I need to write a research paper. All the details for this assessment can be found in the attached file. Please note that the four peer-reviewed sources must match the sources available in my school's

Heat and Dust(1983) andJewel in the Crown (1984). Yet at a wider level, the essay will also be necessarily less about new partitionfilms as such and much more framed by the critique of division and divisiveness in media and politics and the need to renew contextual recep- tion. However speculative my argument about differingfilms, genres and formats, the larger task of making an analysis across multiple divides raises questions that must hold the co- constitution of here and there, now and then, together. Forced into continuing historical reas- sessments of capital, exploitation, and war–asan unavoidable ever-present backstory–what imposes itself is an originary violence, so that even thosefilms on partition that are not violent have avoidance of violence as their mission.

While it would not do to think of South Asia only in terms of violence, or even violence brought from Europe to crush the romantic idyll of pre-colonial times, or the non-violent resistance to that civilisational attack, or even the promises of a successful and shining future beyond violence, all are just too handy not to be understood and examined as enablingfictions.

Nevertheless, a second set of questions revolves around the issue of who makesfilms and with what intent–the colonial project perhaps con- tinues even as a new South Asianfilm and tele- vision scholarship is largely overlooked in the old metropolitan centres. It is, this paper agues at the end, a new scholarship that could suggest new and better renderings offilm as his- tory and understand the history of“over there” © 2018 John Hutnyk. All Rights Reserved.

CONTACTJohn Hutnyk [email protected] Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Ton Duc Thang University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article. INTER-ASIA CULTURAL STUDIES 2018, VOL. 19, NO. 4, 610–626 https://doi.org/10.1080/14649373.2018.1543287 as bound up by what was and is going on“over here,”and, in a formula that applies whichever way the here and now is oriented, back then is bound up with us now, just as now is conse- quent on back then.

The attempt to study aspects of Europe and South Asia as an intertwined and irrevocably interconnected formation seeks out examples of films or television media that profess a decidedly post-colonial perspective. This means choices that may be initially attractive, mixed and hybrid, with a steam-punk aesthetic, which perhaps for that reason, also means inevitably suspect. For example, the BBC television seriesTabooon East India Company activities in the London docks, written by Stephen Knight and Christo- pher Hardy, is a somewhat implausible example of how a story has at least two ends. The East India Company is portrayed as run, in this per- iod if not always, as a personalfiefdom by a ruth- less Governor with no scruples, in cahoots with the back-room operatives of The Palace, and guilty of corruption, murder and“worse.”In the series of course the protagonist, aflawed and tattooed hero, will give them their comeup- pance, and ultimately the moral standing of Brit- ish character need not be abandoned because the East India Company was a barrel of bad apples, deservedly beaten. If this to and fro sounds at all familiar, be assured from some perspectives what will be considered a whitewash is a way of selling product as colonial India carries an exoticist and fantasy charge to this day.

Raj revisionistfilms are a genre unto them- selves, andViceroy’s House(2017) by the acclaimed British-Asianfilmmaker Gurinder Chadha is an example worth extended consid- eration. Chadha’s previous efforts such asI’m British, But…(1990),Bhaji on the Beach (1993),Bend it Like Beckham(2002), and Bride and Prejudice(2004) form an enviable record for any director. Increasingly command- ing mainstream attention, she is now able to cast actors such as the iconic Om Puri, in one of his last ever roles. Chadha had known Puri for quite some time and spoke eloquently inhonour of him in London at the London Asia Film Festival in March 2017. His character leant gravitas to thefilm in ways to be discussed further. Also on the strength of a string of box office hits, now Chadha could negotiate the use of prestigious shooting spaces unparalleled in her previous career. Part of theViceroy’s Housefilm was shot at Rashtrapati Bhavan, the Viceroy’s former palace and now offi cial residence of the President of India. Shooting spaces were also found in period hotels and palaces in Jodhpur–themselves so atmospheric that a tour company has seen the tie-in poten- tial: Cox and Kings has set up a guided vintage car tour to thefilming locations, with a bonus side-visit to the Taj Mahal for good measure (full disclosure: I have not had the chance to join this tour, and patiently await a promotional invitation).

I do have a long record of paying attention to Chadha’sfilms and to representations of South Asia, especially within diaspora, so I feel able to some degree to justify the presumption of reporting on thefilm, making critical com- ments, and offering a wider contextualisation.

Thus, when afilmmaker of Chadha’s stature turns to history, she enters an already existing deep reservoir of images such that emphases and interpretation become issues of evaluation.

And the interpretations were many; thefilm was not everywhere well received. In a heated review, Fatima Bhutto was concerned that the veryfirst scene“opens to the sight of bowing, preening and scraping Indians at work on the lawns, carpets and marblefloors that are to greet the last viceroy of colonised India”(Bhutto 2017). The hostile tone quickly drew a response from Chadha. Herfilm is a personal account, she said, and she had not wanted to show the fighting that characterises partition in so many other renderings. This is an admirable non-violent move, except it is of course carried out with violence, an elision of a very large and considerable body of sensitive visual and textual work on partition. Scholarship and research programmes abound, as do otherfilms. There INTER-ASIA CULTURAL STUDIES 611 is much readily available and hugely respected work by researchers such as Urvashi Butalia (1998) and Gyanendra Pandey (2002) alongside museums and commemorations in the Red Fort, Victoria Memorial and Raj Bhavan, plus a small private memorial at the Wagah border crossing, though curiously, until the launch in August 2017 of the Arts and Cultural Heritage Trust (TAACHT) of India“Partition Museum” in Amritsar (see Bhatia2017), there had been no significant permanent tribute to victims in Pakistan, India or Bangladesh, prompting ques- tions as to why partition had not hitherto excited the same official remembrance as the Jewish holocaust (see Parmar2003). There is much in terms of cultural production, plays short stories, novels and indeed a number of otherfilms, ran- ging from those that comment profoundly on the aftermath of partition, such as Ritwik Ghatak’s claustrophobic trilogyMeghe Dhaka Tara (1960),Komal Gandhar(1961)andSubarnare- kha(1962) through to popular versions such as Gandhi(1982) where Ben Kingsley had the lead role and including several other prominent British actors, and the CanadianPartition (2007), where non-South Asian actors again played the main South Asian roles (particular well in the case of Chinese-Dutch Canadian Kirstin Kruek as Naseem, resplendent in the Mela sequence and love interest for British/ Irish-Asian Jimi Mistry, as Gian). There are of course also a number of documentaries and other commentaries, making up a vast archive of texts and debate, with veritable armies of stu- dents over the decades pouring through the archival remains of the India Office, now held at the British Library.Viceroy’sHouseis not, to be sure, a documentary, and the criteria for assessment, and interpretation, must be different for imagined history even if many of Bhutto’s cri- ticisms demand attention. Chadha instead claims to have contributed important“new”facts.

In an interview with aGuardianjournalist, Chadha is said to have made some significant discoveries: Studying the archives, Chadha came across confidential government documents that sup- port a revisionist view of the lead-up to Indian independence, which wasfinally declared at the stroke of midnight on 15 August 1947.

The British decision to draw a line through the whole of south Asia, creating two reli- giously defined new nations, was not entirely forced on them by the warring communities.

It was, in fact, an idea hatched by Churchill during the war to protect British strategic interests. (Thorpe2017) The question of whether there was a Churchill- endorsed plan to keep control of Karachi away from the Soviet-friendly and socialist Nehru needs separate confirmation, and it is to Naren- dra Singh Sarila’s(2005) book,The Shadow of the Great Game, that Chadha directs us. The discovery then already belongs to Sarila, who was in a sense on the spot as an aide to Mount- batten. In a slippery slope of connections and coincidences Chadha reveals that while Sarila was“working on another book with an assis- tant in the British Library in 1997, he found documents that prove that early plans for the shape of a future Pakistan were kept hidden” (as quoted in Thorpe2017). The version of this discovery offered by Sarila himself is worth consulting. The book’s preface reads almost word for word the same as Chadha tells it, although in this version Sarila’s assistant has disappeared: While researching on the Oriental and Indian collection of the British Library, Lon- don, in 1997, on another matter, I came across certain documents which revealed that the partition of India in August 1947 might not have been totally unconnected with the British concern that the Great Game between them and the USSR for acquiring influence in the area between Tur- key and India was likely to recommence with even greater gusto after the Second World War […]. Under the circumstances Britain could ill afford to lose control over the entire India subcontinent that had served as its military base in dominating the Indian Ocean area. (Sarila2005,9) 612 J. HUTNYK In addition, […] a working relationship had been estab- lished between the British authorities in India and Jinnah during the Second World War and he was willing to cooperate with Brit- ain on defence matters if Pakistan was created.

(Sarila2005, 10) The preface then goes on to document various other collections and library sources, Sarila’s role as ADC to Mountbatten in 1948, in that role his chance to catch“glimpses of some of the players,”andfinally a sudden leap to the twenty-first century, the attack on the World Trade Centre in 2001, the Taliban in Afghani- stan and his problematic view that“many of the roots of Islamic terrorism sweeping the world today lie buried in the partition of India”(Sarila2005, 11). Britain’s crimes and Mountbatten’s negligence notwithstanding, thisfinal commentary on terrorism is an extra- ordinary claim on several counts that hardly need debate–it can be rebutted that what ter- rorism there is in the world today is not“Isla- mic,”nor in fact is terrorism“sweeping the world,”though certainly in 2005, as now, the scale of Western arms sales, shipment and deployment does count as terrifying. Certainly also a kind of pantomime paranoia tends to find terrors under every left luggage or freedom petition, but ultimately, if the chain of links that bind the Taliban to Osama bin Laden to Jamaat- i-Islam to Abdul Al Mawdudi to a Sharia- inspired war on unbelievers and to the US use of the Pakistani military to counter jihadis can be taken seriously as a framing context, then to suggest this also can simply“lie buried”in partition must seem quite a long and detailed justification for a bit of cinema entertainment.

Separate from historicalfidelities, it is also important to consider Chadha’sfilm as a polemic open to interpretation and so evaluate the critical responses. Bhutto is not the only one to call outViceroy’s Houseas an anti-Mus- limfilm, but has a strong point when listing the numerous scripted, imagined, incidents where Muslims initiate violence, whereas when theHindus or Sikhs attack Muslims, the sympa- thetic point of contact character for the audi- ence at least survives. Indeed, where Bhutto diagnoses a prejudice there is a strange double politic. She argues that we do not ever“witness any violence on behalf of India’s foreign rulers; they are serene and encouraging, weighed down with the heavy burden of soothing these wild, intemperate people.”On the other hand, all the riots are“caused by Muslims,”even as there are some“brushes with symmetry,”such as when Aalia’s house is burned down and we fear–soundtrack effects–that her blind father has been killed. But it is a false alarm:“don’t worry! Her father didn’t die; he’s just sitting at a neighbour’s house. No harm, no foul”(Bhutto 2017). Similarly, Aalia’s father acts to save her from near certain death on the night train to Lahore–Chadha is correct to defend herfilm from Bhutto’s criticism on this point at least– and while we hear no more of Om Puri, that Jeet’s love interest has survived for Bhutto pro- vides the essential cover for the otherwise barely credible denouement where Nehru is slapped in public. The slap was perhaps an actual event, but why had Chadha not instead recreated the equally fabled story where Nehru stops his taxi to save a Muslim tailor from a mob in Chandi Chowk (see Patel2015). In a telling contrast, the Mountbattens are portrayed as the epitome of selfless, practical, not Gandhian, service.

Against the charge that she has told the story from an anti-Muslim point of view, Chadha (2017) insists“everyone sees history through their own lens; some only see what they want to see. Myfilm is my vision of the events leading up to India’s partition.”Claiming the relativist interpretive high ground, she insists that she “took infinite care to show that responsibility for the violence lay on all sides”and that her process was to“share the script and thefilm with many Muslim, Hindu and Sikh academics and historians to ensure that the scenes I depicted were a fair and reasonable representa- tion.”It might be churlish to then complain that INTER-ASIA CULTURAL STUDIES 613 “some,”if not all, academics and historians also see“history through their own lens”and “vision,”of course they do, just as much as do British Asians. It is a well-taken point that inter- pretations are contested sites, but then it becomes difficult to let the significance of the sympathetic Muslim character Ali Rahim Noor played by Om Puri pass without noting a theme; he is blind throughout thefilm, a vio- lent punishment inflicted in a British jail, and in the script. It might be interpretive license to look elsewhere in the cinema archive, but it is possible to see this theme in severalfilms in South Asian cinema traditions. Recall for exam- ple that inSholay(1975) Imam Rahim Chacha is also without sight. The blinding of the most sympathetic senior political Muslim character inViceroy’s Houseis an instantiation of the film’s opening epigraph. There is no subtlety in the textual declaration that“History is writ- ten by the victors”–a phrase variously sourced by historians both to Niccoli Machiavelli and to Winston Churchill. In an interview about the film for Desiblitz (2017) Chadha saysViceroy’s Houseis told from a unique British-Asian point of view. It is hard then to square this with comments about what really happened and victor-written history. What is sure is only that questions of interpretation are to the fore. The epigraph must invite interpretive con- fusion, and a challenge. The phrase is also attributed, if not in so many words, to Walter Benjamin, who uses it in the context of a more interesting assertion about all documents of culture simultaneously expressing barbarism.

In the“Theses on the Philosophy of History”he writes:“with whom [do] the adherents of his- toricism actually empathize. The answer is inevitable: with the victor”(Benjamin [1940] 1968, 256). Of course interpretations willfind other sources. Om Puri may be blind but I ima- gine a grumpy Churchill picking it up from sur- reptitious reading of a left Labour Party newspaper–the phrase appears in a 1944 George Orwell article inThe Tribune(Orwell 1944), though in this example the word“Winners”is used instead of“ Victors.”Orwell was the literary editor at the time.

These historical squibs and the frisson of controversy around Bhutto’s article, besides get- ting thefilm discussed in a crowded market- place, which is of course good publicity, are also welcome if they serve to raise important issues beyondfilm connoisseurship. The politics of interpretation between continents with a volatile historical charge is no small matter; so it is curious to see insistence that people be cau- tious when treating a personal history. Except that the history is only rhetorically personal, and in every sense nevertheless prejudiced and biased, exactly in its subtlety. For example, the film hints at aflirtation between Nehru and Edwina Mountbatten, but does not further exploit that sub-plot as Chadha considered it less important and anyway“the relationship was consummated after this period”(as quoted in Thorpe2017). Melodrama however insists on a love story and so Chadha prefers instead the Upstairs-Downstairs side-tale of the viceroy’s valet, a Punjabi Hindu, having an unrequited romance with a Muslim girl, Ali Rahim Noor’s daughter Aalia, who was promised to the driver of Jinnah’sofficial vehicle. This dis- placement has many of the features of an often used plot device, such as one that is found in Mira Nair’sMonsoon Wedding (2001). In terms of overwriting sexuality onto class politics, it is unfortunate that in a discus- sion ofMonsoon Wedding, Jigna Desai does not push further insightful comments made about the working class roles, where: Thefigure of the domestic servant Alice is an incredibly rich site of analysis and investiga- tion in relation to the issues of gender, sexual- ity, and political economy. The Christian Alice is depicted in primarily romantic terms. Her sweetness and simplicity render her an idea- lized and remote subject in relation to the other modern women […]. As the urban domestic worker, thefilm continually presents her from the perspective of someone else; unlike the other women whose subjectivities are established through intimate conversation 614 J. HUTNYK with other women, family members, and their partners, Alice is observed almost entirely from the voyeuristic gaze modulated through Dubey. (Desai2004, 214) Unless they battle their way into the action, there are few examples of domestic servants granted a significant role or personality in pop- ular cinema. Credit is due then to the key char- acters in the de facto“main”sub-plot of Viceroy’s House, and yet in this displacement, these key relationships are almost always identi- fied from the perspective of someone else of rather more elevated class status, from which they are rendered as romantic, as fool, or as sacrifice, or forsaken.

The possibility of interpreting afilm by opening up the subordinate characters for criti- cal attention is a useful strategy. Spivak (1999) does this in literature with Bertha Mason from Charlotte Bronte’sJane Eyre, discussed inCri- tique of Postcolonial Reason. Considering the love story of the Mountbattens’servant however is high cliché standard in this respect, and in fact offers up a chain of substitutions that are revealingly selective. Picking up an incidental or seemingly inconsequential moment as a way to unpack the whole works to help under- stand the interpretive investments. Offering another nuance, somewhat unsubtle but in need of explanation, the inter-title near the end of thefilm modestly refers to the“director” without at that moment naming her but insert- ing her image. The notes explain that the direc- tor ofViceroy’s Houseis someone with direct family experience in the tragedy of partition, in this case through a grandmother and a mur- dered aunt. Powerful and heartfelt, but it is a curious intervention in thefilm and works, at least for this viewer, as a kind of subvention that softens the polemical effect of other moments, and especially the reveal of Sarila’s secret Oriental and India Office“found”docu- ments. These documents, central to the duplici- tous diplomacy narrative that has the unpleasant Jinnah character cutting a deal to create Pakistan as a buffer state, appear as afolder slapped on the table, passed among the keyfigures and studied by Mountbatten as a kind offinal moment of realisation that he had been the unwitting patsy of it all. In the film it seems as if everyone else was in on the secret anti-Soviet plan. Sarila’s archival justifica- tion is reduced to a few lines on a stage prop, but the effect of the director stepping into the narra- tive in person is to a ffirm, through escalation since her personal involvement gives the intri- gue the imprimatur or truth, that centuries of great game manoeuvres over Afghanistan are the context–and of course, substitution again, that the duplicity can be explained, via Sarila, as a topical and important directorial intervention. The intrigues of thefilm can con- tribute uniquely to understanding tactical approaches to Islam, Soviet history and diplo- macywhileas allegory, questioning things like contemporary investment in the port at Karachi with its possible transport route from China to the sea, or the Russian annexation of Crimea as an access route via the Bosporus Strait to the Mediterranean.

The point about substitution and escalation is that in Chadha’sfilm“partition”becomes a tool for doing other things, and this is the case with many examples of overworked and overde- termined themes. This might be all well and good if the other parts of the narrative were built upon what had already been achieved in historical research and recording. Even better if the scholarship that exists in oral history and memory studies from the 1980s onwards could have been acknowledged. Exemplified by the work of Butalia (1998), Pandey (2002) and others, this is material that, along with the many“high politics”studies that go beyond the popular histories produced by Dominique Lapierre and Larry Collins (1975,1983), deserves serious attention. Pakistani, Banglade- shi and Indian study on partition already amounts to a vast literature and although also replete with interpretive variations, it is harsh indeed to be both ignored and to endure the suggestion that there were any“victors”of INTER-ASIA CULTURAL STUDIES 615 partition who could write the history. Yet it is an example to doing other things to see claims made for thefilm’s relevance reach directly into the present political drama. In a milieu where claims for the significance and relevance of one’seffort is not only a publicity anecdote, it is probably only to be expected that most astute commentators, directors and actors would make associations that stress the allegorical pur- chase of their work.Viceroy’s Houseactors were no different in this regard when in publicity interviews the couple who play the star-crossed lovers–not Nehru and Edwina, but the domes- tics Jeet and Aalia–channelled another current contextualisation when thefilm was claimed as relevant to then unfolding events around the election of new US President Trump and his anti-Muslim travel bans (Pape2017).

Thefilm is presented then as a polemic against prejudice and racism, which is stunning in its condescension, since in telling the story of British duplicity it turns out that each one of the senior South Asian–representative ethnic pro- totype–“negotiators”are unsympathetic.

Nehru with his upper Hindu elite“Cambridge debating skills”is the best of them; Gandhi, in the often repeated Churchill slur, is a“half naked fakir,”also a vegetarian enthusiast for goat’s cheese and dentally challenged maverick, which might be true to type or myth but will not please either fans or balance critics of his role.

Admittedly all the English are cynical except the naïve avuncular Mountbatten–“he could charm a vulture offa corpse”–and the worthy charitable“righting wrongs”Edwina. The por- trayal that has the unsavoury opportunist Jin- nah, and indeed Churchill and the other British tops, playing politics over such tragedy in such a calculated, inhuman way is of course as horrific as the slaughter of the entire night train carrying Muslims from Delhi to Lahore.

The documents found by Sarila are then work- ing as a claim to scholarship that must confirm not only the assertions about Jinnah, but also all the other characterisations of this historical fiction as written by the victors. Of coursewhile Chadha’s grandmother was travelling the other way in just as grim circumstances, and while sympathy for the Indian side may have been inherited as family history it could also have come from the Lapierre and Collins ( 1975) book upon which thefilm is also avow- edly based. The racial and ethnic valuation here are marked, but inFreedom at Midnight Lapierre was self-confessedly laudatory of Mountbatten and ways that betrayed the authors’Eurocentric and rather presumptuous approach–travelling around India in a hired Rolls Royce to conduct interviews. It is regretta- ble that although Lapierre and Collins released another book,Mountbatten and the Partition of India(1983), that includes the transcripts of interviews they did, including with Mountbat- ten, this is from a small subsidiary publisher and less likely to be found and therefore not so readily available for interested parties to read and evaluate. Reading that text indicates just how strongly the received versioning of par- tition was promoted in this unofficial main- stream colonial justification. The declarations of impartiality from the director in this case do not then mesh with the partiality of the sourced reference toFreedom at Midnight, and raise questions that could be articulated in Ben- jamin’s terms where a historian, orfilmmaker, risks“becoming a tool of the ruling class”(Ben- jamin [1940]1968, 255). If the timing of an anti-Muslim and anti-Soviet story is considered, the all-too-loving fascination with the silver cut- lery of the Raj must tarnish this project. Chadha has made betterfilms, usually with songs.

Other partitions Meanwhile in India, other contemporaneous partition dramas add to a vast archive that reaches from beforeGandhi(1982) and beyond Jinnah(1998). In Pakistan, viewers apparently may“prefer”to watchfilms from the India side of partition because“Hindi dialogue and song is more familiar to ordinary citizens than the increasingly Islamicized official idiom of 616 J. HUTNYK news bulletins”(Ahmad2016, 472). A separate register would be needed to track all the possible permutations and contradictions in partition films in their various significances and details, for example that it was controversial for Chris- topher Lee to have played Mohammed Ali Jin- nah in the 1998 biopicfilm. Lee was primarily famous for his role as Count Dracula, which was considered problematic not because he was European and playing the secular leader of Pakistan, but because of the association of Jinnah with the dead. Casting Lee was an impressive match in terms of bearing and looks, and the actor considered it his best ever role, but at a fundraiser for thefilm there had been curious comments about the lead, with Ben Kingsley also suggested as a possibility in terms of balance and prestige with the Shake- spearean actor having already portrayed the Mahatma.

Why shouldn’t Chadha add to this archive and make a partitionfilm, since it seems almost everyone does? A pity though she did not think to unpack her effort over against the tradition of films that broach its never exhausted signifi- cance for the subcontinent as trauma and love story, for example inMela(1948) starring Nar- gis and Dilip Kumar as star-crossed lovers, through toPinjar(2003) which follows the complex dilemmas and experience of kid- napped women across the borders. The ways new directors add to the ever-burgeoning parti- tionfilm archive deserves attention, for exam- ple, two recent contributions are inspired concurrent and obvious alternatives toViceroy’s House: the“identical”stories ofBegum Jaan (2017) andRajkahini(2015). Srijit Mukherji directs bothfilms, andBegum Jaanis the Hindi adapted version of the BengaliRajkahini.

The repetition here has a secret significance, with much to be said about casting and charac- ter–thefilms tell a well-worn story of sex work- ers whofight the prejudices of partition chaos, with significant scenes of women wielding rifles,fi rebombing and killing, and triumphant survival against the odds in the end. That wealready seem to know the plot should come as no surprise, since the literature on partition is also vast and the formula symptomatic. What is curious in this case is how the promoters have made a virtue of marketing the remake as a remake. As a marketing strategy, they have staged a debate about who is the better Begum out of the two actors Vidya Balan and Rituparna Sengupta. A smart promotional angle is extended with a series of other character match-ups, and while the trailer forBegum Jaanis dynamic, the one forRajkahinicomes, inevitably, with a Tagore song and the clip lovingly follows the studio artists making the record, interspersed with lush images from the film. While neitherfilm comes close to the Raj-a-philia ofViceroy’s House, the Hindi effort is focussed more on action while the Bengali one asserts cultural specificity by featur- ing a more contemplative stance. Thefireworks of both are real, and a cutthroat killing in the Bengali is not outshone by the pyromaniac skills of the stunt-person managing to impersonate a map of India inflames in the Hindi version.

What is noteworthy is the duplication, with a few differences, of these stories, and of course the near contemporaneous release of Chadha’s Viceroy.

What ifViceroy’s Househad been different? I mean different from Merchant Ivory-style fan- tasy. Thefilm in form and style owes little to oral history or to the memory studies that dom- inate partition scholarship and it does not at all referencefilms that break with the wholly con- ventional formats of narrative realism. That Chadha includes herself at the end of thefilm would have been a chance to problematise per- spective, especially at a generation or two beyond the events shown. The generational dis- tance might have been given more space and confirmed the“unique”perspective the director claims to have offered. The generational story can have powerful resonances, for example where referred or inherited memory exists among those giving testimony to oral history projects, for example–the partition scholar INTER-ASIA CULTURAL STUDIES 617 Chandrika Parmar told of interviewing a man who said he had survived a train attack by hiding behind his murdered mother’s sari. Only in a later interview when he repeated the story did it become clear that the man was not old enough to have been there, and was relating his father’s experience as if he believed it was his own (Par- mar2004). What would afilm capable of taking account of this level of interpretive variance look like? The experiments with form that have addressed such variance have not always been successful, but the question of who writes history implies a much bigger conversation than any to be had about a specificfilm made in the UK or Bengal or Mumbai.

Popular pleasures and new styles of media studies The burden of representation (Mercer1990; Tagg1984,1988) also applies to truth, and films made from one place and time must carry a context. There is a significant body of work that can provide that context and it would surely seem strange to consider South Asia on screen without reference to such works. Of British South Asianfilms such as those of Chadha’s early oeuvre, especially Bhaji on the Beach(1993), Sanjay Sharma describes them as often primarily concerned with struggles over the politics of racialised representation in a particular way:“this cinema articulates a range of‘popular pleasures,’rather than operating as formalist pedagogic works that explicitly employ avant-garde strategies, as found in other Intercultural or black/Third Cinema”(Sharma2009, 22). It is perhaps better to recognise a multiplicity of perspectives and tactics where protagonists do not always agree yet exist in a generally shared community of reference. Sharma’s analysis is focussed upon teaching in the UK“pedagogical”context, but his points make sense for a wider questioning of the sort of things that can be said aboutfilm, including South Asianfilm, in gen- eral, or globally. His points about race andrepresentation can be extended. He notes a specific burden and opportunity: [W]hen we turn tofilms marked by their ethnicity–for example, labelled as“black,” “South Asian,”“Intercultural”or“Third Cinema”–concerns over representation, belonging, identity and difference, and so on, frame much of the analysis. Such approaches yield significant insight, particularly in relation to the operations of racial ideologies, stereotyp- ing and nationhood. (Sharma2009,22) The question of historical veracity and who gets to write the history of the struggles against racism, stereotypes and nationhood remains a contested point. Recent work draws inspiration especially from the ways scholars andfilm- makers, in thefilm schools and in regional film traditions, can now think of the near and far together.

In what can be considered both a related and yet radically different approach to that of Sanjay Sharma, the Warwick-based sometimes Lahori music scholar, Virinder Kalra, and his co- author Shalini Sharma (no relation), present an excellent genealogical survey of radicalism for the Punjab Research Group. They report on that study group’s solution to the dilemma of reference in having coined the portmanteau phrase“three Punjabs: East, West and the dia- spora.”They stress the need for an approach maintaining“a space of analysis in which the national is also held in question”(Sharma and Kalra2013, 438). Extrapolating the same senti- ment still wider, not every resident or citizen of the named countries of South Asia need grasp the parameters of multiple designations when all this can be examined together without homogenising, and still have some echo of a Global South movement. The space of analysis is a critical and sustaining one that belongs to a long and unevenly reproduced tradition.

Without romanticising community, since it can also have its reactionary sides, there is a habit of care in identification with migration.

In settlement and at home, looking out for village, caste, relatives, region, state, nation, 618 J. HUTNYK cricket team, neighbours, and general outlook entails a co-constitution of here and there. It means brothers sending cousins abroad, co- workers smoothing the way; as reciprocity is the essence of sociality, the social reproduction of community operates a wide fall-out net to support members and associates. This co-con- stitution as a movement is conscious by neces- sity,fighting compromise by context, continually subject to capture and recuperation, but still something not yet wholly subsumed under the privatisation and homogenisation of the globe.

Such specific work corresponds with media studies work in a Global South framing that should be afforded much greater visibility. In the last thirty years questions about knowledge, disciplinary focus and reference have been raised and challenged in ways that have not yet been read as carefully as their implications might suggest. In South Asia in particular a body of work has emerged, ostensibly gathered together asfilm studies and extended to televi- sion and other media platforms, that has trans- formed the possibilities for consideringfilm material in a global context. This work can be an inspiration for thinking generously and criti- cally about other media practices and politics, both in diaspora and in relation to other aspects of South Asia and its dispersals, or potentials.

The new approach inaugurated by Madhava Prasad’s magisterialIdeology of the Hindi Film (1998) and Ashis Nandy’sThe Secret Politics of Our Desires(1998) came around the same time controversies overfilms likeRoja(1992, see Gaur2011),Fire(1996, see John and Niran- jana2000) andZakhm(1998) took over pages in political journals, especially theEconomic and Political Weeklybut also the less forthright Times of India. Both the new work and thefilm debates of course also traded upon significant film discussions in a longer tradition that would take varied antecedents such as the work offilmmakers Ritwik Ghatak and Mrinal Sen, the communist party in some forms, the Progressive Writers Association (PWA) andthe Indian People’s Theatre Association (IPTA), the struggle in Bangladesh for separa- tion from Pakistan (see Hood2015), the Tamil struggle in Sri Lanka and its musical echoes, and theatre traditions such as the work of Safdar Hashmi or even Badal Sircar (see Katyal2015) as well as the literature of Kashmiri and Punjabi diaspora. In this discus- sion, a follower of the debates need not worry too much about the precision of who is in and who out of traditional disciplinary“ film stu- dies,”whether the school is a“coherent”school, whatever that would mean, or if the authors named even recognise each other in terms of schools or suchlike affinities. Perhaps what is refreshing here is that the politics of contextua- lisation of these works has already inspired pro- ductive controversy–there is for example by now a well worked debate over what is new screen media: does it refer tofilm or only hand- held devices, is television a new electronic media, as yet not fully understood; what of the network ontologically? Has satellite trans- formed thefield of operations that, for a period, presented a local–pirate?–dimension in the activity of illicit cable operators and their embedded community operations? That ques- tions about social media, satellite and network structures, big data and language policy, and so on, are important should be obvious, and if not, Ravi Sundaram’sPirate Modernity(2009) provides explanations as to why. Shared discus- sion in a circuit of perspectives requires risking the effort of reading.

Rajagopal bursts the reflexive indulgence with commentary on the December 1992 Babri Masjid demolition. His bookPolitics After Television: Hindu Nationalism and the Reshaping of the Public in Indiaaccepts not only a certain newness to news, but more importantly sees that: [N]ew electronic media set up circuits of com- munication across the realms (of polity, econ- omy, and culture) that […] allow […] Hindu nationalism to fashion a range of different rhetorics outside the political sphere proper, INTER-ASIA CULTURAL STUDIES 619 and to suggest a homology between forms of consumption and voting behavior, and between cultural identification and the requirements of electoral affiliation. (Rajagopal2001,2) Wanting to extend Bollywood or South Asian screen cultures to a wider social technological spread, taking in more and more dimensions of labour, organisation, marketing–an entire socio-economic cultural-industrial construct– the new South Asian media theorists seem to be driven by an underlying formation that is not hard to identify: a Marxist training is stan- dard in the institutes and histories within which South Asianfilm criticism thrives. Even when making variously grounded or esoteric com- ments about the condition of modernity–for example Ravi Vasudevan (2011, 14) pointing out that“Bollywood has provided a brand name for publishers to position their product” or Ravi Sundaram’s(2009) diagnoses of a “pirate modernity”as a condition without respect for origins–the traces and desire for a political impact beyondfilm studies or media scholarship is grounded in a foundational nar- rative with proper names, heritage and influ- ences. To understand these as a heritage of Marxism is one perhaps not of the party or cadre fold, in the way that IPTA is for the origin for a certain Bengali art cinema, but identifiable nevertheless.

That afilm studies or media course cannot now stick only to media orfilm studies seems self-evident. This is acknowledged in all pro- grammes that ask their students to pick “option”courses alongside theirfilm and televi- sion“technical”or“theory”modules. This cur- riculum arrangement admits that a theory of media cannot rely upon the media alone.

Courses in media and politics, media and archi- tecture, media and anthropology or media with sociology are increasingly common where an overlap with the visual arts or cultural studies is readily assumed even as it has not yet any structural integration. Ashish Rajadhyaksha (2012, 41) is correct to observe that“the legacy of our cinema is far more complex.”Indeed, thespillage beyond media, and beyond discipline- based courses, is a limit and a possibility, with the requirement that practitioners and analysts bring experience and maturity to bear if insight is to be developed.

With implications for the content of all media courses, it is possible to point to a reor- ientation that acknowledges the often quite good intentions of those who would search out an ethical practice in learning to know what others think of themselves and relating to them in those terms. While welcoming this, seeing it as a privileged, and insufficient, move, should also be the lesson learnt from reading South Asian media theory over against the mainstream. European diasporicfilmmak- ing is no more immune from exoticist seduc- tions in theory and content than any other modes of creative benevolence. The danger here is that benevolent othering makes an exotic object of that which it uses and appropriates–a dubious return, a slippery slope on the way to commercial exploitation. A degree of vigilance must be earned alongside the institutional degrees that remain the passport to recognised participation in knowledge creation–despite the often-mentioned collapse into commercial training of the university. Spivak also talks of the“new globalisation”of the“Indian migrant […] class heterogeneous migrant subcultures” and notes as evidence video hire available in thousands of stores spread across the US, and indeed the world, now via YouTube. Here, the “space of cosmopolitan diasporic culture”(Spi- vak1996, 260) gives culture mass exposure as a joke circulating the overdetermined sexual pol- itics of patriarchy as distribution and commun- alism. Her modest ambition that cultural studies can alert teachers of literature andfilm to concerns that disciplinary historians cannot is a hope that“decolonisation of the mind” can begin without positing any too easy self– other, East–West, North–South split. Why this is important is that if the Global South is con- ceived as supra-geographical and includes the movement of the global proletariat into the 620 J. HUTNYK metropolitan North, with cultural supports and video-camera-wielding grandchildren ready to make radical documentaries on partition, then this decolonisation is potentially in place, wait- ing only miraculously to be enacted.

It cannot be considered unusual that most of those writing onfilm and television in South Asia and across its diasporas are writing about so much more. Rajadhyaksha (1999) writes on music and London; Abhijit Roy (2014)on“live- ness,”Midnapore and the Aum Party; Moinak Biswas (2006) about the declining fortunes of the CPI(M); Madhava Prasad (2014a) on sartor- ial styles of the revolutionary heroes; Tejeswini Niranjana (1999) on feminism and the Shiv Sena, closer tofilm than not; Gayatri Gopinath (2005) on desi protest marches; Amit Rai (2009) on affect theory; Sunaina Maira (2000)on henna and hip-hop; Rajinder Dudrah (2006) on queer political mobilities–all in all diver- gences from the script offilm studies through consumerism, queer and transnational mobili- sations are all very welcome and show an excit- ing and robust promiscuity that cannot only be said to have been prepared in the institutional turbulence of a thriving multi-disciplinarity.

In Rajagopal’sPolitics After Television, one of his many footnote speculations spills out from the text proper to permit him to muse on the theme of commodity consumption. He astutely relates this to modifications in the orthodox Marxist perspective: Recent historical work has challenged assump- tions about consumption as an activity follow- ing automatically upon the development of industrial production, or about mass consump- tion as having a merely emulative quality, as lower classes enacted their aspirations for the lifestyles of their economic betters. Consump- tion as a middle-class activity began not in the late eighteenth, or early nineteenth, or in the twentieth century, but in fact appears to antedate the rise of industrial capitalism and mass production. (Rajagopal2001,317) Rajagopal argues that consumption studies gained favour in part because a new middleclass emerged willing to shop. While Marxist orthodoxy in some of the more moribund party forums might not wish to consider consu- mer society as a viable context for intervention, within a culture industry and media perspective it becomes a necessary project to politicise cul- tural production.

The now burgeoning work on queer perspec- tives in South Asia has its ownfilm focussed con- tingent, with the excellent work of Gopinath, Desai, Dudrah and others, perhaps working in a space initially opened up, to some degree, by the controversy over Mehta’sfilmFire(1996) in which Sita is renamed Nita in Hindi after the Censorship Board’s order (John and Niran- jana2000, 371). If there was any doubt that film has a wider socio-political life, then just a few words from John and Niranjana’s original response toFireshows how convoluted and obscured things quickly become once the Board and other interest groups get involved: Women’s organisations and especially gay and lesbian groups […] raised key issues relating to questions of obscenity, on the one hand, and gay/lesbian rights, on the other […] how- ever, these issues tended to get deflected if not lost in the dominant focus on the Shiv Sena attacks. (John and Niranjana1999, 581) It is instructive to see how the political debates extend beyond the theoreticalfirst moves offilm appreciation and a separate discussion would be warranted of the ways Indian cinema, in the several genres considered together here, have responded. Significantly Gay, Lesbian, Bi, Queer and Trans perspectives–it seems unu- sual these days to even spell out LGBTQ–are standard infilms as varied as Leena Javed’s Parched(2015) and Mukherjee’sGandu (2010). InParched, the breaking of patriarchal normative sexualities gives thefilm a joyous and successful escape from poverty and preju- dice. Though despite uplift–mocking on the way the trinkets-exotica NGO handicrafts pro- ject that brings satellite television to the village –thefilm also shows the practicalities and INTER-ASIA CULTURAL STUDIES 621 setbacks of informal sector survival in ways that go well beyondFireand certainly leave the het- eronormative frame ofViceroy’s House’s love tangle looking merely frayed. At the end of Parchedhowever, the characters in a Thelma, Louise and Lajjoo denouement are still left with nowhere to go but out of thefilm theatre.

Consider then how inGandueven straight-up heteronormative desire gets shaken up in ways that connect with a youthful alienation and dis- affection, also strikingly absent in the contrast- ing middle of the road Merchant Irony stylings ofViceroy’s House.

It would not be fair to expect afilm to be all things, but already in thefirst issue of the Jadav- pur Film Studies journal, Biswas wrote (1999,9):

“The increasing circulation/dispersal of cinema in the mediafield, through video, TV, digital fares of every variety demands that we develop a critical framework.”Believing with Desai (2004,7)that“the study of the role of cultural politics offilm in the production of diasporic affiliations, identities, and politics is crucial to an understanding of transnationalism and globa- lization,”this critical framework tends towards the universal, even as it is specific, regional and located-demarcated. Like travel,beyondis the code word here. It is not necessarily correct, nor is it an imperative that escapes structured refer- ence. The questions to ask have to do with how these theorists frame a critical approach, and to what, with what extension. Madhava Prasad (1999, 39) calls us to move beyond the“political communication”model–the idea that“cinema is used as a transparent medium to transmit mes- sages and thereby win the hearts of spectators”is not problematic because there are no messages, but because transparency and a simple message code model does not account for“the specificity of the cinematic institution nor the complexity of political processes.” Going beyond conventions of earlierfilm talk, the proliferation of screens and the digital“con- vergence”invokes a quiver of enthusiasm. With- out dismissing innovations in thefilm technology field, Gehlawat’s(2010) survey of the work of theaforementioned three theorists is rather curt, and has to do with afilmi-focus which overlooks tele- vision and other screens, such that narrowly, in Vasudevan (2011), only the reach of the mean- ings of the name Bollywood are questioned; in Rajadhyaksha we deal only with Bollywood as a “diffuse cultural conglomeration”(Rajadhyaksha 2008, 20); and with Madhava Prasad we see no further than how“the term itself seems to serve different purposes for different people”(Mad- hava Prasad2008, 41). The limits of these demar- cations are obvious if you know these authors do of course write about Hindifilm, but crucially much else besides, including the new wave art cinema from Bengal, the regionalfilm traditions of Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh, the star sys- tem, representation–darstellenandvertreten (Madhava Prasad2014b, 147, 155, following Spi- vak1988)–regionalism, nationalism, globalisa- tion, and so much more. But while a few comments should not be levitated to the status of paradigms so quickly, nor short essays be taken to stand for substantial bodies of work, Gehlawat (2015, 12) is correct to note that the terms used in any demarcation may gather“argu- ably disparatefilms under one umbrella.”This is the case, he notes for example, with Joshi’s(2010) distinction between Bollywood and Bollylite, which refers to US friendly South Asianfilms likeMonsoon Wedding(2001) or, we might add,Viceroy’s House. M. K. Ragavendra (2012, 31) contends that“the term ‘Bollywood’may have become a more acceptable label […] because it does not signify any specific national identity.”There is no injunction on applying demarcations for different media“products” under reference to the digital or to the global, since here the point is that electronic capitalism comes both in pirate and corporate forms (Kumar2013, 257). The“public archive of the contemporary”comes as a demonic and manipu- lated ideological apparatus and as a niche seg- mented one, it is regionalism and identity in slices of time and frequency, and the universal schedule of programme planning is never inno- cent (Sundaram2013,3,122). 622 J. HUTNYK The great game So, how is it possible to best conclude an essay that has not been only onViceroy’s House, but on the implications of its critics for a wider South Asian inflected media studies? I want to do so by recognising how a cultural effort neces- sarily accompanies the war on terror addressed to global audiences, as Gargi Bhattacharyya (2008, 113) so perceptively said? Afilm that hides its ideological investments under roman- tic orientalist storytelling and the mechanics of historical edits–not only cut, pan, zoom, montage, time, audio, narrative–develops a symbiotic relationship with the alienated but global commodity circuit, enforced by commer- cial and military means. We are dealing here with something that is not only a war scene, but is also the war of colonialism against itself.

If the multivariant versions of South Asia have always been screened in narrowcast terms–a double play of the good guys–temples, Bolly- wood songs and Sanjay Dutt–and the bad guys–terrorists, pogroms, Ravana, Gabbar Singh/Amjad Khan, and Sanjay Dutt, today it is moderate Muslims and unknown terror, the double play at work again. In bygone years Heat and Dust(1983) was the cinematic ver- sion. Art Malik coming to grief inJewel and the Crown(1984, ITV), and a little later as a goonda inCity of Joy(1992) or even more gro- tesquely, as a Mujahedeenfighter in the Bond filmThe Living Daylights(1987) and at the bludgeoning hands of Arnie Schwarzenegger as the hapless terrorist Salim inTrue Lies (1994) repeats the typecasting. Malik himself as a specialist terror example of where an actor’s persona acrossfilms“begins to communicate through other channels than thefilms”and even in“parallel to the diegetic content of the narrative”(Madhava Prasad2014b, 142).

Today for Global South Asian starfigures– Om Puri, Roshan Seth, Shah Rukh Khan– and we might add the scene of Osama bin Laden pictured in his blanket in the Abbottabad compound as an inverted echo of Thakur/Sanjeev Kumar inSholay–we can see by way of Madhava Prasad’s analysis, a non-diegetic patterning of characterisation and caricature.

This is alternately exotic or demotic, which inflates rates of paranoid xenophobic scaremon- gering, even with the proliferation of vernacular views of the global (Mukhopadhyay2012)of home movies and camera phone newscasts uploaded directly to the satellite international of Skynet. It will be worth looking again at how often the same actors keep popping up over and over infilms likeEast is East(1999), Viceroy’s House, and in reimagined period seri- als likeIndian Summers(2015). An impressive genealogy of retrospectively back-cast“terror- ist”nationalist miscreants are all fathered by Roshan Seth inMy Beautiful Laundrette (1985),A Passage to India(1984),The Buddha of Suburbia(1993) and alongside Art Malik yet again, inIndian Summers. Where predict- able typecasting is replaced by avoidance, for example in the darker serialisation ofTaboo on BBC (2017), is it not also all too predictable that the East India Company is defeated by the one good honest butflawed mixed race soldier hero? In thesefilms and serial fantasies, there is no sense in which the black and white synco- pation of local and global escapes the play of mere colour illustration. Subject citizens are corralled from remote to metropole, all gath- ered together to work the pantomime scene.

In the 1990s the heavy presence of South Asian cinema on very late night British TV was insufficient to disabuse the rest of the Brit- ish public of its stereotypes of the violent exotic subcontinent and the threat of otherness. Even the by now standardised choices of“contem- porary”British-Asianfilm did little to clarify– the new programming updates the repertoire with reruns ofBend it like Beckham(2002), but notMy Beautiful Laundrette(1985);East is East( 1999) but notWild West(1992); nor could it be said that popularity marked out the parameters of anti-coloniality–Heat and Dust (1983) but nothing by Ritwik Ghatak. The clarity of ideological whitewash is evident in the ways INTER-ASIA CULTURAL STUDIES 623 “military savagery”trumps the critique of fetishising exoticism on the part of“rapacious corporations”(Maira2008, 65). It is no longer enough to only note that critical analysis of the ways an anti-Muslim pogrom had taken hold in the wake of 2001, or 7 July 2005, did not dis- place that pogrom. The less safefilms were on heavy rotation and box set specials, as television celebrates the East India Company in its reno- vated form as a kind of steam-punkTaboo (2017) alongside cheap security service-foiled plots against airlines or sci-fiscenarios with sui- cide Jihadists. All the while, in the commercial cinema the Empire image remains intact. Gurin- der Chadha’sViceroy’s Housedoes little to sug- gest that Raj nostalgia reruns of comprador complicity and divide and conquer will not still be the rule for the foreseeable future.

Notes on contributor John Hutnykis the author of several books, includ- ing 1996The Rumour of Calcutta: Tourism, Charity and the Poverty of Representation, 2000Critique of Exotica, and 2014Pantomime Terror: Music and Pol- itics. His bookGlobal South Asia on Screencame out with Bloomsbury in June 2018.

ORCID John HUTNYK http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4826- 8949 References Ahmad, Ali Nobil.2016.“Explorations Into Pakistani Cinema: Introduction.”Screen57 (4): 468–479.

Benjamin, Walter.[1940] 1968.Illuminations.

Translated by Hanna Arendt. New York:

Schocken Books.

Bhatia, Arjun.2017.“Partition Museum Project:

Creating a Refuge for the Memories of Partition.”South Asia @ LSE, 10 March. blogs.l- se.ac.uk/southasia/2017/03/10/partition- museum-project-creating-a-refuge-for-the-mem- ories-of-partition/.

Bhattacharyya, Gargi.2008.Dangerous Brown Men:

Exploiting Sex, Violence and Feminism in the War on Terror. London: Zed Books.Bhutto, Fatima.2017.“Fatima Bhutto on Indian par- titionfilm Viceroy’s House:‘I Watched This Servile Pantomime and Wept.’”The Guardian,3 March.https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/ mar/03/fatima-bhutto-viceroys-house-watched- servile-pantomime-and-wept.

Biswas, Moinak.1999.“Bengali Film Debates: The Literary Liaison Revisited.”Journal of the Moving Image1: 1–13.

Biswas, Moinak.2006.“Early Films: the Novel and Other Horizons.”InApu and After: Revisiting Ray’s Cinema, edited by Moinak Biswas, 42–43.

Calcutta: Seagull.

Butalia, Urvashi.1998.The Other Side of Silence:

Voices From the Partition of India. Durham, NC:

Duke University Press.

Chadha, Gurinder.2017.“My Film Has Been Wilfully Misrepresented as Anti-Muslim.”The Guardian,3 March.https://www.theguardian.com/ film/filmblo g/2017/mar/03/gurinder-chadha-defends-vicero ys-house-film-fatima-bhutto.

Desai, Jigna.2004.Beyond Bollywood: The Cultural Politics of South Asian Diasporic Film. New York:

Routledge.

Desiblitz.2017.“In Conversation with Gurinder Chadha.”YouTube.https://youtu.be/xTO7vQiX HDg.

Dudrah, Rajinder.2006.Bollywood: Sociology Goes to the Movies. London: Sage.

Hood, John.2015.The Bleeding Lotus: Notions of Nation in Bangladeshi Cinema. New Delhi: Palimpsest.

Gaur, Meenu.2011.“The Roja Debate and the Limits of Secular Nationalism.”InIndian Mass Media and the Politics of Change, edited by Somnath Batabayal, Agnad Chowdhry, Meenu Gaur and Matti Pohjonen, 68–91. London: Routledge.

Gehlawat, Ajay.2010.Reframing Bollywood: Themes of Popular Hindi Cinema. New Delhi: Sage.

Gehlawat, Ajay.2015.Twenty-First Century Bollywood. London: Routledge.

Gopinath, Gayatri.2005.Impossible Desires: Queer Diasporas and South Asian Public Cultures.

Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

John, Mary E., and Tejaswini Niranjana.1999.“Mirror Politics: Fire, Hindutva and Indian Culture.” Economic and Political Weekly34 (10–11): 581–584.

John, Mary E., and Tejaswini Niranjana.2000.“The Controversy Over‘Fire’: A Select Dossier (Part I), Introduction.”Inter-Asia Cultural Studies1 (2):

371– 374.

Joshi, Priya.2010.“Bollylite in America.”South Asian Popular Culture8 (3): 245–259.

Katyal, Anjum.2015.Badal Sircar: Towards a Theatre of Conscience. New Delhi: Sage. 624 J. HUTNYK Kumar, Shanti.2013.“Unimaginable Communities:

Television, Globalization and National Identities in Postcolonial India.”InNo Limits: Media Studies From India, edited by Ravi Sundaram, 256–276. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Lapierre, Dominique, and Larry Collins.1975.

Freedom at Midnight. New Delhi: Vikas.

Lapierre, Dominique, and Larry Collins.1983.

Mountbatten and the Partition of India.New Delhi: Tarang Publishers, Vikas.

Madhava Prasad, M.1998.Ideology of the Hindi Film:

A Historical Construction. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Madhava Prasad, M.1999.“On the Political Significance of Cinema in South India.”Journal of the Moving Image1: 37–52.

Madhava Prasad, M.2008.“Surviving Bollywood.” InGlobal Bollywood, edited by Anandam P.

Kavoori and Aswin Punathambekar, 41–51.

New York: New York University Press.

Madhava Prasad, M.2014a.“Thoughts of Freedom:

India’s 20th Century.”Lecture Course, National Chiao Tung University, Taiwan.

Madhava Prasad, M.2014b.Cine-Politics: Film Stars and Political Existence in South India. Delhi:

Orient Blackswan.

Maira, Sunaina.2000.“Henna and Hip Hop: The Politics of Cultural Production and the Work of Cultural Studies.”Journal of Asian American Studies3 (3): 329–369.

Maira, Sunaina.2008.“B-Boys and Bass Girls: Sex, Style and Mobility in American Youth Culture.” InDesi Rap: Hip-Hop and South Asian America, edited by Ajay Nair and Murali Balaji, 41– 70.

Lanham: Lexington Books.

Mercer, Kobena.1990.“Black Art and the Burden of Representation.”Third Text4 (10): 61–78.

Mukhopadhyay, Bhaskar.2012.The Rumour of Globalization: Desecrating the Global From Vernacular Margins. London: Hurst.

Nandy, Ashis.1998.The Secret Politics of Our Desires. Innocence, Culpability, and Indian Popular Cinema. London: Zed books.

Niranjana, Tejaswini.1999.“Questions for Feminist Film Studies.”Journal of the Moving Image1: 91–101.

Orwell, George.1944.“As I Please.”The Tribune,4 February.http://alexpeak.com/twr/hiwbtw/.

Pandey, Gyanendra.2002.Remembering Partition:

Violence, Nationalism and History in India.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pape, Stefan.2017.“Huma Qureshi and Manish Dayal on Viceroy’s House.”HeyUGuys.http:// www.heyuguys.com/huma-qureshi-manish- dayal-interview-viceroys-house/.Parmar, Chandrika.2003.“State Violence and Migration: Indo-Pak Partition Community and Violence.”Paper presented at the conference on “Sustainable Development: Bridging the Research/ Policy Gaps in Southern Contexts,”Islamabad, 11–13 December.

Parmar, Chandrika.2004.“Memories of Partition.” Paper presented at the Centre for Cultural Studies seminar, Goldsmiths University of London, 15 March.

Patel, Aakar.2015.“The Jawaharlal Nehru Today’s India Does Not Know.”Quartz India .https://qz.

com/463197/the-jawaharlal-nehru-todays-india- does-not-know/.

Ragavendra, M. K.2012.“Mainstream Hindi Cinema and Brand Bollywood: The Transformation of a Cultural Artefact.”InThe Magic of Bollywood: At Home and Abroad, edited by Anjali Gera Roy, 27–41. Delhi: Sage.

Rai, Amit S.2009.Untimely Bollywood:

Globalization and India’s New Media Assemblage. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Rajadhyaksha, Ashish.1999.“‘You Can See Without Looking’: Reconsidering Freedom of Expression in the Cinema.”Journal of the Moving Image1: 68–90.

Rajadhyaksha, Ashish.2008.“The‘Bollywoodization’ of the Indian Cinema: Cultural Nationalism in a Global Arena.”InGlobal Bollywood,editedby Anandam P Kavoori and Aswin Punathambekar, 17–40. New York: New York University.

Rajadhyaksha, Ashish.2012.“Teaching Film Theory?”Journal of the Moving Image11: 40–65.

Rajagopal, Arvind.2001.Politics After Television: Hindu Nationalism and the Reshaping of the Public in India.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Roy, Abhijit.2014.“Television, Consumerism and the Emergent Forms of Publicness in Post-liberal- ization India.”PhD diss., Jadavpur University.

Sarila, Narendra Singh.2005.The Shadow of the Great Game. New Delhi: Harper Collins.

Sharma, Sanjay.2009.“Teaching British South Asian Cinema–Towards a‘Materialist’ Reading Practice.”South Asian Popular Culture7(1):21–35.

Sharma, Shalini, and Virinder S. Kalra.2013.“State of Subversion: Aspects of Radical Politics in Twentieth Century Punjab.”South Asian History and Culture4 (4): 435–442.

Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty.1988.“Can the Subaltern Speak.”InMarxism and the Interpretation of Culture,editedbyCaryNelson and Lawrence Grossberg, 271–313. Urbana, IL:

University of Illinois Press.

Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty.1996.The Spivak Reader: Selected Works of Gayatri Chakravorty INTER-ASIA CULTURAL STUDIES 625 Spivak. Edited by Donna Landry and Gerald MacLean. London: Routledge.

Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty.1999.Critique of Postcolonial Reason: Towards a History of the Vanishing Present. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Sundaram, Ravi.2009.Pirate Modernity: Media Urbanism in Delhi. Delhi: Routledge.

Sundaram, Ravi, ed.2013.No Limits: Media Studies From India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Tagg, John.1984.“The Burden of Representation:

Photography and the Growth of the State.”Ten 8 (14): 10–12.

Tagg, John.1988.The Burden of Representation:

Essays and Photographies and Histories.

Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.

Thorpe, Vanessa.2017.“A British Film With a Punjabi Heart: Director’s Personal Take on Partition.”The Guardian, 16 January.https:// www.theguardian.com/film/2017/jan/16/ viceroys-house-tells-bloody-truth-of-partition.

Vasudevan, Ravi.2011.“The Meanings of ‘Bollywood.’”InBeyond the Boundaries of Bollywood: the Many Forms of Hindi Cinema, edi- ted by Rachel Dwyer and Jerry Pinto, 3–29. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Films and television series A Passage to India. 1984. Film. Directed by David Lean.

UK/USA: EMI Films, Home Box Office.

Begum Jaan. 2017. Film. Directed by Srijit Mukherji.

India: Vishesh Films.

Bend it Like Beckham. 2002. Film. Directed by Gurinder Chadha. UK: Kintop Pictures.

Bhaji on the Beach. 1993. Film. Directed by Gurinder Chadha. UK: Channel Four Films.

Bride and Prejudice. 2004. Film. Directed by Gurinder Chadha. UK/USA/India: Pathé/UK Film Council/Kintop Pictures/Bend it Films.

City of Joy. 1992. Film. Directed by Roland Joffé.

France/UK: Allied Filmmakers, Lightmotif.

East is East. 1999. Film. Directed by Damien O’Donnell. UK: FilmFour, BBC.

Fire. 1996. Film. Directed by Deepa Mehta. Canada/ India: Trial by Fire Media, Kaleidoscope Entertainment.

Gandhi. 1982. Film. Directed by Richard Attenborough. UK/India/USA: Columbia Pictures.

Gandu. 2010. Film. Directed by Qaushik Mukherjee.

India: Overdose Joint.

Heat and Dust. 1983. Film. Directed by James Ivory.

London: Merchant Ivory.I’m British, But…. 1990. Film. Directed by Gurinder Chadha. UK: BFI, FilmFour.

Indian Summers. 2015. Series. Directed by Anand Tucker, Jamie Payne, and David Moore. UK:

Channel 4.

Jewel in the Crown. 1984. Series. Directed by Christopher Morahan, Jim O’Brian, Ken Taylor, and Irene Shubik. UK: ITV Granada.

Jinnah. 1998. Film. Directed by Jamil Dehlavi. UK/ Pakistan: Dehlavi Films, Petra Films, The Quaid Project.

Komal Gandhar. 1961. Film. Directed by Ritwik Ghatak. India: Chitrakalpa.

Meghe Dhaka Tara. 1960. Film. Directed by Ritwik Ghatak. India: Chitrakalpa.

Mela. 1948. Film. Directed by S. U. Sunny. India:

Wadia Films.

Monsoon Wedding. 2001. Film. Directed by Mira Nair. India/USA/Italy/Germany/France/UK: IFC Productions, Mirabai Films.

My Beautiful Laundrette. 1985. Film. Directed by Stephen Frears. UK: Working Title Films.

Parched. 2015. Film. Directed by Leena Javed. India:

Airan Consultants, Ashlee Films, Blue Waters Motion Pictures.

Partition. 2007. Film. Directed by Vic Sarin. Canada:

Partition Films, Astral Media, Khussro Films.

Pinjar. 2003. Film. Directed by Chandra Prakash Dwivedi. India: Lucky Star Entertainment.

Rajkahini. 2015. Film. Directed by Srijit Mukherji.

India: SVF Entertainment.

Roja. 1992. Film. Directed by Mani Ratnam. India:

Madras Talkies, Hansa Pictures, Kavithalayaa Productions.

Sholay. 1975. Film. Directed by Ramesh Sippy. India:

United producers, Sippy Films, Sholay Media and Entertainment.

Subarnarekha. 1962. Film. Directed by Ritwik Ghatak. India: Chitrakalpa.

Taboo. 2017. Series. Directed by Kristoffer Nyholm and Anders Engström. UK: BBC.

The Buddha of Suburbia . 1993. Series. Directed by Roger Mitchell. UK: BBC.

The Living Daylights. 1987. Film. Directed by John Glen. UK: Eon Productions.

True Lies. 1994. Film. Directed by James Cameron.

USA: 20th Century Fox.

Viceroy’s House. 2017. Film. Directed by Gurinder Chadha. UK/India/Sweden: Pathe International.

Wild West. 1992. Film. Directed by David Attwood.

UK: British Screen productions, Channel Four Films.

Zakhm. 1998. Film. Directed by Mahesh Bhatt. India:

Pooja Bhatt Productions, Vishesh Films. 626 J. HUTNYK