On achieving independence, the government planned
a number of public buildings to house the institutions of independent
India. In this context, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the Prime Minister,
suggested that public buildings, many of which were large imposing
structures, could be utilised to ‘encourage Indian artists
to function in some way’ and sculptors, painters, designers,
etc. could be asked to cooperate. Nehru opined that the art work
‘…should cost very little in comparison with the total
cost of the buildings. But it will encourage Indian artists and
would be greatly welcomed, I think, by the public’. The
Finance Secretary, Shri K.G. Ambegaokar, sent a copy of the note
to B. Rama Rau, the then Governor. This was the time when the
Reserve Bank was in the process of constructing/contemplating
new buildings at New Delhi, Madras and Nagpur. Accordingly, the
Bank set up a committee consisting of Shri J.D. Gondhalekar, Dean
of the J.J.School of Arts, Bombay, Shri G.M. Bhuta of M/s Master,
Sathe & Bhuta and Shri R.D.Pusalkar, Assistant Chief Accountant
of the bank to examine the proposal and to make recommendations
on the subject.
 |
 |
| Art, Central Banks, and Philistines 1 |
Art, Central Banks, and Philistines 2 |
Amongst other schemes, the Committee recommended
that sculptures could be erected on either side of the main entrance
of the RBI office at New Delhi, one depicting the idea of “prosperity
through industry” and the other “prosperity through
agriculture”. At the instance of J.R.D.Tata, the then Director
of the Central Board, the views of Carl Khandalawalla, an eminent
critic and connoisseur of art, were sought. It was he who suggested
that the Bank could consider having figures of “Yaksha”
and “Yakshini” on the two sides. On his advice, the
the invitation to tender for the adornment of the frontage of
the New Delhi Office was extended to the nine artists.
Out of the nine artists invited, five submitted
their proposals and amongst them only one submitted models and
sketches. The proposal of Shri Ram Kinkar Baij was accepted. The
art form of the male ‘Yaksha’ was drawn from the statue
of the ‘Parkham Yaksha’ in the Mathura museum and
the art form of the female Yakshini was derived from “Bisnagar
Yakshini” from the Calcutta Museum. Shri Khandalawalla felt
that these massive figures would go very well with the architectural
features of our New Delhi office.
While the themes of peasant-worker prosperity drew
upon Nehru's 'scientific temper', its manifestation in the form
of the Yaksha and Yakshani appealed to the sensibilities of those
steeped in tradition - according to Hindu mythology Yakshas belongs
to a class of demi-gods and they are represented as the servants
of ‘Kubera’ the God of Wealth. The duty of Yakshas
is to guard over Kuber’s gardens and treasures. The Yakshini
is a female yaksha. The Bank by virtue of its having the sole
right of note issue and being a banker to the Central and State
Government could, therefore, be compared with Kubera - the lord
of wealth and the statues of the Yaksha and Yakshini could assume
the duty of guarding the Bank’s treasure. In the modern
context, the figures could also be given the allegorical interpretations
of symbolising industry and agriculture, subject matters with
which the Bank as a Central Bank of the country was directly or
indirectly concerned.
The saga of the sculptures exercised the Bank officials
for quite a while as the artist, Ram Kinker, took his own time
in selecting the exact quality of stone that was needed which
entailed exploration of sites, stone quality, problems in its
quarrying and transportation to New Delhi. The work was subject
to very considerable delay and on many an occasion the Bank felt
that the while Shri Ramkinker may be possessed of excellent artistic
merit, he perhaps did not have the management skills to undertake
the enterprise. By the time the sculptures were ready chiseled
and polished around December 1966 (January, 1967), the original
estimates had to undergo a considerable revision.
That, however, was not the end of the story. When
the statues were finally installed, it was over ten years since
they had been commissioned; in the meanwhile, the times and circumstances,
and the outlook of the country and its leaders had changed. The
statues, when being installed at the Reserve Bank’s New
Delhi Office at Parliament Street, did seemed to offend the prudish
sensibilities of parts of the populace; the specific cause of
provocation was the statue of the Yakshini, depicted in her natural
beauty.
The issue of the statues was raised rather starkly
in the Rajya Sabha by Prof. Satyavrata Siddhantalankar:
‘Will the Minster of Works and Housing and
Supply be pleased to state:
An exigisis that the ‘naked woman’
was essentially an allegorical interpretation, representing agriculture
and wealth was perhaps convincing though not without further supplementary
questions regarding costs incurred and the details of the committee
who recommended the art.
While the cause of disquiet generally was the Yakshani,
the popular weekly tabloid, Blitz, certainly not prudish in its
outlook or ill informed of art, characteristically put an entirely
different angle to the statues and likened the Yaksha to resemble
Sadoba Patil, an industrialist. Against the title “Yaksha
Patil”, Blitz depicted a photograph of the statue and commented
“….But artist Ram Kinker’s conception of a modern
Yaksha, which now guards the Reserve Bank, has, coincidentally
enough, taken an amazing likeness to Sadoba Patil, one of the
most zealous ‘guardians’ of wealth and big business
in the country…”
In the wake of the Blitz article, it was felt that
the misunderstandings the statues gave rise to could perhaps be
addressed by issuing a suitable Press Comminique and issuing hand
outs on the art the Bank had commissioned; alternately it was
felt that issuing handouts and communiqués would once again
revive the controversies. The consensus finally veered in favour
of silence. The early nineteen fifties, when Pandit Nehru had
conceived the idea of encouraging art, were an era of optimism,
different from the lean period of the sixties when, art had, perhaps,
to be relegated to the background. Governor P.C. Bhattacharyya,
perhaps had his fingers on the pulse when he remarked “Let
sleeping dogs lie! Neither the decision to spend the money nor
the delay associated with the execution of the project can be
justified in the present day context. It would be equally futile
to explain through a press note the symbolic significance of the
figures put up. We can deal with any question that may be asked
in Parliament on and ad hoc basis”.