Few artists in India's modern history have lived a life as inspiring as Satish Gujral's. Losing his hearing at a very tender age, he transformed silence into creative expression. A student of both the Mayo School of Art in Lahore and the Sir J.J School of Art in Bombay, Satish Gujral's creative journey spanned painting, sculpture, mural and even architecture.
.jpg)
Satish Gujral (1925-2020), Image Source: Wikipedia
The following article is a translation of an interview of Satish Gujral by Sovon Tarafder, originally published in Bengali, in Ananda Bazar Patrika on 19 November 2009, under the title "Ke Bollo Bharat-shilper Adhunikata Mumbai te Shuru?" (Who Said that Modern Indian Art Began in Mumbai) -
Born in 1925, his life took a tragic turn when, at the age of eight he lost his hearing due to a medical error. So, I was a bit nervous before meeting him. His latest canvases and sculptures are overflowing with a vivid vitality of color and form. But what about the artist himself?
Casting aside all anxieties, the eighty-four-year-old cheerful Satish Gujral greeted with a handshake right on time. His daughter stood by his side, assuring that there was nothing to worry about - Satish himself would speak, and if ever there was a need for clarification, she would explain. At that point, Satishji himself would give answers. The notebook records a conversation of a little over half an hour with Satish Gujral. The questions were written and glancing through them he answered with a spontaneity that perfectly matched his Punjabi firmness. It was known that even now, despite his frail body, Satish still visits different galleries in Delhi, observing the work of young artists. I asked him about Bengali artists and the newcomers - What was his impression of them? Were they truly experimenting, or did they lean more towards a conservative approach - What did he think?
"Can one make such generalized comments about artists?" His voice sounded a bit cautious. It was the sort of response I had expected, so I was about to move on to the next question when Satish Gujral said, “I would like to say something else about the artists of Bengal. It’s not that this has never been spoken of before, but I was personally a witness to the incident. So, I feel I should tell the story in my words.”
It was completely unexpected that the interview would take such a turn. Before I could even settle myself, Satish Gujral said, “It is now almost universally accepted that the origin of modern art in India lies in Bombay, and that the pioneers of this modernism are the ‘Bombay Progressive Group.’ I know that the idea originated from Bombay itself. But do you know the reason behind it?”
There was no choice but to remain silent in response. So, Satish continued, “The reason behind this is that the press there is far more powerful than yours. Once, ‘The Illustrated Weekly of India’ of that place held sway over the entire nation, whereas here, apart from the ‘Modern Review’, there was hardly any nationwide publication. As a result, by being repeated again and again, a false statement has almost come to be regarded as truth.”
Then what is the truth?
"The fact is that, in the 1940s, the ‘Calcutta Group’ once went to Mumbai with one of their exhibitions."
That means, the group comprises artists such as Prodosh Dasgupta, Nirode Mazumdar, Gopal Ghosh and Paritosh Sen.
"Exactly. The exhibition was inaugurated by Mulk Raj Anand. On the very day of the inauguration, in my presence, he said to some young artists there, 'You should also do something like this. The way they are exploring modern art, you too should do something of your own.'"
Who were referred to as the young artists there?
.jpg)
Collage of Highlights from Satish Gujral's Interview in Ananda Bazar Patrika, 19 November 2009
"Tyeb was there, and so was F.N Souza. Everyone was quite charged up after hearing that. Prodosh was there at that time. Soon after, Souza arranged an appointment with him and went to meet him. He asked, “How did you all form your group? Tell me the know-how.” Prodosh had something like a manifesto of the Calcutta Group, and he gave it to him. That manifesto, I would say, was followed almost literally in the formation of the ‘Bombay Progressive Group’ in 1947."
"A few words were tweaked here and there - that much was inevitable. I was there at the time, a student of the J.J School of Art. So, I witnessed the entire incident with my own eyes. And what happened afterward was even more interesting. I’m not trying to belittle the contribution of the Bombay Progressive Group. After all, it gave rise to eminent artists like Husain, Tyeb Mehta, Souza and Raza. Yet to say that modernism in Indian art began solely with the Bombay Progressive Group would be to deny historical truth. And that is something I could never do."
Does that mean others have done this? Even when they saw history being twisted, they remained silent?
“I don’t know,” Satish said with a faint smile. “Please don’t ask me who did what or didn’t do what. I have only spoken of what I saw with my own eyes.” I saw that the press there started claiming that before the Bombay Progressive Group, modernism had not truly touched Indian art. In other words, they were the pioneers. I noticed that Kolkata raised no protest. And after Independence, as Bombay’s media grew more powerful, Kolkata could not keep pace. The way the Bombay Progressive Group was publicized, the Calcutta Group seemed to fade away just as quickly. India as a whole was distant - but did Kolkata really remember them in the same way?"
Satish Gujral didn’t wait for an answer. He moved on to the next question. Had he paused, I might have tried to say that a farsighted son of Bengal had long ago remarked that the Bengali is a self-forgetful race.
REFERENCE
"Ke Bollo Bharat-shilper Adhunikata Mumbai te Shuru?", Ananda Bazar Patrika 19 November 2009.
