This contribution proposes to restitute a conversation organized between the art historian and professor at JNU, Yashadatta Alone, and the practicing artist Anupam Roy. These two protagonists discuss constitutive characteristics of artistic activism in South Asia, and focus on four main thematics: the impact of the concept of “Brahmanical Modernity,” how it has contributed to the constitution of the history of Modern Art in India, as well as its persistence in writing an artistic contemporaneity in India; the investment of established political parties, especially the Communist Party of India (CPI) and other political parties, in Dalit artistic activism; the emergence of an “Ambedkarian aesthetics” and possible ways of showing an engaged Dalit art within the structures of the Indian art market (private galleries and government venues); and whether the advent of Dalit art allows for the emergence of new artistic practices, as well as new places to exhibit artistic productions. This is a discussion between two friends and colleagues belonging to two different generations but sharing a long-term involvement with art activism in their own writings and art productions.
AR: Your approach to the history of modern and contemporary art in India gives pride of place to what you call the “Non-Brahmanical” interpretation framework. Could you tell us a little more about this concept and the impact it has had on the construction of the history of art to date?
YSA: The canonical discourse on artistic modernity has been a problematic one in India. Both exogenous (colonial) and endogenous (Brahminic) systems of interpretation have produced an interpretation of society shaped by considerations on the supremacy of race, caste and hierarchy in which some citizens have had secondary status. The interpretation of the past and of traditions was also largely dominated by ideas of the “divine” and the “sacred,” paving the way for Brahmanical cultural nationalism. This interpretation expresses itself in several ways with regard to society. As a matter of fact, the cafe culture in Mumbai began as a place for caste outings, as has been discussed by Prof. Umesh Bagade.1 However, advocates of modernity promoted such practices of café culture without dismantling the concomitant social structures. Anything that was advocated as modern was blended with the caste practices. The adoption of formalism as a crucial principle in articulating modernist pictorial space relegated the creation of visual space, form, and textural surface to the sole criteria dominating artistic practice. As an extension of this movement, “revivalism” has produced an expression of Indianness in modern artistic practices, whose themes and subjects are largely rooted in the Brahmanical tradition of myths and epics but with a modernist pictorial language.2 Gandhian ideas strongly advocated the depiction of a highly romantic vision of rural India as a place representing an inclusive and peaceful society.3 In later times, abstraction became integrated into Indian modernist experiments, giving rise to Tantric abstraction,4 and Brahmanical philosophy invented a justification for it. Thus, modernity in Indian art remained closely associated with Brahmanical modernity.
The “non-Brahmanical interpretation framework” represents a shift in scholarly perspectives, invested in history, art, or cultural studies. In the sphere of art, the most emblematic contributions are certainly expressed in the representation of the Santhal Tribe by the prominent sculptor Ramkinkar Baij (1906–1978). By representing these subjects with a sense of dignity and realism, he challenged the prevailing elitism and Brahmanical hegemony in art. In addition to renewing the representations associated with marginalized groups, the sculptor also levelled sharp criticism at the country’s progressive ideals and their leading representatives, as in the sculpture of Gandhi represented with his right foot placed on a human skull, suggesting that he became Mahatma by stepping on people.
As for the political cartoonist Chittoprasad Bhattacharya (1915–1978), who was particularly active from the late 1930s to the 1970s, he played a key role in capturing and critiquing the socio-economic disparities and injustices of his time. His productions sought to call attention to the struggles of the working class and peasants, among other disenfranchised communities. By satirizing and exposing flaws and injustices, he contributed to a broader discourse that questioned traditional hierarchies and power dynamics. His documentation of the Bengal Famine of 1943, made up of a series of sketches capturing the devastating impact of the famine on the lives of ordinary people, paved the way for an art strongly oriented towards visual evidence of the resistance to oppressive structures. These accounts, among others, tend to reverse a dominant art framework that still balks at questioning social conflict and politics.
AR: Could you tell us more about your critical views on the construction of the dominant narrative that has been structuring the conceptions of modern art in India?
YSA: After Independence, India claimed to be a sovereign and new nation. Starting in the early 1930s, the movement of nation-building became strongly anchored in the principles of hegemonic policymaking and the traditional dominance of the caste-Hindu communities and feudal lords. All the figures who were considered as builders of modernity, i.e. Gandhi, Radhakrishnan, Swami Vivekananda or Aurobindo Ghosh, were largely Vedantic. The sole advocate of transformation in 20th-century India was Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, who firmly believed in achieving change through robust constitutional methods. Unfortunately, he became marginalized within the Congress narrative, and the Gandhian modernity that prevailed shifted toward exploring cultural expressions laden with revivalist undertones. The assertion of modernity was upheld by embracing the formalism of Western modernism, deliberately overlooking the social conflicts and hierarchical structure inherent in Indian society. In his book “Studies in Modern Indian Art,” Ratan Parimoo (1975) discusses the impact of Cubism on modern Indian art, aligning with the perspectives articulated by the American art historian Robert Rosenblum in his 1970 work on Cubism and twentieth-century modern art (Rosenblum 1970).
I posit that artists such as M. F. Husain, through their depiction of themes rooted in epics, mythologies, and the struggle for freedom within the Congress Party narrative, adhered to Brahmanical cultural nationalism. In contrast, artists such as Jagdish Swaminathan5 took a bold stance by integrating the work of Jaidev Baghel, a Bastar tribal artist, into contemporary art practices, and strove to incorporate principles of equality into the realm of modern art. However, numerous artists in India failed to grasp the rationale behind Swaminathan’s approach, dismissing his endeavors as emotional. They overlooked the crucial aspect that his activities were part of a Madhya Pradesh government initiative, wherein the state aimed to democratize modernity and make it accessible to its citizens. I contend that the overarching narrative of modern Indian art has revolved around the concept of the “creative genius,” as it is used in Western modernism and adhered to by collectors and patrons. This narrative has consistently aimed at perpetuating elitism within art practices. Formalistic vibrancy becomes an objective of artistic creation. Numerous artists hailing from socially backward castes, including highly skilled abstract artists, have been systematically excluded from recognition and representation. The story of the Mumbai progressives and formalists6 is told from the perspective of the achievements of the elite class, individuals who often seem disconnected from the realities of their surroundings. The exhibition Place for People (1981), curated by Geeta Kapur and shown within elite spaces, marked a historic event. The exhibition was held at Jahangir Art Gallery Mumbai (former Bombay) and Rabindra Bhavan in New Delhi (Mukherji 2022, and Jumabhoy 2023). However, critical examinations probing the intersections of art and social spaces are conspicuously absent in India. The discourse on modernity, particularly in its “social” dimension, remains unaddressed. This lacuna is evident in the silence of the elites, predominantly from the caste-Hindu community, who have not vocally opposed Brahmanical cultural nationalism. The book Worldly Affiliations: Artistic Practice, National Identity, and Modernism in India, 1930–1990, by historian Sonal Khullar (2015) is one of such attempts to provide critical extensions into the realm of modernism, although with some limits.
AR: In your view, what level of investment or support have established political parties, particularly left-wing entities like the Communist Party of India (CPI) or other non-Dalit political parties, provided to Dalit artistic activism?
YSA: Geeta Kapur’s When Was Modernism (2000) presents a compelling analysis of the politics of modernity, by examining the relationship between modernism and political parties, along with their respective assertions and claims. I argue that left-wing parties have not adequately addressed the issue of social modernity. It is predominantly Ambedkarite political parties that have actively engaged in addressing social modernity and sought transformative changes. The leftist groups, particularly the CPI and CPM, have consistently neglected to address the major issue of caste within their political framework. Instead, they have chosen to amalgamate caste and class, overlooking the distinctive challenges posed by caste dynamics in society. Their steadfast commitment to attribute economic factors the exclusive cause for existing caste and other discriminations, or their mobilization processes that consistently operate at the level of class unity, has resulted in a systematic bypassing of the divisions among laborers in Indian society. In his book “Annihilation of Caste,” Ambedkar (1936) not only defined caste as division of labor but also as the division of laborers. The left-wing groups consistently overlooked the dimensions related to the division of laborers. The same can also be said of the frameworks of the “post-colonial.”
The Indian People’s Theatre group, affiliated with the left-wing parties, was a well-organized collective aimed at utilizing art activism as a potent means to express political issues. The theatre brigades of the IPTA wanted to mainly address the “subalterns” (peasant world, lumpenproletariat of the city suburbs) regardless of their religious and caste affiliation. The most oppressed segment of Indian society were the Ambedkarites, and as in the constant targeting of Ambedkar by ruling authorities, his followers endured persistent violence and defamation from caste-Hindus. Gail Omvedt, in her book Dalits and the Democratic Revolution (Omvedt 2014), documented how the CPI at that time used Ambedkar’s ideas to delve a wedge between Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Ambedkarite social movements consistently employed performances and songs as tools to raise awareness for social transformation and the pursuit of a dignified life. On occasion, they also utilized the medium of illustrations and paintings to convey their messages. Due to social and economic disadvantages, the Ambedkarite section of society faced challenges in documenting their activities, as they lacked a consolidated mechanism for support and had no resources to document their activities. Dependent on public patronage for survival, they were unable to establish their own archive. Only a limited number of Ambedkarites had the opportunity to pursue art education, and their artistic consciousness was shaped by formalistic modernity. They devoted their time and energy to creating textured surfaces on canvas as part of a new wave of creativity. However, many lacked the courage or the suitable language to articulate, even through modernist means, the issues of caste oppression. The main exception has certainly been the Dalit artist Savi Sawarkar who bravely dared to portray caste through a series of artworks.
AR: Why do you use the term Ambedkarian aesthetics and what does it refers to?
YSA: In recent years, a handful of artists have emerged in opposition to this restricted and ghettoized modernity, engaging in social and political critiques of religiosity and challenging Brahminic hegemony. A surge of artworks is being generated by the Ambedkarian consciousness, interrogating the metanarratives of normative modernity. These artists are crafting a new visual vocabulary to address core issues, and to critique both present day and historical perspectives. What I refer to as Ambedkarian aesthetics encompasses individuals from diverse backgrounds who ardently adhere to universal humanism and principles of constitutional justice and morality.
How does this manifest aesthetically? Inhibitions are deeply ingrained in the behavior and thinking of Indians. The aesthetics of inhibition pertains to the adherence to hegemonic thinking and the reluctance to challenge the self-accepted Brahmanical codes of operation. Brahmanical cultural nationalism consistently fostered an aesthetic of inhibition, discouraging divergent thinking and resistance against established norms in life. In contrast, Ambedkarian thinking succeeded in overcoming such inhibitions by challenging them, allowing artists to exercise their art practices to declare a liberated state of mind. To that extent, the artworks by Savi Sawarkar, J. Nandakuram but also the body of work that has been produced is representative of the overcoming of the aesthetic of inhibition. In my recently curated exhibition at Gallery OED in Kochi as well as following exhibitions at the American School on May 23 and at the American Centre New Delhi (July 13–August 12, 2023) and in a recently curated exhibition on Vikrant Bhise at Anant Art Gallery Noida, I emphasized that the term “Ambedkarian Aesthetics” defined as follow8: the term “Ambedkarian Aesthetics” is a world free from prejudices, inhibitions, and the metanarrative of hegemonic/Brahmanical modernity. Its historical trajectory is to subvert the narrative of the “given” and propose to get into a process of dismantling several inhibitions that have been nurtured over a period of time. Historical pasts, both ancient and modern, are constant reminders of ideas of contradiction that have been part of lives, including the life of works of art. For many, it is a constant engagement to kill “protected ignorance.”
The artists are consciously engaging in removing “protected ignorance” (Alone 2017). They move away from transcendental metaphysical aesthetical practices and are involved in producing a critique through visual means, which is deeply rooted in the ethos of Ambedkarian thinking, through a commitment to constitutional democracy and inclusivity.
AR: How can “engaged Dalit art” be exhibited within the frameworks of the contemporary Indian art market, including private galleries and government spaces?
YSA: The concept of engaged Dalit art pertains to artistic expressions originating from individuals belonging to Dalit communities in India. It fundamentally gives voice to a spirit of resistance, which echoes what Dr. Ambedkar advocated for. Only a handful of individuals from upper-caste communities have participated in such expressions, thereby contributing to a visual critique of Brahmanical traditions. In reality, the art world and art galleries are inherently exclusive, seldom deviating from this norm, which aimed to trap artists within the dreamy realm of Vedantics. The only exception to this was J. Swaminathan, who boldly included tribal artists as part of contemporary art gallery practices by showcasing them alongside modern and contemporary art practitioners at Bharat Bhavan, Bhopal.
There is an absence of patronage for Dalit themes and the critique of caste and religious inequalities within the art realm. Artists like Savi Sawarkar were able to pursue their artistic activities thanks to government employment, and similarly, others managed to survive by engaging in alternative occupations, a scenario which is common for the majority of visual artists. Take J. Nandkumar, for example. As long as he was making abstract paintings, the Reliance Group purchased his works. However, when he began to produce figurative works, including the well-known painting depicting “Gandhi and the Pune Pact,” Reliance chose to distance itself from him. The art world has elements of nepotism and the restriction of ideas to specific groups. Only in recent times has art patronage expanded to include artists who explore social critique and integrate their artworks as a commitment to democracy in India. There is a notable absence of support for artists from these communities through any policy mechanisms or even private galleries. The Lalit Kala Academy, for instance, provides fellowships to young artists, yet the selection process is entirely at the discretion of the panel, thereby potentially lacking sensitivity toward social issues.
To this day, it remains rare for artists outside of caste-Hindu leanings to receive fellowships. This reality contradicts the fundamental principles of democracy. Artists such as Sajan Mani, Rajyashree Goody, Priyadarshi Ohole, and Amol Patil have secured art residency programs in Europe. In 2019, Prabhakar Kamble organized the residency-workshop titled Revolution and Counter-Revolution drawing inspiration from Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar’s writings. The event brought together fifty artists at the world heritage site of Ajanta Caves. Sanjeev Sonmipare, an artist, and curator based in Mumbai, Venkataraman Divakar, an art critic and curator of Knots Collective from Baroda, and Rumi Samadhan in Mumbai have been curating shows that aim to showcase diverse artistic practices that challenge Vedantic thinking and inhibitions. Some noteworthy exhibitions include Mahad Satyagriha by Rumi Samadhan, Broken Foot by Prabhakar Kamble and Rumi Samadhan, and my recently curated show at Gallery OED Kochi titled Dismantling Aesthetics of Inhibitions: Representing Difference, which was from December 10, 2022, to January 10, 2023 along with Interrogations and Ideologies: A Quest for Equality at the American Centre New Delhi from 13 July to 12 August, and Vikrant Bhise’s solo exhibition Sense and Sensibilities: A Reflective Realisation at Anant Art Gallery from January 20 to March 20, 2024. Thanks to collective efforts, photographers are collaborating and organizing exhibitions. Documentary photography is gaining prominence, creating archives that are independent of official nationalist imaginations. Sudharak Olwe’s contributions are noteworthy, as each of his images tells a story, consistently breaking the shackles of inhibitions. Inspired by Sudharak’s work, photographers like Palani Kumar and Arun Vijai Mathavan have produced exceptional images, showcasing phenomenal social realism. I hope that the awareness of art collectors and patrons evolves, moving beyond entrenched political perspectives to reconsider the current state of affairs in the country.
AR: How do you perceive the new awareness conveyed through the collection of artworks devoted specifically to the subject of social thematic caste structure?
YSA: Currently, a multitude of artists from both marginalized and non-excluded communities are engaging with issues such as caste discrimination, violence, anti-constitutional practices in dominant communities, challenges to political co-existence, instances of lynching, cow vigilantism, opposition to the rape of women, and the exploitation of labor. As I wrote in one of my papers (Alone 2019), the political landscape in India can be characterized by the dichotomy of Ambedkarism, advocating for transformation, and its counterpart, anti-Ambedkarism, which aligns with the status quo.
Drawing inspiration from Dr. Ambedkar’s constitutionalism, these artists14 have forged their own visual language to give expression to the voices of the impoverished and marginalized communities, as well as to address broader societal issues, including those related to women. In their creative endeavors utilizing visual forms, these artists defy Brahmanical cultural nationalism and break free from inhibitions, embracing a fresh perspective that aligns with democratic constitutionalism. Their aesthetics stand in contrast to the speculative metaphysics practiced by other artist communities, and notably, they are not constrained by gallery directives. Dr. Ambedkar is widely embraced as an icon of modern India, reflecting a broader acceptance, as his thinking is seen as pivotal for the future. Ambedkar, a modernist, vehemently opposed hegemony and dedicated his efforts to the welfare of all members of society. Many educated individuals, seeking to break free from the constraints imposed by Brahmanical polity and cultural nationalism, are recognizing Dr. Ambedkar’s pivotal role in constitution-making and advocacy for universal rights. This line of thought forms the basis of Ambedkarian aesthetics, characterized by its absence of speculative metaphysics. This emerging mindset emphasizes political consciousness rooted in constitutional ethos and, significantly, seeks to move beyond Gandhian romanticism.
