his early career, they around him’ before beginning work on a series that he would be haunted form a distinctive part of his repertoire only briefly impacted Image courtesy: Nemai Ghosh by, of a cyclist and an accident scene. This was his way of by social polity in the US and in his native Calcutta.

330 | India’s Rockefeller Artists India’s Rockefeller Artists | 331 | Women at a Sacred Tank | | The Accident-II | Oil on canvas, 1989 Oil on canvas, 1972 59.0 x 53.7 in. / 149.9 x 136.4 cm. 59.0 x 49.0 in. / 149.9 x 124.5 cm. Signed and dated in English (upper left) ‘Paritosh Sen / 89’ Signed and dated in English (upper left) ‘P. Sen / 72’ Verso: Titled, signed and dated in English ‘“WOMEN AT A Verso: Titled, signed and dated ‘The Accident ”II / By Paritosh SACRED TANK” / BY PARITOSH SEN / 1989’ Sen / 1972’ Published: Singh, Kishore, ed., Manifestations V: 20th Century Published: Singh, Kishore, ed., Manifestations VII: 20th Century Indian Art (New Delhi: DAG, 2011), p. 159; Singh, Kishore, ed. Indian Art (New Delhi: DAG, 2012), p 169; Singh, Kishore, ed., Art of Bengal (New Delhi: DAG, 2012), p. 364; Singh, Kishore, The Art of Bengal (New Delhi: DAG, 2012), p. 303 ed., A Visual History of Indian Modern Art: Volume Four, Bengal Modernists (New Delhi: DAG, 2015), p. 653

332 | India’s Rockefeller Artists India’s Rockefeller Artists | 333 |Woman under Shower (Triptych) | Acrylic on canvas, 1999 Panel 1: 72.0 x 45.0 in. / 182.9 x 114.3 cm. Panel 2: 72.0 x 54.0 in. / 182.9 x 137.2 cm. Panel 3: 72.0 x 45.0 in. / 182.9 x 114.3 cm. Published: Banerjee, Bishwajit, ed., Paritosh Sen in Retrospect (Chennai: Tulsyan Technologies Ltd., 2001), pp. 139-141

334 | India’s Rockefeller Artists India’s Rockefeller Artists | 335 Endnotes 17-October 4, 1977, Archives of American Art, 61. Amrita Gupta Singh, ‘Tradition and Innovation: The Past 90. Interview with Vinod Dave. 1. Thomas McEvilley, ‘The Common Air’, Art Forum, Summer, Smithsonian Institution. as Resource’, in Parallels That Meet: Jyoti Bhatt, DAG 2007. 91. Ibid. 1986. 31. Interview with Krishen Khanna, June 12, 2017. 62. Shukla Sawant, ‘Parallels That Meet: Paintings, Prints and 92. Shivaji K. Panikkar, ‘Bhupen Khakhar: The Issue of 2. Brinda Kumar, ‘Collecting Art, Narrating Culture: Indian 32. Interview with Natvar Bhavsar, March 22-23, 2017. Photographs’, in Parallels That Meet: Jyoti Bhatt, DAG 2007. Queerness’, in A Tribute to Bhupen Khakhar, Tao, 2004. Art in John D. Rockefeller 3rd Asian Collections’, research 33. Christine Ithurbide: ‘Shaping a Contemporary Art Scene: 63. Amrita Gupta Singh, ‘Tradition and Innovation: The Past 93. Timothy Hyman, Bhupen Khakhar, 1998. project, 2012, Department of History of Art and Visual The Development of Artistic Circulation, Networks, and as Resource’, in Parallels That Meet: Jyoti Bhatt, DAG 2007. 94. Interview with Rekha Rodwittiya, June 2017. Studies, Cornell University. Cultural Policies between India and the U.S. since the 64. K. G. Subramanyan, ‘Foreword’, Parallels That Meet: Jyoti 95. Ibid. 3. The JDR 3rd Fund and Asia, 1963-1975, report, 1977. 1950s’, CESSMA Laboratory, Paris Diderot University, Bhatt, DAG 2007. 96. Ibid. 4. Ibid. France, 2015. 65. New Works, exhibition catalogue, Seagull Foundation of the 97. Ibid. 5. Ibid. 34. Interview with Krishen Khanna, June 12, 2017. Arts, Calcutta, 2014. 98. Ibid. 6. Rockefeller Archive Center, Series 400, Box 53, Folder 336. 35. Ibid. 66. Geeta Kapur, K. G. Subramanyan, Lalit Kala Akademi, New 7. Frances Stonor Saunders, The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and 36. Ibid. Delhi, 1987. the World of Arts and Letters, 2001. 37. The JDR 3rd Fund and Asia, 1963-1975, report, 1977. 67. Ibid. 8. Rockefeller Archive Center, Series 400, Box 53, Folder 336. 38. Interview with Krishen Khanna, June 12, 2017. 68. R. Siva Kumar, K. G. Subramanyan: A Biographical Sketch’, 9. Rockefeller Archive Center, Series 400, Box 53, Folder 336. 39. Asian Cultural Council, 50 Years, report, New York, 2014. Seagull Books, 1999]. 10. Rockefeller Archive Center, Series 400, Box 53, Folder 336. 40. Rockefeller Archive Center, Series 400, Box 53, Folder 336. 69. R. Siva Kumar, K. G. Subramanyan, A Retrospective, NGMA, 11. Rockefeller Archive Center, Series 400, Box 53, Folder 334. 41. Interview with Jyoti Bhatt over email, June 10, 2017. 2003. 12. Rockefeller Archive Center, Series 400, Box 53, Folder 336. 42. Rockefeller Archive Center 70. Ranjit Hoskote, ‘Images of Transcendence’, in Tyeb Mehta, 13. Rockefeller Archive Center, Series 400, Box 53, Folder 336. 43. Asian Cultural Council, report, 2014. Ideas Images Exchanges, Vadehra Art Gallery, 2005. 14. Interview with Krishen Khanna, June 12, 2017. 44. Personal archive of Arun Bose, courtesy Araceli Bose. 71. Tyeb Mehta, Kalidas Samman, Madhya Pradesh 15. Ibid. 45. Interview with Rekha Rodwittiya, June 2017. Government, Bhopal, 1989. 16. Christine Ithurbide, ‘Shaping a Contemporary Art Scene: 46. K. S. Kulkarni, catalogue, Triveni Kala Sangam. 72. Tyeb Mehta, Ideas Images Exchanges, Vadehra Art Gallery, The Development of Artistic Circulation, Networks, and 47. K. S. Kulkarni, catalogue, Triveni Kala Sangam. 2005. Cultural Policies between India and the U.S. since the 48. J. Swaminathan, ‘Kulkarni: A Sage Artist’, in Virendra 73. Personal archive of Arun Bose, courtesy Araceli Bose. 1950s’, CESSMA Laboratory, Paris Diderot University, Kumar Jain (ed.), Krishna Shamrao Kulkarni, A Separate Reality, 74. Araceli Bose, interview with Josheen Oberoi, New York, France, 2015. Kumar Gallery, 2006. June 2017. 17. The JDR 3rd Fund and Asia, 1963-1975, report, 1977. 49. A. S. Raman, ‘K. S. Kulkarni’, in Virendra Kumar Jain, 75. Personal archive of Arun Bose, courtesy Araceli Bose. 18. Asian Cultural Council, 50 Years, report, 2014. Krishna Shamrao Kulkarni, A Separate Reality, Kumar Gallery, 76. Araceli Bose, interview with Josheen Oberoi, New York, 19. Ibid. 2006. June 2017. 20. The New York Times, ‘Rockefeller fund to promote Asia: New 50. Interview with Krishen Khanna, June 12, 2017 77. ‘Arun Bose, Graphics & Paintings, 1960s-1990s,’ exhibition programme will foster exchanges’, page 17 51. Saffronart website: Krishen Khanna. catalogue, CIMA, Kolkata, 2004. 21. The JDR 3rd Fund and Asia, 1963-1975, report, 1977. 52. Mulk Raj Anand (ed.), Padamsee, Sadanga series by Vakils. 78. Saffronart, artist profile, Arun Bose. 22. Asian Cultural Council, 50 Years, report, 2014. 53. Maria Jakimowicz-Karle, Akbar Padamsee: ‘The After-glow 79. Araceli Bose, interview with Josheen Oberoi, New York, 23. MoMA Archives Oral History: P. McCray. of Realism’, Art Heritage, 2001. June 2017. 24. Ibid. 54. Humanscapes, DAG Modern, 2015. 80. Ibid. 25. The JDR 3rd Fund and Asia, 1963-1975, report, 1977. 55. Humanscapes, DAG Modern, 2015. 81. Paritosh Sen, exhibition catalogue, Art Heritage, New Delhi. 26. Ibid. 56. Humanscapes, DAG Modern, 2015. 82. Geeta Kapur, Contemporary Indian Artists. 27. Ibid. 57. Interview with the artist, New York, March 2017. 83. Ram Kumar, exhibition catalogue, Art Heritage, 1980. 28. Oral history interview with Porter A. McCray, September 58. Carter Ratcliff, ‘Natvar Bhavsar’, Poetics of Colour, Sundaram 84. Interview with Vinod Dave over email, June 15, 2017. 17-October 4, 1977, Archives of American Art, Tagore Gallery, 2006, New York. 85. Ibid. Smithsonian Institution. 59. Interview with the artist over phone, June 8, 2017, followed 86. Ibid. 29. Frances Stonor Saunders, The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and by the artist’s corrections of the transcription emailed on 87. Ibid. the World of Arts and Letters, 2001. June 14, 2017. 88. Personal archive of Vinod Dave. 30. Oral history interview with Porter A. McCray, September 60. Interview with Jyoti Bhatt, June 10, 2017. 89. Personal archive of Vinod Dave.

452 | India’s Rockefeller Artists India’s Rockefeller Artists | 453 Pinto, Jerry and Denson, G. Roger, ed., Menezes, Meera, Vasudeo Santu Gaitonde: Sonata of Solitude (New Delhi: Bodhana Arts and Research Foundation, 2016) Podddar, Sandhini, V. S. Gaitonde: Painting as Process, Painting as Life (New York: The Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation, 2014) Rodwittiya, Rekha, …And they Lived Happily Ever After: A Book of Essays and Photographs (Mumbai: Sakshi Gallery, 2006) Sen, Geeti, Bindu: Space and Time in Raza’s Vision (New Delhi: Media Transasia Ltd, Bangkok, Hong Kong, New Delhi) Bibliography Sen, Geeti, Mindscapes: Early Works by S. H. Raza, 1945-50 (New Delhi: Delhi Art Gallery, 2001) Sengupta, Paula, The Printed Picture: Four Centuries of Indian Printmaking, Volume Two (New Delhi: Delhi Art Gallery, 2012) BOOKS Seventy-Three: A Portfolio of Scribbles – K. G. Subramanyan (Kolkata: Seagull Books, 2007-08) Appasamy, Jaya, ed., An Introduction to Modern Indian Sculpture (New Delhi: ICCR, 1970) Singh, Kishore, ed., 20th Century Indian Modern Art (New Delhi: Delhi Art Gallery, 2014) __, ed., Contemporary Indian Art Series: Bhagat (New Delhi: Lalit Kala Akademi, 1964) __, ed., A Visual History of Indian Modern Art: Volume One – Ten (New Delhi: Delhi Art Gallery, 2015) Bartholomew, Richard, A Critic’s Eye (Mumbai, New Delhi, New York: Chatterjee & Lal, Photoink and __, ed., Indian Abstracts: An Absence of Form (New Delhi: Delhi Art Gallery, 2014) Sepia, 2009) __, ed., Manifestations V-XI (New Delhi: Delhi Art Gallery, 2011 - 14) Baswani, Veena, Kumar, R. Siva, ed., K.G. Subramanyan: A Retrospective (New Delhi: NGMA, 2003) __, ed., Mumbai Modern: Progressive Artists’ Group, 1947-2013 (New Delhi: Delhi Art Gallery, 2013) Bhalla, Ashok, Shivdas, Vidya, ed., Ram Kumar: The Face & Other Stories (New Delhi: Vadehra Art Gallery, __, ed., The Naked and The Nude: The Body in Indian Modern Art (New Delhi, Delhi Art Gallery, 2013) 2004) Sinha, Gayatri, ed., Art and Visual Culture in India, 1857-2007 (Mumbai: Marg Publications, 2009) Chatterji, Ram, ed., Indian Sculpture Today, 1983 (Bombay: Jehangir Art Gallery) __, ed., Indian Art: An Overview (New Delhi: Rupa & Co., 2003) Chaudhuri, Deepa, ed., Satish Gujral: An Artography (New Delhi: NGMA, 2006) __, ed., Krishen Khanna: A Critical Biography (New Delhi: Vadehra Art Gallery, 2001) Dalmia, Yashodra, Tyeb Mehta: Triumph of Vision (New Delhi: Vadehra Art Gallery, 2011) The Magic of Making: An Exhibition of Paintings by K. G. Subramanyan (New Delhi: Seagull Exhibition, 2007- Datta, Ella, Changing Images: An Exhibition of 20th Century Indian Art (New Delhi: Delhi Art Gallery, 2001) 08) Dercon, Chris and Raza, Nada, ed., Bhupen Khakhar: You Can’t Please All (London: Tate Publishing, 2016) Uma, Prakash, Ram Kumar: Selected Works, 1950-2010 (New Delhi: Vadehra Art Gallery, 2011) Faces of Indian Art: Through the Lens of Nemai Ghosh (New Delhi: Art Alive Gallery, 2007) Vajpeyi, Ashok, A Life in Art: S. H. Raza (New Delhi: Art Alive Gallery, 2007) Germain-Thomas, Oliver, Sayed Haider Raza: Mandalas (New Delhi: Art Alive Gallery, 2009) Gill, Gagan, ed., Ram Kumar: A Journey Within (New Delhi: Vadehra Art Gallery, 1996) Gribaudo, Paola, ed., Natvar Bhavsar: Poetics of Colour (Italy: Skira Editore, S.P.A, 2008) CATALOGUES, JOURNALS, MAGAZINES, NEWSPAPERS Gujral, Satish, The World of Satish Gujral: In His Own Words (New Delhi: UBSPD Publishers’ Distributors AND WEB LINKS Ltd., 1993) Akbar Padamsee, New Delhi, Art Heritage Hyman, Timothy, Bhupen Khakhar (Bombay: Chemould Publications and Arts, 1998) Akbar Padamsee: ‘Water Colours’ 92, Bombay: Pundole Art Gallery, 1993 Jain, Virendra Kumar, ed., Krishna Shamrao Kulkarni: A Separate Reality (New Delhi: Kumar Gallery, 2006) Akbar Padamsee: Computer Graphics & Drawings, New Delhi: Art Heritage, 2001 K. G. Subramanyan: Sketches, Scribbles, Drawings (Calcutta: Seagull Books, 1999) Akbar Padamsee: Exhibition of Works on Paper 1992-1993, Bombay: Sakshi Gallery Kapur, Geeta, Contemporary Indian Artists (New Delhi, 1978) Akbar Padamsee: Lines of Distinction, Strokes of Genius, Works on Paper 1959-2006, New York: Tamarind Art Krishen Khanna: Images in My Time, Contemporary Indian Artists Series (Ahmedabad and Aldershot: Mapin Gallery, 2006 Publishing and Lund Humphries, 2007) Akbar Padamsee: Sounds in the Wilderness, New Delhi: Threshold Gallery Kumar, R. Siva, K. G. Subramanyan: A Retrospective (New Delhi: National Gallery of Modern Art, 2003) A.M. Davierwalla, Art Heritage Subramanyan, K.G., Letters (Seagull Books: Calcutta, 2008) Anand, Mulk Raj, ed., Padamsee: Sadanga Series, Sadanga Publications Mago, Pran Nath, Contemporary Art in India: A Perspective (New Delhi: National Book Trust, 2000) Avinash Chandra: Drawings & Water Colours, New Delhi: Lalit Kala Galleries, 1983 Mehta, Tyeb, Tyeb Mehta: Ideas, Images, Exchanges (New Delhi: Vadehra Art Gallery, 2005) A Tribute to Bhupen Khakhar, Mumbai: Tao Art Gallery, 2004 Mitter, Partha, Art and Nationalism in Colonial India, 1850-1922, Occidental Orientations (Cambridge: Cambridge Bhatnagar, R. K., ed., Celebrating 90 Years: Satish Gujral, A Brush with Life, New Delhi: The Gujral Foundation, University Press, 1994) 2016 __, The Triumph of Modernism: India’s Artists and the Avant-garde, 1922-1947 (New Delhi: Oxford University Bhupen Khakhar: A Retrospective, New Delhi: NGMA, 2003 Press, 2007)

454 | India’s Rockefeller Artists India’s Rockefeller Artists | 455 Contemporary Indian Art: An Exhibition of the Festival of India, 1982, London: The Royal Academy of Arts Ram Kumar – 1976, Bombay: Pundole Art Gallery, 1976 Exhibition of Paintings by Haku Shah, Vadodara: Srijan Art Gallery, 2004 Ram Kumar: Recent Paintings 1978-80 and Drawings from the Benaras Series 1965-67, New Delhi: Art Heritage, Garfield, Rachel, Avinash Chandra: A Retrospective, London: Osborne Samuel Gallery and Berkeley Square 1980 Gallery, 2006 Ram Kumar: Recent Works, Landscapes from New Zealand, New Delhi: Vadehra Art Gallery, 2000 Haku Shah, New Delhi: Art Indus, 1999 Ram Kumar: Recent Works, Mumbai: Saffronart and Pundole Art Gallery, 2002 Haku Shah: An Exhibition of his Recent Paintings, Ahmedabad: Marvel Art Gallery Ram Kumar: Selected Works 1950-2010, New Delhi: Vadehra Art Gallery, 2011 Haku Shah: Paintings & Drawings, Ahmedabad: Archer, 1997 Recent Works by K. G. Subramanyan: 2009, Calcutta: The Seagull Foundation for the Arts, 2009 Haman Hain Ishq: That Love is All There is: An Exhibition of Paintings and Digital Prints by Haku Shah, A Haku Satish Gujral, Chandigarh: Punjab Lalit Kala Akademi, 1994 Shah and Shubha Mudgal Collaboration, New Delhi: CMAC and Breakthrough, 2002 Satish Gujral: Art & Architecture, 1990, Bombay: Jehangir Art Gallery Kapur, Geeta, K. G. Subramanyan, New Delhi: Lalit Kala Akademi, 1987 Satish Gujral, 1990-93: Paintings and Sculptures, Jehangir Art Gallery K. S. Kulkarni, Life in Art: Selection of Paintings, 1970’s-1980’s, New Delhi: Kumar Gallery Satish Gujral: A Retrospective, New Delhi: NGMA, 2006 K. S. Kulkarni, Paintings from 70s & 80s, New Delhi: Kumar Art Gallery, 2005 Sruti-Smriti: K. G. Subramanyan, Rabindra Bhavan, Santiniketan: Visva Bharati K. S. Kulkarni, Selected Works, New Delhi: Art & Deal, 2005 Moss, Elaine, The JDR 3rd Fund and Asia 1963-1975, U.S.A., 1977 K. S. Kulkarni: 60-61, New Delhi: Kumar Art Gallery, 1961 The Magic of Making, An Exhibition of Paintings by K. G. Subramanyan, Calcutta, 2008 K. S. Kulkarni: A Rare Artist of Substance, New Delhi: Arushi Arts, 2006 Tribal Ritual and Folk Myth: An Exhibition of the Collections and Work of Haku Shah, National Institute of Design K. S. Kulkarni: Retrospective Exhibition, Calcutta: Birla Academy of Art & Culture, 1986 50 Years of Bal Chhabda: Paintings in New York, New York: Tamarind Art Gallery, 2006 Krishen Khanna: A Retrospective, New Delhi: Saffronart, 2010 www.aaa.org.hk Lalit Kala Contemporary Series No II, New Delhi: Lalit Kala Akademi www.criticalcollective.in Lalit Kala Contemporary Series 6, New Delhi: Lalit Kala Akademi www.guggenheim.org Lalit Kala Contemporary Series 7 & 8, New Delhi: Lalit Kala Akademi www.hakushah.com Lalit Kala Contemporary Series 10, New Delhi: Lalit Kala Akademi www.momat.go.jp/english Lalit Kala Contemporary Series 14, New Delhi: Lalit Kala Akademi www.moma.org Lalit Kala Contemporary Series 15, New Delhi: Lalit Kala Akademi www.philamuseum.org Lalit Kala Contemporary Series 16, New Delhi: Lalit Kala Akademi www.tate.org.uk/visit/tate-modern Lalit Kala Contemporary Series 17, New Delhi: Lalit Kala Akademi Lalit Kala Contemporary Series 18, New Delhi: Lalit Kala Akademi Lalit Kala Contemporary Series 19 & 20, New Delhi: Lalit Kala Akademi Lalit Kala Contemporary Series 24-25, New Delhi: Lalit Kala Akademi Lalit Kala Contemporary Series 32, New Delhi: Lalit Kala Akademi Lalit Kala Contemporary Series 36, New Delhi: Lalit Kala Akademi Lalit Kala Contemporary Series 41, New Delhi: Lalit Kala Akademi Lalit Kala Contemporary Series 41, New Delhi: Lalit Kala Akademi Lalit Kala Contemporary Series 42, New Delhi: Lalit Kala Akademi Makishi, Stanford, ed., Asian Cultural Council: 50 Years, Celebrating Fifty Years of Excellence and Transformation Through Cultural Exchange, New York, Asian Cultural Council, 2014 Manjit Bawa: 1996-97, Mumbai: Sakshi Gallery Mukhopadhyay, Amit, ed., Satish Gujral: Selected Works, 1947-2000, New Delhi: Lalit Kala Akademi, 2000 National Exhibition of Art, Japur: Lalit Kala Akademi, 1956 Padamsee, Calcutta: Sanskriti Art Gallery, 1992 Paritosh Sen, Contemporary Indian Art Series, New Delhi: Lalit Kala Akademi Place for People, Bombay and New Delhi, Jehangir Art Gallery and Rabindra Bhavan, 1981 Prof. K. S. Kulkarni: Painter & Sculptor, Varanasi: ABC Art Gallery, 1994 Ram Kumar, New Delhi: Vadehra Art Gallery, 2001 Ram Kumar, New Delhi: Vadehra Art Gallery, 2003

456 | India’s Rockefeller Artists