The Promise of the Modern: State, Culture, and Avant-gardism in India (ca. 1930-1960) A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA BY ATREYEE GUPTA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Frederick M. Asher December, 2011 © Atreyee Gupta, 2011 Acknowledgements The debts accrued over the course of this dissertation are too many and too deep to summarize. While the Doctoral Dissertation Fellowship from the University of Minnesota and the Predoctoral Fellowship from the Getty Research Institute have supported my dissertation writing, it was the funding from the International Dissertation Research Fellowship, Social Science Research Council and the Thesis Research Grant, University of Minnesota that made the research for the project possible. My academic home, the Department of Art History at the University of Minnesota, extended financial assistance not only to undertake short research trips, but also to present sections of my dissertation at several national conferences. Indeed, this dissertation may have taken a few more years to write without the encouragement of Jane Blocker and the Department of Art History’s dissertation writing group. I feel lucky to have been a part of this academic community, a community that taught, encouraged, and challenged me to think deeper and harder. Much of the research for this dissertation was conducted at the National Archives of India, the Lalit Kala Archives, the Archaeological Survey of India Records Room, the Delhi State Archives, and the Parasher Archives, New Delhi; the archives of the Government Museum and Art Gallery, the archives of the Government College of Art, and the Punjab State Archive, Chandigarh; the India Office Records, British Library, London; the Mukul Dey Archives, Santiniketan; and the Special Collections of the Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles. Interviews with artists, artists’ families, and others associated with the events discussed in this dissertation were crucial for constructing a i narrative out of the available fragments of information. I am indebted to a great many people who were kind enough to share time and material. I want to especially thank Satyasri Ukil, Bandita Ukil, Sheema De, Amba Sanyal, Amarnath Sehgal, Swatantra Prakash, Siddhartha Tagore, Nabadita Sarkar, Mridula Krishna, Prashant Vichitra, Jagmohan Chopra, K. G. Subramanyan, B. N. Goswamy, Amit Ambalal, Mansimran Singh, and Dinkar Kaushik. However, for the sake of brevity, the footnotes in the dissertation refer only to those interviews that have been directly cited. In many ways, questions that this dissertation attempts to address were first raised during my undergraduate training at the Department of Art, Aesthetics, and Criticism, Faculty of Fine Arts, M. S. University of Baroda. I can never forget a question Shivaji K. Panikkar asked after every presentation at the Department: So what? This question continues to haunt my academic and pedagogic engagements. If I inherited from Shivaji the passion of conviction, Frederick M. Asher and Catherine B. Asher, my mentors at the University of Minnesota, taught me the generosity of compassion. I have tried to integrate both conviction and generosity in my approach to objects and ideas. It is Rick who challenged me to question ideas that had previously seemed foundational and irrefutable. In response to this challenge, I exceeded the limits that I had inadvertently imposed on myself. Without Rick and Cathy’s unstinting support, this dissertation may indeed have looked very different. I could not have hoped for better mentors and can only aim to live up to their expectations. I am more indebted to my dissertation committee than they probably know. In response to my distress call, Michael Gaudio agreed to meet with me every week during a ii semester when I was not even officially enrolled for a Directed Study with him. Michael introduced me to authors I would not have otherwise encountered. Each book I read with him significantly influenced my project, leaving traces in my own text. Ajay Skaria responded to yet another distress call, when I returned from my fieldwork with a project drastically different from the one I had started out with. Confused, I turned to Ajay, hoping he would reorganize my thoughts and ideas for me. He did nothing of the sort. Yet, he did much more than I had ever hoped he would. He hugged me and told me that he believed in me. I walked away with a new self-confidence and the courage to start thinking afresh. Re-conceptualizing and writing the dissertation often felt like a hike that was a few hundred miles too long. Simona Sawhney taught me to read, to take words seriously, to distinguish between the surface of the page and the depth of the words on it. From her I learnt that words are deeper than the shadow they cast on the page. She walked with me the entire way, reading and rereading various iterations of this dissertation, repeatedly and tirelessly. Many beyond the University of Minnesota have been equally unstinting in their support. I am particularly indebted to Rebecca Brown, Partha Mitter, Saloni Mathur, Parul Dave-Mukherji, and Tapati Guha-Thakurta for invaluable guidance. I am also indebted to my 2010-2011 scholar-year cohort at the Getty. There is something quite miraculous about being at the Getty Research Institute. Here work gets done quicker, pages fill up faster, thought flows more smoothly. But the Getty Research Institute is not just a building, not merely an institution – it is people whose support, friendship, and intellectual company allowed me to accomplish a vast amount in very little time. iii For a very long time, I was convinced that my dissertation would have to be perfect. Eventually, I realized that if I held on to that hope, I might never finish. The umbilical cord must be severed. My family in Calcutta, Tapati and Swapan Gupta, Bejoy Chakraborty and Krishna Ray, and Panchali Ray – held my hand as I navigated what appeared to be a void. My parents sutured me with characteristic calm, laying my fears to rest. With Sugata Ray, my comrade, I learned to redraw the boundaries of the self. To acknowledge him would be against the spirit of all that we have learnt together. This dissertation owes its existence to him as much as it does to me. I, however, claim complete ownership of all its flaws. iv To those who still dream of changing the world. In solidarity. v This page has been intentionally left blank vi TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES IX INTRODUCTION 1 MAY 9, 2007 HISTORY AND HISTORIOGRAPHIC TOPOS OTHER STORIES CHAPTER ONE THROUGH SWADESHI EYES: VISION, MODERN ART, AND NATIONALIST POLITICS 29 VISION, MODERN ART, AND NATIONALIST POLITICS ART AND THE POLITICS OF PERSUASION: EARLY 20TH-CENTURY SPECTACLES AESTHETICS, MODERN ART, NATIONALIST POLITICS, AND ART HISTORY: THE 1920S AESTHETICS, EVERYDAY RITUALS, AND MODERN ART PRAXIS: THE 1930S CRITIQUE: ANOTHER MODERN CHAPTER TWO SPEAKING METAPHORICALLY: REINFORCED CONCRETE AND THE AESTHETICS OF PROGRESS 85 REINFORCED CONCRETE AS A METAPHOR OF PROGRESS SEEING THROUGH CONCRETE: THE POLITICS OF HOPE CITYSCAPES, LANDSCAPES, AND THE EVERYDAY: THE PHOTOGRAPHIC FRAME MINIATURIZING THE GIGANATIC: SCULPTED NARRATIVES NARRATIVES OF PROGRESS: THE PUBLIC MURAL CHAPTER THREE RUMORS IN THE HOUSE OF ART: THE MAKING OF THE NATIONAL GALLERY OF MODERN ART AND THE LALIT KALA AKADEMI 126 NEW DELHI (1956) THE IDEA OF A MUSEUM AND AN ACADEMY OF MODERN ART: 1930S 1940S DILEMMAS: WHAT CONSTITUTES MODERN INDIAN ART? AN ACCIDENTAL GENEALOGY: 1940S-1950S THE MUSEUM, THE ACADEMY, AND ART HISTORICAL DISCOURSE: 1960S MOBILE MODERN: TRAVELLING EXHIBITIONS AND THE POLITICS OF “UNITY IN DIVERSITY” vii CHAPTER FOUR MODERNISM AT HOME: INVENTING THE MUNDANE 175 WHAT DID MODERN ART SIGNIFY IN EARLY POST-INDEPENDENCE INDIA? DOMESTIC AESTHETICS AS ARTISTIC PRACTICE: 1920S-1930S AESTHETIC CULTURE AND ARTISTIC PRAXIS: 1940S-1950S INTERIOR DECORATION AS ART PRACTICE: 1950S-1960S CODA 212 ILLUSTRATIONS 222 BIBLIOGRAPHY 308 viii LIST OF FIGURES All photographs and illustrations are by author, except where noted. Figure 1.1 Non-violent Protests Outside the Faculty of Fine Arts, Baroda (May 14, 2007) 222 Figure 1.2 Protesters Handing out Posters Outside the Faculty of Fine Arts, Baroda (May 14, 2007) 222 Figure 1.3 “Hai Ram,” Installation Outside the Graphic studio, Faculty of Fine Arts, Baroda (May 14, 2007). 223 Figure 2.1 Artist Unknown, “Rudiments of Drawing: The Human Head The Mouth,” Book Illustration (1851). Reproduced from Alexander Hunter, The Illustrated Indian Journal of Arts, Part I (Madras: J. Dumphy, 1851), unpaginated. 224 Figure 2.2 Artist Unknown, “Waka Deka,” Book Illustration (1906). Reproduced from Ananda K. Coomaraswamy, Teaching of Drawing in Ceylon (Colombo: Colombo Apothecaries Co., 1906), Figure 1. 224 Figure 2.3 Bourne & Shepherd, The State Entry, Scene in Chandni Chauk [Delhi Durbar], Albumen Print (1903). Courtesy Victoria and Albert Museum, London. 225 Figure 2.4. Artist Unknown, “Rehearsing the Greatest Pageant Since the Coronation Durbar at Delhi,” Page from The London Illustrated News (1910). Reproduced from The London Illustrated News, May 7, 1910, 672. 225 Figure 2.5. Artist Unknown, “Welcome all Nations,” Page from Harishchandra A. Talcherkar, Lord Curzon in Indian Caricature (1903). Reproduced from Harishchandra A. Talcherkar, Lord Curzon in Indian Caricature, Being a Collection of Cartoons (Bombay: Babajee Sakharam & Co. 1903), Frontispiece. 226 Figure 2.6. Display at the Fine Arts Pavilion, 18th Annual Meeting of the Indian National Congress, Madras (1903). Reproduced from H. T. Harris, The Madras Industrial and Arts Exhibition 1903: Descriptive and Critical Report on the Exhibits, with 21 Photo-Process Plates, the Awards List, and an Index (Madras: Srinivasa, Varadachari, and Co, 1905), Unpaginated. 227 Figure 2.7. Artist Unknown, “Prince of Wales Viewing the Illuminations in Bombay,” Page from Extra Supplement to The London Illustrated News (1875).