This, that and other cartoons: Prabhat Kumar

Guest post by PRABHAT KUMAR

I wish to intervene in the ruckus over usage of Shankar’s cartoon in the NCERT’s political science text book. At the outset I want to clarify my personal impression (although inconsequential!) of the book and the cartoon therein. I feel the textbook in general is pedagogically superior to the previous ones for it does not infantilise young students as lacking critical ability. I also believe, as Aditya Nigam has rightly pointed out, it has accorded Ambedkar the status of a leading political and intellectual figure so far ignored. The cartoon in particular, both in the context of the narrative of the textbook as well as of its production in 1949, is not attacking Ambedkar the crusader of Dalits’ rights.

Having made my personal position explicit, I shall drag the discussion in a direction which may throw some light on the peculiarity of this art-form popularly called cartoon, its reading or misreading and, if possible, on political significance of cartooning in a democratic society. (Sadan Jha in his reply to Aditya Nigam’s post has briefly commented on this.) As a student of history of satirical production in colonial India I have learnt that satire (whether verbal, literary or visual) is a form of humorous discourse; a discourse which simultaneously draws upon many pre-existing narratives and fills them with a well known subject matter which are often multifaceted and contested; it carries and communicates multiple meanings without being bounded by the normal rules of linearity. Structurally, a satirical text is unlikely to remain closed; it is mostly open. It defies closure and mostly remains inimical to communicating a singular meaning. I shall substantiate my arguments on the basis of two cartoons, both made by Shankar. First one is “Constitution”, which we all have seen. The second is “Varnasharam”, which most of us have not seen and is not in high circulation now. It features Ambedkar and deals directly with the question of caste. Let us first read these two cartoons closely.

The cartoon “Constitution” without any accompanying explanatory commentary, needless to say, is easily recognisable to its viewers. For this was a well known and widely discussed subject: the making of Indian constitution and alleged delay in its completion when the country is eagerly waiting to become a sovereign republic. Shankar captures this issue with all its complexity and contradiction. Invoking and drawing from the imagery of the famous phrase “snail’s pace” the cartoon depicts a huge snail named constitution. This snail is like a huge carriage in itself on which a driver is sitting holding a whip and a bridle. A man from behind is also whipping. An ocean of men, women and children, by extension, the entire Indian nation is amusingly looking at this spectacle.

Clearly, Ambedkar, the chairman of the draft committee of Indian constitution, holding a whip and a bridle in each hand and gazing at the snail’s head is shown as the person who like the driver of a (horse or bullock) cart is trying hard to drive fast. Nehru, the executive head of the interim government, is shown as standing beside the snail with a whip in his hand. Nehru’s action has an element of ambiguity. One reading could be that he is gazing down and whipping at the beast with full force. Action of Ambedkar and Nehru together invokes one of the most common sights of driving a cart with lazy or tired horse or bullock not ready to move further and faster: One person sitting on the cart and trying to control the beast while another standing and whipping at them to move ahead. In another reading (if we do not give any significance to Nehru’s gaze and body-action), Ambedkar, the chairman of the drafting committee, is driving the slow-moving cart of constitution and Nehru (the executive head) whipping his subordinate. In the first reading, then, the nation is laughing at the desperation and failure of Nehru and Ambedkar together on the completion of constitution. In the second reading also nation is laughing but here a desperate Nehru is whipping his subordinate minister who is himself trying hard to finish the drafting of constitution. In both the readings what is consistently important is that constitution is like a snail. In the language of the cartoon ‘constitution as snail’ is the organisational principle which holds the cartoon together. In this language what is implicit and insinuated is that a snail cannot move faster even if someone whips it or its driver. If we pay attention to the size of represented object (as size is often crucial in the art of cartoon making which frequently relies on the techniques of exaggeration and diminution), representation of constitution as disproportionately huge snail becomes significant. It adds yet another layer of meaning in the cartoon. For its size is simultaneously suggestive of the irony of the megalomaniacal project. The task of drafting a document like Indian constitution is huge and thus is bound to move with snail’s pace. An Ambedkar or a Nehru could hardly speed up the matter on his own, no matter how much an enthusiastic and impatient nation smirks. Shankar’s “Constitution”, thus, encodes this complex political reality in a single visual frame which remains open in communicating more than one meaning simultaneously.

This cartoon was first published in ‘The Hindustan Times’ in 1933 and was later republished in the Telugu newspaper ‘Krishna Patrika’. Courtesy: Young cartoonist Unnamati Syama Sundar’s Facebook wall. See his M.Phil. dissertation on Telugu cartoons in colonial India submitted at JNU, New Delhi.

Likewise, in the second cartoon Shankar depicts the caste politics with all its nuances and complexities. On the broad and solid foundation of Varnashram rests the sculpture/deity of Hinduism. Riding on the foundation stone are M. K. Gandhi and M. K. Acharya. While Acharya, the orthodox Hindu leader, is shown as painting the deity of Hinduism with dark colour, Gandhi, the reformist Hindu leader, is shown as cleansing its face. Ambedkar, on the contrary, is shown as standing away and hitting at Hinduism’s foundation stone Varnasharam with a hammer. A British man is happily watching this spectacle from a distance.

Varnashram” renders a political subject matter in the language of architecture. Shankar depicts so aptly a constellation of ideology and politics around differently shared sociological reality –Hinduism exists on the huge foundation of varna/caste hierarchy. Needless to say, this view was shared by reformists, conservatives and radicals alike. Difference only lay in their prescription to solve social problem around this issue. In the cartoon each one is shown to be active according to his political conviction. The organising principle of the cartoon is obviously Varnashram. Size of the foundation is vividly depicted as broad and rock-solid which not only withholds the edifice of Hinduism but also placates leaders like Gandhi and Acharya. Gandhi is shown as sanitising Hinduism against Acharya’s opposite attempts. Both are standing on the foundation of varna-heirarchy. Their spatial location in the cartoon is suggestive of their ideological position. Both in their own ways not only had refrained from questioning but had justified the ideology of varnashrama. Ambedkar, who stood for annihilation of caste, is portrayed as hammering at this very rock-solid foundation. His action thus shown, has all the potentials to destroy the discriminatory ideology. (I say potential because, as the graphic shows, his blow has created a jolt but has not yet been able to break it.) Moreover, the cartoon insinuates that as a consequence of his action the edifice of Hinduism is bound to be affected. The visual also instigates another layer of meaning if we relook at the positions of various protagonists in the cartoon. At both the levels, literal as well as symbolic, political action and stand (on varnashrama) of people like Gandhi or Acharya is fragile and threatened by the action of Ambedkar. The British man, by extension the colonial state, is shown to be outside the activity zone. But he is not portrayed as a disinterested bystander rather as the one who is involved with and amused at this spectacle. Varnasharam, thus, simultaneously illustrates a variety of political positions, their mutual relationships with all contradictions on a contested issue of caste and Hindu social reform in humorous manner.

The point of doing a close reading of the two cartoons is to highlight the significance of the art of cartooning which captures a slice of historical-political moment with all its complexity and contradiction and lays bare the multiplicity of positions and polyphony around an issue, without falling prey to linear narrative’s compulsions which communicates a singular and fixed meaning.  In the wake of current controversy what has happened is that the cartoon has been read selectively by privileging one meaning over many others and there has been a refusal to appreciate the fact that critical polyphony is the characteristic feature of the humorous art of cartooning. In principle it is easy to say that critical polyphony, which is and should be so central to the democratic praxis, can only be perceived as dangerous and thus attacked by the practitioners of a politics which is undemocratic and intolerant of differing voices and alternative readings. The matter becomes more complicated in the present context over the reading of the first cartoon “Constitution”. There is no political or moral merit in defending the actions of the votaries of populist Dalit politics (they have been given genuine rebuttal by many Dalit and leftist intellectuals like Hari Narke, Harish Vankhede, etc. I also do not see any good reason to entertain those who clearly infantilise the young students and refer them as impressionable minds. I do want to engage with and pose questions to the intellectual position which has come from a section of Dalit activists like Anoop, and a group of leftist-democratic student and academics (of which I also assume to be a part). In effect, both the groups have basically argued to reconsider its inclusion in the text book (read withdrawal) but not without reasoned discussion and deliberation. Both concede that this cartoon’s original intent in its both contexts, when it was made in 1949 or they way it is reproduced in the text book are important to consider, yet that is not the prime issue now. To phrase it differently, a cartoon may want to speak something but what is important is not the text but its reception. It does not matter what and whether a cartoon can speak for itself, but how certain sections of people may receive or have received it, especially those who have been historically marginalised muted and discriminated and continue to remain so. (Needless to say, reception by right-wing formations, can be comfortably and legitimately dismissed both at moral as well as political level.)

According to the first argumentative position of concerned Dalit activists, thus, the prime issue is not the critical awareness of context and complexity of the cartoon in its entirety but the fear of its selective reading (Ambedkar, the Dalit, is responsible for delay in the drafting of constitution and hence is being whipped by Nehru, the Brahmin) in the extended context of classrooms dominated by upper-caste ethos which may denigrate Ambedkar the icon of lower caste people and cause humiliation of lower caste students. For the second position of left-democratic students and academics too, which acknowledges the context of aroused political consciousness of Dalits and heartily welcomes their ability to make their own assent or dissent in matters of their representation, the prime issue is not the critical awareness of context and complexity of the cartoon in its totality. It fears the same selective reading and reception (even beyond the context of class room) in the additional context of wider public sphere, where anti-Dalit prejudice is so common. Without dismissing this predicament of fear, I cannot help but to think aloud further. Is the authorial/editorial context and intentions of (re)production of cartoon so fragile and redundant that we assume that a reader can only see what h/she wants to see as if the author is dead? Is multiplicity and ambiguities of meaning encoded in the text of cartoon so difficult to be processed by its reader? We all agree over this that the text book does not spoon feed readymade gyan; it encourages critical ability of the students to think on their own especially on matters of caste and gender; it highlights the significance of Ambedkar’s action and ideas. Are we, then, assuming that Dalit students of class XI may lack critical faculty and cannot appreciate the complexity of cartoon and its context; and so will be unable to counter the ridicule of prejudiced upper-caste fellow students in the classroom? Instead of exposing them to counter the unreasonable prejudices on their own, aren’t we being overprotective? How is this stand different from those who undermine or even question their capacity of reasonable thinking? What is the entire point of teaching social sciences? Isn’t it to question the received common sensical understanding and inculcate the ability to fathom the complexity of a subject matter including a deep understanding of multiple entangled and messy contexts of any issue? If this is so, aren’t we doing the opposite and being inconsistent when we brush aside the question of context and intent? Are we also (unconsciously) playing to the gallery of Dalit-populists which is reducing Ambedkar’s critical and radical ideas to a farce?

(Prabhat Kumar is a PhD student, Department of History, SAI, University of Heidelberg.)

6 thoughts on “This, that and other cartoons: Prabhat Kumar”

  1. Undoubtedly Cartoons with both Textual and/or Visual components are an excellent and creative means to make individuals think..(re)think..and (re)think.. important issues or situations…and this point gets very well illustrated through both the cartoons.. of “constitution” and “varnashram”….And yes this point of time needs critical engagement with the issues rather than distribution and reception of “readymade gyan” …and that is why a little bit consideration of it has brought a great change in process of education.. that is reflected in NCERT books…rather than merely describing boring history (like a ritual)…it now gives a purpose to critically engage in the process of learning !! And this article has interestingly dealt with this need of critical engagement excellently!

  2. .a well written piece…..the possibility of multiple readings of cartoons is interesting…though i have not followed this particular debate very closely i have something to add to…..the possibility of multiple meanings of texts and their circulation should no doubt thrive in a democratic society….let say i read in the Constitution that Mr. Amdedkar is trying to steer a mammoth and gargantuan task deftly while Mr. Nehru is vaingloriously trying to speed up things at the amusement of the public…..but given the state of pedagogy in our schools which are more closed than open to multiple modes of communication what will be dominant reading which will persists is the question….perhaps a oral narrative of a random sample of class IX student who have read that can throw some more light on what i want to say…….i hope i make sense…

  3. Dear Prabhat
    You seems like suggesting the possibility of multiple readings of the cartoon and giving an interesting narrative with some polished twisting of the facts.any cartoon or satire as you suggest is read in the given socio-cultural and moral context of the reader/ receiver. It would be ahistorical when one tries to negate the dominant negotiating space in any academic environment and its very apparent in india to put it plainly. That has any way been far discussed. But what all restless protector of the said cartoon are forgetting here is that the Cartoonist himself. Can we take the Narrator from the Narratives ? new cultural studies prove the otherways. The affinities , associations and political ideology of Shankar as person is becoming very important. Just to make it short, he was categorically moulded in the ideological framework of Gandhian Nationalism and nehruvian universalism. And in many of the personal conversation he strongly assured to his friends “i would never damage Nehru in my cartoons” which he religiously kept throughout his life.
    Now let us come to your reading of the cartoon. COMMON SENsical understanding is that speed/and efficiency of the chariot or bullock is decided majorly by the efficiency of the rider not the possibilities of the animals. Even if you think the other wa y the snail here is very healthy and a giant and its diminutive, and fatty rider ambedkar should be the culprit as the inherent “slowless” of the dalits a phrase you would also sometimes hear if you do roam around in the elite academic corridors at Heidelberg by-lines of the neo-Nazi areas with regards to black/Asiatic/east European populations.
    Another point regarding g this carton is that, as you suggested the physical bodies in the cartoon. a close observation would also say that Nehru is towering over ambedkar even though he was riding on a giant snail. but generally one of the major strategic advantage of riders in the carts is his ability to head over the people on foot. Here Nehru on foot is taller than Ambedkar so that his whip is more powerful. and a very look at the way ambedkar sit shows that Nehru is not beating the snail as you suggest but he is severely beating ambedkars suggesting to remove him.
    One major element in the cartoon as you mistaken is the “nation” in the back ground. But the physiognomy of the people in the back ground show that they don’t represent the india ambedkar representing. they all are in upper caste/gandiyan/hindu attires as it shown gandian topi, beautifully and well dressed Hindu women with their bindi intact and kids who are in modern attire who are also laughing at ambedkar who was wearing a modern dress. And the kids in question are very important as the same set of the kids at public shool would be laughing the same way along with theri upper caste teachers, if you taking the cognicance fo the number dalit teachers at public/aided/ schools in india. So Shankar was just seeing the india Gandhi reflected or the cultural nationalist of the this country wanted to have by don’t see dalit bodies in the “nation” in the back ground of the cartoon.
    And all hue and cry regarding the delay don’t hold any historical validity if Shankar or any pandits at NCERT, would have gone through the process of MAKING OF Canadian, Australian or Irish constitution or just going through the Constitutions Assembly debates in India itself

    As far as the Varnashrama cartoon is concerned, both Gandi and Achari were standing as u said and I would add “comfortably” to your sentence while ambedkar who is detaching himself from it and try to restlessly destroy it with a hammer but as you rightly mentioned “not yet been able to break”. Having understood Shankar’s political/ ideology/spiritual and nationalistic ideology and personal closeness to Gandhi why cant we see a possibility of shankar being suggestive, as ambedkars ideological position wont be able to break the solid foundation of hindu religion and and its spiritual foundation.? One thing you refused to notice here. The time slot given to characters in any cartoon is generally in equal proportion until the cartoonist suggested otherwise. So while ambedkar is not able to keep even a scare onthe rock solid foundation on which gandhi is placated and quite successful in removing the unwanted elements while ambedkar as a destroyer is a failure even after a far stretching effort. Shankar would be saying that ambedkar’s detachment and dissociation from the hinduism and attempt to destroy it would not possible. I see a possible suggestion as this cartoon published immediately after the Poona issue and the feeling of betrayal of which ambedakr never forgave to Gandhi. And this is the year also that cartoonist Shankar was getting very close to Ghandi.
    I also feel a disagreement in your readin of british man there. both ambedkar and he wear same kind of dress and both of the feel same kind of detatchment on the same place they located themselves..and his laugh could have “dear ambedkar we have tried with our modernity but failed now you try with new sensibilities but will have the same fate”. You can also see that Ghandi was not a bit imbalanced for whatever harsh hammering by ambedkar and was he not caring too. he was just doing as what ambedkar said in1945.”saving them from themselves.”

  4. This article was threw light upon many different faces of this issue. As a class 12 student of political science i wholly support ur opinion. We are sixteen and seventeen year olds who have the ability to think critically. Since this debate in the parliament concerned students like us, me and my friends decided to start an online petition against the banning of cartoons. plz do have a look at it and sign if you support..and share it too. We have tried to bring to the fore the classroom and student perspective to the issue.

  5. A pernicious campaign over email and on Facebook is accusing us of censorship. This is my personal response to it as one of the seven admins of kafila.

    First of all, please take alook at our comments policy, which has been up for years on our About page.

    Moderation of comments is our prerogative. Our comments policy clearly says this. The last word on comments is that of the author of the post or of the kafila member who posts a guest post. Sometimes this may be done in consultation with the small group of admins. Comments may be not published for a variety of reasons – because they are ad hominem attacks or nasty in tone or off-topic. But one important reason is also content. If kafila has served any role at all as a place where rich debates take place within a broadly Left spectrum, it is because we act as editors of the debate. No publisher will publish every manuscript submitted to her/him, even if it is of the highest quality. Just as with a publisher or a journal, every kafila author has an idea of how a debate should go, and that is unavoidably a subjective decision.

    Our comments policy says: “We want Kafila to be a forum in which we can explore complex ideas together. Polarised for/against debates or Big Fight-type slanging matches do not help us develop our ideas, but freeze us into unalterable positions.”

    To term this kind of curating and editing of a debate, “censorship” would hold some merit if Kafila did not give space to different and opposing points of view, which in fact, it does. Not only in comments but also through solicited and unsolicited guest posts.

    We are thus committed to giving space to a variety of views and subjects, even those we do not agree with. This “we” here refers to individual authors on kafila because there is no “kafila line”, which would be evident to anybody who has read kafila regularly, because kafila authors themselves debate and disagree with one another through comments and separate posts.

    On this particular debate, it would be evident that all the posts have comments that express a variety of views, including links to important contributions to the debate in other forums, that completely disagree with the opinion expressed in the kafila posts to which they were comments – for example, Anoop Kumar’s post and the Savari post are both linked in comments to the Critical Pedagogies post.

    As a policy we do not generally re-post pieces that have already appeared elsewhere in print or on-line, but only link to them. Only a kafila author her/himself may re-post on kafila pieces they have published elsewhere, but we do not generally do this with guest posts.

    One particularly egregious allegation is that we sat on one (unsolicited) guest post submission (a statement by two political organisations) for two days and then we posted it as a comment. In this particular case, while we were taking a call on the submission, the writer of the statement herself decided to post it as a comment on a subsequent post by a kafila member, and we approved it. One would again like to emphasise the prerogative of Kafila members to decide if and when they want to publish (unsolicited) guest post submissions. We try our best to find the time to respond to all unsolicited submissions, but we also expect people to be aware that nobody on kafila does this as a full time job and we will take time to reply to submissions.

    The suggestion that if we do not publish every comment and unsolicited guest post received, we are censoring views, is ridiculous. Kafila is a team blog with 22 members and it is their right to publish what they like on their blog, just as it is your right to decide the content of your blog or Facebook, or the books you publish.

  6. Dear Rahul,
    Thank you for appreciating and adding to the polyphonic nature of cartoons further!
    Also, I feel I didn’t put a closure on a possible anti-Dalit reading of the cartoon; nor did I wish to twist any fact. If I am not wrong, probably you want to emphasize that Shankar’s social position as a modernist upper-caste Hindu should be the basis on which the dominant meaning of the cartoon should be read (and fixed?). On that count I shall argue for a little more. Social predicament of the cartoonist is very important and one can base exclusively his/her analysis on that. (In my endeavour to glean the dominant meaning, organizing principle of the text is the nodal or entry point of analysis.) However, I feel it may lead to a very reductionist reading of the openness of cartoon. In my opinion, social predicament of the author is significant but it may not be the overdetermining frame to read a cartoon forever (from 1949 till its reproduction in the textbook) at the cost of suppression of its multiplicity of meaning and changing contexts of (re)production. A cartoon’s complexity can be appreciated and put to further use without letting the caste, class, gendered or racial frame of the cartoonist go unquestioned.
    By the way, what was puzzling me was your remark on the Irish and Canadian constitution vis a vis India and your (misplaced quipping at the NCERT pundits). I guess you must have seen the text book, isn’t the narrative of the textbook underline the same thing that delay in constitution was not abnormal and caused by any individual person!
    @Samrat, I agree with you. Instead of taking a hasty decision to disband the cartoon, a survey of the reception by the students should have been done.
    Sorry for delayed reply, it came to my notice a day before.

We look forward to your comments. Comments are subject to moderation as per our comments policy. They may take some time to appear.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s