Author: A

  • Documentary films: local narratives /global issues

    Documentary films: local narratives /global issues

    Pioneering Scottish documentary filmmaker John Grierson’s principles of documentary were that cinema’s potential for observing life could be exploited in a new art form; that the original actor and original scene are better guides than their fiction counterparts for interpreting the modern world; and that materials “thus taken from the raw” can be more real than the acted article.[1] He states in Cinema Quarterly that the “documentary, or the creative treatment of actuality, is a new art with no such background in the story and the stage as the studio product so glibly possesses.” [2]

    Some other scholars of the documentary film address documentary practice in terms of formal codes, categories and conventions, and believe that they are used to create “non-fictional representations of the historical world.” [3]

    British documentary film-maker and film historian Paul Rotha believes that “the documentary left the confines of fiction for wider fields of actuality, where the spontaneity of natural behaviour has been recognized as a cinematic quality and sound is used creatively rather than reproductively. This attitude is, of course, the technical basis of the documentary film.” [4]

    Theoretically, the notion of documentary filmmaking has received a tremendous transformation with times. Earlier, documentaries were seen as nothing but short newsreels, records of current events, or travelogues; these were considered to be ‘actualities.’ Moving visuals of a train entering a station, and factory workers leaving a plant, are examples of  the Lumiere Brothers’ first attempts to shoot the actual event or activities.

    Two decades later, Robert Flaherty made the first narrative documentary with an ethnographic look, Nanook of the North (1922), which portrayed the harsh life of Canadian Inuit Eskimos living in the Arctic.  Later he made a landmark documentary film Moana(1926) about Samoan Pacific islanders. Grierson in his review of the latter film coined the term “documentary.”

    During World War II, documentary films were used as tools to propagate the ideology of the Nazis. One such propagandistic documentary was Triumph of the Will (1935), which records the 1934 Nazi Party Congress in Nuremberg. In response to this film, the US War Department commissioned the Italian-American film director, Frank Capra, to direct documentaries to justify the US involvement in World War II. His Why We Fight (1943) was a series of seven newsreel-style films. The first in the series was Prelude to War, a look at the events from 1931-1939.

    Bill Nichols calls the ‘subjects’ in documentary films “social actors.” In the observational, expository or interactive mode as well as in the conventions of documentary television formats that blend these three modes, social actors are mainly presented as objects of observation, subordinate to commentary as examples, informants or witnesses.

    “In the works of Rouch, Flaherty and contemporary directors such as Ulrich Seidl, Michael Winterbottom, Abbas Kiarostami, Nicholas Barker or Donigan Cumming, a different idea of being in a film has been employed. The unambiguous claim of an indexical link between image and reality, story and history, the character of the story and the subject of history, does not exist. These films do not submit to an either-or dichotomy. They are fictional as well as documentary, and the social actors are characters as well as agents of history.”[5]

    But a recent shift in cultural, technological, stylistic, and social aspect has been discerned in documentary filmmaking.

    Indian documentary filmmakers who are a part of this new transformations are keen to use the form as a tool to speak of the unheard stories of the margins, crisis of identity and the lives of the common people. They address issues such as politics, power, race, gender, and the voices of those at the margins otherwise left unanswered.

    Supporting Bill Nichols’ arguments that the subjects in documentary films are “social actors”, and also Paul Rotha’s statement that “the documentary left the confines of fiction for wider fields of actuality,” my own perception on the meaning of documentary filmmaking is that documentary films are not the photographic representation of reality but must go beyond the ‘reality’ to find out the ‘truth.’

    When I speak of ‘truth,’ I endorse Bertrand Russell’s argument for the correspondence theory of truth — “The truth or falsehood of a belief (proposition, statement) depends on its relationship to something that lies outside the belief (propositions, statements) itself.” I believe that while making a documentary the original actors and the original scenes are better guides to interpret the world and that they must therefore not be recreated to bring in a feel of authenticity. I believe that genuineness is lost by recreating.

    Of course, admittedly, at times some amount of recreating becomes necessary. At the time when Flaherty was making his documentary Moana, the Samoans wore modern, Western-style clothing, so he got them to change into traditional tapa cloth costumes to ensure that his documentary might look more authentic.

    The focus of my essay is on how Indian documentary filmmakers have taken diverged local subjects and how the former have gone beyond reality in quest of the untold stories of the human world and have addressed these local /marginal issues to represent their universal or global relevance.

    I take a look at five documentaries — Anand Patwardhan’s War and Peace (2002), Pankaj Butalia’s An Island of Hope (2010) and Assam: A Landscape of Neglect (2015) as well as two of my own, namely, The Dhemaji Tragedy (2015) and Laxmi Orang: Rising from the Grave — to show how they speak of local issues that carry global significance.

    Patwardhan has dealt with the political and social issues in his documentary War and Peace ,but he goes beyond reality to narrate a story of rural people who reside in remote village like Khetolai, the site of nuclear tests. “Villagers of Khetolai in Jaisalmer still believe that radiation of nuclear tests conducted there almost two decades ago still exists in the village and continues to affect them. They say that the cases of cancer, heart, and skin diseases are on the rise, and that milch cattle are unable to produce milk.” [6]

    Following the Pokhran-II tests, India became the sixth country to join the nuclear club.[7]Newspapers, television channels and citizens of India hailed the BJP led government for its brave decision. And the then Prime Minister made a speech for the public.

    Today, at 15:45 hours, India conducted three underground nuclear tests in the Pokhran range. The tests conducted today were with a fission device, a low yield device and a thermonuclear device. The measured yields are in line with expected values. Measurements have also confirmed that there was no release of radioactivity into the atmosphere. These were contained explosions like the experiment conducted in May 1974. I warmly congratulate the scientists and engineers who have carried out these successful tests. (Atal Bihari Vajpayee) [8]

    While the whole country was celebrating, villagers of Khetolai and Pokhran were fighting for their lives due to the dire impact of the Pokhran-II tests. Patwardhan zooms in, and shows the complications that the villagers encountered following these tests. He says in the booklet of the film “From the plight of the residents living near the nuclear test site to the unspeakable effects of uranium mining on local indigenous populations, it becomes clear that contrary to ‘myth’, there is no such thing as the ‘Peaceful Atom.’” This documentary also showcases how the USA with its doctrine of ‘Might is right’ has become the new role model.

    His interview of a resident of the village, Bhera Ram Bhismoi, reveals a harsh truth of the so-called ‘success story.’  The villager says that when the firing range was made in 1960s, they protested. When the then Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee visited the site, the local people of Khetolai held protest marches. “We want permanent hospitals in Khetolai” read one of their banners. They believed that money invested for the test could have been used for the development of the poor.

    People of the Pokhran town though have a different narrative. Tribhuvan Purohit, a resident, is proud of the nuclear tests in Pokhran. He believes that Pokhran town was endowed with a global status as a result of the nuclear tests. Another resident says that the claim of the villagers that they are affected by the nuclear test is in fact ‘a lie’. He also says that some died but not because of the nuclear tests.

    Patwardhan also refers the names of other such testing sites. At the Lop Nur site in Xinjiang, where almost 40 nuclear explosions had been carried out between 1964 and 1996, residents believe that they have been badly affected by radioactive fallout. His documentary is a scathing attack on those who claim to bring peace through war.

    Pankaj Butaliya has taken the identity crisis of the indigenous people and their constant struggle for their identity as the themes in his documentaries An Island of Hope and Assam: A Landscape of Neglect. He poses the question “Who is indigenous and who is the ‘outsider’ on this earth?”

    Dislocation of people is a universal phenomenon. In the opening of the documentary, Butaliya mentions that forty years after they were expelled from their land, a group of young ‘Chakmas’ started ‘Sneha’ School in Changland in an attempt to pick up the pieces of their lives once again.” This documentary raises numerous pertinent questions. History says that they were forced to migrate from Bangladesh to Arunachal Pradesh: “In 1964, communal violence and the construction of the Kaptai hydroelectric dam displaced nearly 1,00,000 Chakmas from their traditional homelands.” [9] The government offered them valid migration certificates, but still they constantly faced severe social discrimination.

    In 1994, an anti-Chakma wave popped up in Arunachal and resulted in them being harassed. In Diyun, a rural area, a secondary school constructed by the Chakma community that was built on a self-help basis was burnt down. The doors of the schools in Arunachal Pradesh was closed for the Chakma communities for four years to come. At such a critical juncture, the Sneha school was started by Sushant Chakma, whose parents too migrated from Bangladesh. [10]

    In the documentary, Butalia interviews Arindam Chakua, the Sneha School Headmaster. The latter feels that even after living as refugees for almost fifty years they have achieved nothing. But through the school they can see the hope coming alive once again.

    In Assam: A Landscape of Neglect, Butalia’s states that there are two dominant narratives that characterize Assam — one is a deep sense of resentment at being neglected, and the other is a fear of engulfment. Raising the question on the identity crisis, namely, ‘Who is indigenous and who is the outsider,’ he states that the British took large tracts of lands to establish tea- plantation and brought labourers from all over the country. These labourers have been working since the British rule, but today none knows who is the outsider, and it appears that all are outsiders.

    The filmmaker interviews Hridayananda Agarwala, one of the legends of Assamese culture, who actually belongs to a Marwary family and whose forefather migrated from Rajasthan two hundred years ago. Agarwala’s entire family has completely assimilated to the Assamese culture. Agarwala says, “People tend to ask where a person comes from rather than what he does. This is the habit of nature.”

    Butalia then refers to the immigrant Muslims of the Char Chapori residing  by the Brahmaputra River and its tributaries in Assam. These immigrants are fighting against numerous problems such as soil erosion, over flooding, illiteracy, and a high population growth. Historically speaking, a huge number of Muslim origin was brought in from East Pakistan as labourers and later, after the Independence of India, Hindu Bengali refugees from East Pakistan came into Assam and its neighboring states. Furthermore, during the Bangladesh Liberation War, thousands of refugees came to North-East India. All those who came in search of a living are termed as ‘outsiders.’

    The filmmaker visits a place called Tengagiri ‘Char’, which used to be a village till a few decades ago, when the Brahmaputra river caused its erosion and turned it into a ‘land of sand’ (char). Hamid says in the documentary, “In 1983, when the island crumbled, we moved out of here. But again this village was formed back in 1996 and that’s when we moved back here. We struggled to survive. Once the erosion happens, we have to leave. This shifting from one char to another has now become our cycle of life.”

    Butalia next refers to the Karbis, one of the major ethnic tribes living in the hill areas of Assam. The threat that the indigenous people of Assam are facing on the question of identity is summed up by Elwin Teron, a Karbi man.

    The Assamese indigenous community wanted to preserve their identity. The indigenous people of Assam thought that liberation is necessary and so supported the All Assam Students Union. But when the Assam Accord was signed, there was nothing in favour of the tribal people. People of hills and plains have conflicts of interest — socially, politically and economically. This is the reason why Assam has so many changes. There is something in the minds of the indigenous people that is the silent resentment. (Elwin Teron)

    In two of my own documentaries, The Dhemaji Tragedy and Laxmi Orang: Rising from the Grave, I have made an attempt to go beyond the ‘reality’ to understand the feelings and emotions of the victims of two different circumstances.

    In The Dhemaji Tragedy, I have depicted how the bomb blast in Dhemaji, a small district of Assam, left millions of people in India, particularly in Assam, shocked. On August 15, 2004, people of Dhemaji,  mostly school children aged between 12 and 14, and their mothers, gathered at Dhemaji College Ground for the Independence Day parade. At around 8:45 am, a powerful bomb that was planted near the college gate, and triggered by a remote-controlled device, went off, killing 10 school children and 3 elders, and injuring many.

    This tragedy was one of the darkest chapters in the history of Assam. As time passed by, this horrible, tragic incident became a story of the past.  The distressed parents of the victims, however, are not yet ready to forget the explosion and forgive those who were responsible for it. I wanted to go beyond the actuality to understand their responses to that tragedy through my documentary.

    In my second documentary, Laxmi Orang: Rising from the Grave, I have again foregrounded the unrealized aspect of the victim. On Nov 24, 2007, Laxmi Orang, an Adivasi girl of Japowari Orang Basti, Sonitpur district, Assam, joined in a protest rally organized by the All Adivasi Students’ Association of Assam to demand Schedule Tribe Status. She was stripped by some miscreants. Devastated, she ran naked, desperately seeking help in the midst of all the bedlam. This brutal, inhuman act came to be known as ‘the Beltola Incident.’ It is imprinted in the history of Assam as the darkest day.

    This documentary focusses on how she survived after such an incident. Since the moment of the incident, I had been following her to know how society and her family reacted to the incident. I found that she fought back with her strong willpower, determination and unyielding spirit to serve her community. She has resurrected herself as a strong voice emerging from the voiceless women. She has now become an influential  leader, a selfless social worker and a carrier of Adivasi culture and tradition.

    I believe that only documentary films, and not fiction films, can go beyond reality to find out what is the truth.  Shyam Benegal says that “the sense of reality comes only when you can actually smell the soil.” I too believe that the more local it is, the more universal it is. The local has to be the true, the real.

     


    References:

    [1] “COGN21 Theory Review”. pages.ucsd.edu

    [2] Grierson, J. (1933), ‘The Documentary Producer,’ Cinema Quarterly, 2:1, pp. 7–9.

    [3] Representing Reality: Issues and Concepts in Documentary, Bill Nichols, Indiana University Press, 1991.

    [4] Rotha, Paul. Documentary Film: The Use of the Film Medium to Interpret Creatively and in Social Terms the Life of the People as It Exists in Reality (London, 1935), p. 79.

    [5] “Reality Replayed”widerscreen.fi.

    [6] May 11, TNN /; 2017; Ist, 08:55. “Khetolai still bears the scars of nuke test | Jaipur News – Times of India”The Times of India.

    [7] “BBC News | India nuclear testing | Third World joins the nuclear club”news.bbc.co.uk

    [8] “Nuclear Testing – India, May 1998”seismo.berkeley.edu

    [9] “Students’ Movements in Arunachal Pradesh and the Chakma-Hajong Refugee Problem”Economic and Political Weekly: 7–8. 2015-06-05.

    [10] Ibid

  • Jyotiprasad Agarwala and his film Joymoti (1935): a moving tale of struggle and sacrifice

    Jyotiprasad Agarwala and his film Joymoti (1935): a moving tale of struggle and sacrifice

    With the coming of sound in India in 1931, the rise of the major studios like Prabhat Film Company, Bombay Talkies, New Theatres – had played a significant role in the development of Indian Cinema. While in the eastern corner of India, Jyotiprasad Agarwala, trained at ufa, Berlin, and who submitted a film script The Dance of Art at ufa in 1930, an English translation of his own Assamese play Xunit Konwari, had heard of Himansu Rai (1892-1940). Rai went to Munich, Germany in 1924 to convince Peter Ostermeyer’s Emelka Film Company to produce his ambitious project The Light of Asia. When Emelka agreed to produce, it became a history as The Light of Asia (1925) was the first Indo-German co-production film. Later, they produced Shiraz (1928) and A Throw of Dice (1928-29) with typical Indian themes and settings.

    UFA rejected Jyotiprasad’s script of  The Dance of Art showing the reason that his story dealt with stereotyped Indian scenes and characters, and it would be risky to deal with such a production. If the script would have been accepted by UFA, undoubtedly The Dance of Art would have created another history in Indian cinema like The Light of Asia.

     

    Back to Assam in 1930, he made a plan to make a film. Jyotiprasad wrote a letter to R.C.Rigordy, a photographer and cinematographer of Calcutta revealed that he wanted to make Joymoti as silent film with sound songs. He writes: ‘ I intend to make a silent film. But at the same time, I want to make a few songs in the picture ‘talking’. I think I can get done the talking part of the pictureby some other company. Excepting a few says, the picture will be exclusively silent…” i Then, Jyotiprasad made a contact with Sound Studio India Ltd, based in Bombay (now Mumbai). Responses from the different studios were almost same, and they refused to shoot the film in the interior places showing their technical difficulties. Even Jyotiprasad wanted to purchase the shooting equipment of his own and made a contact with Camera-Movie Company, Bombay. But that idea too did not materialize.

    But finally Jyotiprasad established an impoverished film-studio at Bholaguri, on the bank of the river Balijan, a remote place, almost 300 km away from Guwahati. Named as Chitraban, the studio was set up in the midst of the lush green view of Bholaguri Tea Estate, owned by his family. It was a concrete platform, large in size with open-air enclosure of bamboo mats and banana stumps. It was the first open air studio established in India. They named the production company as The Chitralekha Movietone. The studio, equipped with laboratory and sound recording facility, was inaugurated by Jyotiprasad’s father late Paramananda Agarwala in 1934.

    Jyotiprasad chose the drama Joymoti Konwori, by the eminent litterateur of Assam, Sahityarathi Lakshminath Bezbaroa for his film. His first Assamese film Joymoti, and also the first in North East, paved a way for the next generation filmmakers. Protagonist Joymoti’s silent but strong protest against the cruelty of the puppet king Lora Roja reflected how the apparently voiceless can have strong resistance. Moreover, the royal maid Seuti, veiled in man’s apparel, was riding on the horse and fighting with the enemy which suggests female power.

    The film Joymoti was premiered on 10 March 1935 in the Rounak Mahal, Calcutta. Lakshminath Bezbaroa inaugurated the film, and the guests like Pramathesh Barua, Prithiraj Kapoor, Kundan lal Saigal, Devika Kumar Basu, Dhiren Ganguli, Phani Majumdar were present.

    Jyotiprasad carefully chose non-professional actors for his film. Jyotiprasad wrote on 2nd Octobar 1934: ‘The picture as contemplated will be a new move in India. No professional actors and actress are recruited. All artists are scrupulously searched and discovered and only ‘types’ are selected following the Russian method.’

    The setting of the film had to be designed showing the 17th century Ahom royal palace. Jyotiprasad himself designed the Ahom royal palace with bamboo and banana stem. Japi, made of tightly woven bamboo or sometimes cane, is predominantly used in the film – in the walls of the royal court – symbolically representing Assamese people’s cultural heritage. Assamese traditional symbols like xorai and banbota made of bell metal and brass are also predominantly used.

    Jyotiprasad used Krishnasur (Krishna versus demon) dance in the opening scene of Joymoti. Jyotiprasad comments in an article titled Why the dance of Krishna-asur: ‘Krishna is the symbol of eternal beauty of human civilization. Demon is the ugly face of social evils. There is a continual clash between these two forces on the path of human progress. In the movie Joymoti – an unusual clash between culture and social evil is highlighted. On one hand, power hungry, war-monger, atrocious Laluk Barphukan who proceeded to celebrate political achievement with his evil designs and inundated the entire State with his lawlessness and injustice and, on the other hand, Joymati, the unique symbol of the State’s cultural power that stood up to counter this singlehandedly.’

    Thanu Ram Borah, who played the role of Asur in the Krishnasur dance, recollected: ‘Jyotiprasad told me to dance in a very limited place and asked me to move my eyes with open mouth coming in front of the camera.” In an extreme close up shot, the Asura is seen moving his eyes. Jyotiprasad himself said: “ I saw an actor moving his eyes in a German film for the first time and probably, I would see it in my film for the second time.”

    A typical Naga village with hills was constructed in Kharghuli of Guwahati, and one song with Dalimi was enacted there. After Kharghuli shooting, while returning to Bholaguri through the Brahmaputra river, Jyotiprasad was fascinated with the magical reflection of sunshine on the water and he instantly composed the song ‘Luitore Pani Jabi O boi/ Xandhiya Luitor Pani Xunuwali.’. Later, he incorporated it in Joymoti.

     

    The choice of the story as the theme of his first film Joymoti, in fact suggests itself that he treated cinema as a vehicle for portraying the socio-political and cultural upheaval of the country rather than merely using it as a form of entertainment.

    When Hindi and Bengali cinema were the crowd pullers in Assam, it was like going against the wave to make an Assamese film at a place where cinema had hardly been heard or discussed. Jyotiprasad adapted the story of Joymoti and moulded it to his own way. Characters like Gathi Hazarika were new additions to the existing story.

     

    The first open air studio The Chitralekha Movie tone was equipped with laboratory and sound recording facility, Interestingly, in the day time, tea was manufactured, while at night, rehearsal was done in the factory .

    Phani Sarma, who played the role of Gathi Hazarika in Joymoti was amazed to see the Chitraban, and thought “Is Chitraban a film studio or a film training institute?” Because Jyotiprasad engaged them in different activities of filmmaking like film developing, processing and printing, set designing so on and so forth. Actors helped one another in their make-up, set designing, and sometimes worked as a caretaker with the cameraman. Naren Bordoloi of Nagaon who played the role Lora Roja said in an interview that Jyotiprasad used to take a bamboo stick and if anyone made mistakes while enacting the roles, they were beaten with it. While Jyotiprasad was in UFA,Berlin, he learnt that an actor is not just an actor. He himself has to do his works.Training at UFA has taught Jyotiprasad this multifaceted aspect of filmmaking which he used it in his first Assamese film. Even Devika Rani who was trained at UFA, recollected how she learnt things differently.

    “Training at UFA was a thorough and strenuous business. I first entered as an ordinary worker and was an apprentice in the make-up, costume and sets departments. I worked under their most famous make-up man and there were no other apprentices under him. I used to get the make up ready for all the great stars, assist in the washing and cleaning of brushes, hold the tray on the sets, look after wigs and hair dressing, go to the laboratories for tests. During training, every three days I was asked to write a note on the different make-ups used by the stars, why the lighting had to be done in a particular way, why for a particular close-up the lips had to be softened, and check on the progress.

    Whatever department I worked in, my notes as a student had to be written, with progress jobs to do. For instance, it was not enough to know just how to make a set. I had to visit Universities to get the background and study the history and architecture of the period, and the manners, customs and ways of the locale of the picture. And yet, after two years of intensive general training and test, you were asked to forget it all, because you had become too mechanical ! You were asked to become yourself. ” ii

     

    Search for the Heroine

    Finally Aideu Handique as Joymoti was discovered by Jyotiprasad. Aideu Handique (1915-2002), was discovered in a remote village called Pani Dihingia Gaon, in the present Golaghat district by her relative Dimba Gohain. She was an illiterate village girl and was barely 15 years old when she acted in the first Assamese film Joymoti. Dimba Gohai planned to take her to Jyotiprasad. One day, he took her and her little brother to the river side Brahmaputra saying that he would show them a floating house on the river. It was, in fact a ship. Once they boarded on the ship, it took them to the other side of the river, and finally to Chitraban, the Bholaguri Tea Estate. “When I boarded the ship, it sailed down and after a day it anchored in a ‘foreign’ place,” said Aideu.iii Aideu knew nothing what was happening. Everything happened just in a wink !!! Jyotiprasad later sent for her father who was a school teacher. She agreed to act in the film, only when her father gave the consent. During the shooting days, she stayed with Jyotiprasad’s Khuri (Aunt). Aideu said that Jyoti Kakaideu (Brother) was like a father figure for her and taught her in details the inner meaning of a scene, how to walk, how to speak, how to look sad or happy. She said,

    “Jyoti Kakaideu told me that Lai-Lesai (names of the two sons) would be snatched from my bosom. He said to me to feel as if they were your own sons and advised to express my emotions that way.”iv

    She further said that ‘Jyoti Kakaideu did not use make-up on my face as my skin colour and face was very bright and red’.vi She fondly remembers an incident while enacting a scene in the film. She said that according to the script, Phani Sarma who played the role of Gathi Hazarika, was supposed to beat her to know the whereabouts of her husband Gadapani. She recollects: “Phani Sarma was supposed to beat me… and to tell you the truth, he drank a little bit of wine before enacting the scene! I was a healthy girl, and it was only later that I felt the wounds. I cried and fell down, and then I was hospitalized for a week. I was not given any rice but only milk.”v

     

    The legacy Jyotiprasad Agarwala has left in Assam has been carried forward by Padum Barua, Dr, Bhabendra Nath Saikia, Jahnu Barua, and many filmmakers, and more recently a group of promising filmmakers like Rima Das, Deep Choudhury, Reema Bora, Jaicheng Dohutia, Suraj Dowarah, Kangkan Deka, Khnajan Kishor Nath. Nava Kumar Nath.

    But Jyotiprasad Agarwala of Chitralekha Movietone like other Indian filmmakers -V. Shantaram P.C. Barua and Himanshu Rai pioneered the growth of Indian cinema, but still he remains ignored at the national narratives.

     

    [divider size=”1″ margin=”0″]

    End notes :

    1. i) R C Rigordy writes a letter to Jyotiprasad on 15th July, 1933
    2. ii) Malik Amita, Padma Shri Devika Rani , Filmfare 14th March 1952

    iii) Goswami Sabita, ‘The First Lady of Assamese Cinema’ , The Assam Tribune 2002 (December)

    1. iv) Nirod Choudhury Asamiya Bolechabir Itihash, (Guwahati,Bani Mandir 1985)   55
    2. v) ibid
    3. vi) Bobbeta Sharma,The Moving Image and Assamese Culture, Joymoti, Jyotiprasad Agarwala, and Assamese Cinema (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2014) 129