Mon Apr 07 11:25:36 UTC 2025: ## India’s Selective Embrace of Satyajit Ray: A Posthumous Mythmaking

**NEW DELHI** – Despite global acclaim, the legacy of iconic Indian filmmaker Satyajit Ray reveals a complex relationship with his own nation. While posthumously lauded as a symbol of an “Indian Renaissance,” a closer examination reveals a pattern of neglect, censorship, and selective appropriation by Indian institutions, argues author Arup K. Chatterjee.

Ray, recipient of the Bharat Ratna, India’s highest civilian award, faced censorship even during his lifetime; his documentary *Sikkim* (1971) was banned by the government. This is just one example of the ideological frameworks Ray often critiqued in his films ironically contributing to the mythologizing of his posthumous image.

Chatterjee highlights the observations of Utpal Dutt, who, following Ray’s death, criticized the “bureaucratic invention” of Ray as a “Renaissance” figure. Dutt argued this label served as compensation for the state’s neglect of the filmmaker during his life, contrasting it with the authentic “Bengal Renaissance” rooted in tangible social and political struggles. The post-mortem elevation of Ray, Dutt claimed, only occurred after Western recognition forced India to acknowledge his genius.

This selective embrace wasn’t limited to state actors; a significant portion of the apathy towards Ray stemmed from social structures. Critics dismissed his work as apolitical, overlooking the ideological layers present in films like *Jalsaghar*, *Charulata*, and *Shatranj Ke Khilari*. Scholars like Chandak Sengoopta point out the anti-colonial Bengali liberalism woven into Ray’s work, while others, like Devapriya Sanyal, highlight the nuanced portrayal of gender dynamics and Bishnupriya Ghosh notes his focus on non-Western aspects of Indian culture. Ray’s methods avoided overt political messaging, instead subtly exploring ideological tensions within the intimate lives of his characters.

The misconception of Ray’s alignment with Nehruvian policies further fueled the narrative of apolitical filmmaking. While some see a reflection of Nehru’s vision in his early work, others, like Suman Ghosh, argue Ray ultimately stood “in defiance of the state.” His later works, such as *Sadgati* and *Ganashatru*, sharply criticized social injustice and caste oppression.

Chatterjee concludes that the myth of an “apolitical” Ray served to mask India’s social contradictions. The delayed and selective recognition wasn’t a simple matter of market forces versus artistic expression but rather a deliberate attempt to obscure uncomfortable truths addressed by the filmmaker’s work. This posthumous elevation, he argues, ultimately depoliticizes Ray’s legacy and the profound social critiques embedded within his films.

Read More