Wanted: Artocrats

O.P. Jain, director of the Sanskriti Trust, points to a basic problem: "There is a problem of cultural management in India. Where are the skilled cadres of people who will run these institutions? One should not condemn the bureaucracy. After all, for many years it was the dynamic combination of Ashok Vajpeyi and artist Swaminathan that made Bharat Bhawanwhat it was. And look at Sapru House. In its case, it's been the lack of control that has in fact led to its degeneration."

Some artists even argue that when the Government cedes all control, institutions become mobocracies, a prisoner to rival gangs of politically-artful artists, who simply use the centre to catapult their camp followers to fame. Eminent artist Anjolie Ela Menon speaks of the sorry state of the Lalit Kala Akademi: "The centre has been taken over by a small group of non-artists, who give themselves awards. Look at the purchases of the Art Purchase Committee of the Akademi—no one has heard of the artists whose works are bought. It's laughable." So the implicit assumption that artists are free from baser preoccupations is probably unfounded.

Besides, not all bureaucrats are philis-tines. Geeti Sen, art critic, says that although bureaucrats are not always the right people to take on the task of admin-istering creativity, there are a number of exceptions. "I think it is a good move to have Vajpeyi at the head of Bharat Bhawan. After all, he was a moving spirit behind it. But there are so many institutions that are headless today, precisely because IAS officers are not trained to head them. Not many artists have administrative skills. There should be a proper pro-gramme to train people on how to manage cultural centres."

Years ago the Haksar Committee recommendations laid down that there should be a greater degree of autonomy in the functioning of cultural institutions. "But," says P.N. Haksar, former adviser to Indira Gandhi, "where government patronage is unavoidable, there should be a degree of sensitiveness. Often when the Government starts meddling, there is politicisa-tion. But artists are not rich people and there is nothing wrong if they are supported by the Government, provided the support is sensitive and takes into account that culture is not politicised."

But don't totalitarian states, rather than democracies, traditionally sponsor cultural activities, establishing Nationally Acceptable Artists and Nationally Acclaimed Performers whose only claim to fame is that they follow the dictates of the government of the day rather than that of their own creative genuis? Anjali Sen, an officer of theAudits and Accounts Service who now heads the National Gallery of Modern Art, says that, on the contrary, the Government does not work alone but in partnership with artists". I believe that artists should run their own institutions. We are here only to help in the management."

So, India as a reincarnation of the Third Reich, where Wagnerian equivalents are commissioned to raise monuments to the political rulers, is not a reality. Internationally renowned artist Manu Parekh likens the role of the bureaucrat in a creative capacity to that of a housewife, somebody who looks after the day-to-day running of the centres. "I have known some bureaucrats to be very sensitive and to give a great deal of respect to creative people. But those who don't understand, try to dominate. It really depends on the person."

Indeed, Culture Secretary B.P. Singh, is surprised at the view that the Government controls, or tries to dominate, culture. Says he: "Indian cultural diver-sity exists all around us, behind us and in front of us. We can hardly control it. We are here to facilitate raising funds and to support the artist. There may be some governments who have sought to lead culture but we do not."

The Government has, in the past, taken a leading role in establishing new frontiers of culture. The "ethnic chic" movement, so fashionable today, in fact began with the setting up of government-sponsored state emporia. Early pioneers in popularising folk arts and crafts like Kamladevi Chattopadhaya and Rukmini Devi Arundale worked with the Govern-ment. "The process of history," says writer Shobhita Punja, "requires the Government to be a patron from time to time. The problem now is that the Government has become fuddy duddy, it is unable to keep up with the newer creative energies of India, six museums in Delhi do not have a head, we need policies and laws that will revitalise the Government and give new life to cultural institutions. Also, the Government must re-think its vision, it has become too conservative."

So, art must progress through a "dynamic tension" between the creator and the facilitator. As former chairman of the ICCR Nira-njan Desai says, since the Government provides the funds, the Government also has a right to some control. "Sometimes artists continually lobby against each other, there is far too great a tendency to blame everything on the bureaucrat. Everywhere in the world there are administrators to set up rules, balance the books and manage staff of artistic centres. After all, artists are not known for their administrative abilities."

Ram Niwas Mirdha, chairman of the Lalit Kala Akademi, agrees: "While there should be autonomy in the day-to-day functioning of these institutions, the Government is after all accountable for the money and must participate in administrative and financial matters. Certainly, the Government should not foist bureaucrats at the top of these centres, but Ashok Vajpeyi is a different type of bureaucrat."

?Just as there are different types of bureaucrats, there are different types of artists. The Bharat Bhawan controversy has illustrated that as far as culture is concerned, the battle is not a simple face-off between artist and bureaucrat but between those for whom culture is a means to a more uncultured end and those for whom it is an end in itself.