The production of children's films in India has traditionally been uncoordinated and occasional. Only a handful have attained iconic status, with most being made in Mumbai and adhering to the popular masala style. The debate around children's films concerns whether they should be didactic to prepare children for adulthood or purely escapist for profit. The Children's Film Society of India was formed in 1955 to produce educational films for children, but it faced criticism over the years for financial irregularities and the quality and distribution of its films. While its intentions are good, there is no consensus on what defines a children's film.

1. 186
11
A Brief History of Indian
Children’s Cinema
Noel Brown
In spite of fervent political support for the format, traditionally
the production of children’s films in India has been loose, uncoor-
dinated and occasional. For much of their history, they have been
regarded by critics and audiences as little more than curios, and
have had to contend with various obstacles, including the diffuse
nature of power, production and distribution among the Indian
film industries, language barriers, intractable suspicion on the parts
of financiers, and a deep cultural resistance to juvenility, which has
begun to loosen only recently. All of the major Indian cinemas (i.e.,
Hindi, Bengali, Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, Marathi and Malayalam)
have experimented with the genre. Inevitably, though, the majority
of children’s films have been made in Mumbai (Bombay), the coun-
try’s largest and most profitable centre of production (known as
‘Bollywood’). Barely more than a handful of indigenous children’s
films have attained iconic status: Goopy Gyne Bagha Byne (Satyajit
Ray, 1969), Haathi Mere Saathi (M. A. Thirumugham, 1971), Rani
Aur Lalpari (Ravikant Nagaich, 1975), Safed Haathi (Tapan Sinha,
1977), Masoom (Shekhar Kapur, 1983), Mr. India (Shekhar Kapur,
1987), Halo (Santosh Sivan, 1996), Makdee (Vishal Bhardwaj, 2002),
Hanuman (V. G. Samant and Milind Ukey, 2005) and Taare Zameen
Par (Aamir Khan, 2007). Only one of them – the Bengali-language
GoopyGyneBaghaByne – was not made in Hindi, and several were not
even designed as children’s movies, attaining this status retrospec-
tively. Many adhere to the world-famous masala (i.e., a rich combi-
nation of spices) style, characterised by song-and-dance, romance,
and strong ‘emotional’ emphases, underpinning their commer-
cial intent in a sector dominated – by force of numbers – by the
9781784530082_13_cha11.indd 186
9781784530082_13_cha11.indd 186 1/2/2015 12:40:13 PM
1/2/2015 12:40:13 PM

2. A Brief History of Indian Children’s Cinema 187
non-commercial, state-funded body, the Children’s Film Society,
India (CFSI).
The perpetual debate in India is whether ‘children’s films’ should
be essentially didactic, serving morally and psychologically to
prepare ‘the child’ for the demands of adulthood, or purely escapist,
andmadeonlyforprofit.TheChildren’sFilmSocietyisthevanguard
of the first position, and from its inception in the mid-1950s until
the 1970s was unrivalled in the children’s film arena. Although
many films still evidence a valorisation of traditional, patriarchal
conceptions of family and social unity, since the turn of the century
a contrary tendency towards an identifiably Western-influenced,
‘family’ entertainment aesthetic, founded on spectacle and overtly
aimed at youth audiences, has emerged. This chapter presents a
broad overview of Indian children’s cinema, exploring the creative
tensions wrought by the confluence of political pressures for whole-
some films which uphold and reflect the richness of Indian cinema
and society, and commercial pressures to reach the broadest, cross-
demographic audience base.
Indian Cinema as ‘Family’ Entertainment
It is necessary to draw firm lines of distinction between ‘children’s
films’ and ‘family films’. Cinema is, and has been since colonial times,
widely regarded as one of India’s primary ‘family’ entertainments. As
Margaret Khalakdina observed, ‘most films are for adult audiences, but
they are so heavily censored that the babe in arms can view it with
little fear of distortion to his personality’.1
In the United States, the
distinction between ‘family’ and ‘children’s films’ became progres-
sively weaker after the 1950s; but in India, cultural barriers between
childhood and adulthood – strongly supported by religious scripture
and mythology – have been more enduring. Nandita Das, then chair-
person of the Children’s Film Society, recently insisted on the need
for continued distinction between entertainment for children and
adults, remarking: ‘how can the same story and sensibility be for a six-
year-old and a 60-year-old? I do think there is a need to make films
[e]specially for children, to cater to their needs and aspirations.’2
Indian cinema’s status as ‘family’ entertainment was crystallised
in the years after independence. During the colonial era, film-going
had been viewed with suspicion by the religious orthodoxy. Mahatma
Gandhi was famously antipathetic towards the medium, describing it
9781784530082_13_cha11.indd 187
9781784530082_13_cha11.indd 187 1/2/2015 12:40:13 PM
1/2/2015 12:40:13 PM

3. 188 Family Films in Global Cinema
as a ‘sinful technology’ and contending that ‘the evil it has done and is
doing is patent’.3
In 1939, future Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru
spoke of his dissatisfaction at the moral standard of popular Indian
cinema, and of the need for ‘high class films which have educational
and social values’.4
Such films, he ventured (anticipating the interven-
tionist mentality of his own post-independence government) ought
to ‘receive the help and cooperation of not only the public, but the
state’.5
Similar sentiments continue to be espoused by leading politi-
cians. In March 2012, Chief Minister Kiran Kumar Reddy advised the
industry: ‘Be very careful about the films you make, as they influence
the society. Make films that promote family values.’6
The dominance
of the ‘family entertainment’ paradigm partially reflects a pseudo-
imperial attitude on the parts of successive governments that Indians
must be protected from themselves. In 1984, Hrishikesh Mukherjee,
recently retired chairman of the government-appointed film censor-
ship board, argued that ‘[Indian] audiences are still very immature. So
we have to take into consideration their receptivity.’7
As Manjunath
Pendakur has observed, these attitudes – indicative of the ‘imperial
influence on elite minds’ – construe Indian audiences, symbolically,
as children requiring guidance and protection.8
Films in India can be exhibited only after certification from a
government-appointed review body. The Central Board of Film
Censors (CBFC) was formed in 1952, in accordance with the recom-
mendations of the Cinematograph Act of the same year. Initially,
there were only two ratings: U (unrestricted exhibition) and A
(restricted to adults). In a 1983 shake-up (when it was diplomatically
renamed The Central Board of Film Certification), two additional
categories were added: UA (unrestricted public exhibition – with a
caution that parental discretion is required for children below the age
of 12) and S (restricted to any special class of person). There is also the
option not to grant a certificate at all. In recent years, the status of
Indian cinema as an arbiter of all-age ‘family’ entertainment has been
subject to debate. In 2011, veteran actor Dharmendra insisted that:
In our time, we used to make a conscious effort to see that a film
doesn’t have any obscene content because we used to make clean
films for everyone. A film used to mean a family outing. We always
tried to bring the whole family together, so that all could enjoy –
from kids to the old […] But now things have changed. At times,
it becomes difficult to sit with your mother and sister and watch
the same content.9
9781784530082_13_cha11.indd 188
9781784530082_13_cha11.indd 188 1/2/2015 12:40:13 PM
1/2/2015 12:40:13 PM

4. A Brief History of Indian Children’s Cinema 189
Perhaps unsurprisingly, studio executives disagree. UTV Motion
Pictures executive Gaurav Verma recently asserted that ‘Hindi films
have universal appeal and they are barely targeted towards a specific
segment of audience. So it is a myth that films for children are not
being made in India’.10
Such observations should, of course, be viewed with scepticism.
An examination of CBFC ratings between 2009 and 2011 indicates
that U-rated films still constitute approximately half of all domes-
tic releases, UA films roughly one-third, and the remainder A.
However, U-rated films have declined year-on-year, from 49.61 per
cent in 2009 to 46.77 per cent in 2011, with ‘adult’ films now forming
approximately 20 per cent of productions. Foreign films (constitut-
ing between 15 and 20 per cent of films showing in Indian theatres)
are more likely to be adult-orientated, with 35–50 per cent falling into
the A rating, 30–45 per cent UA, and 15–20 per cent U. What these
figures indicate is that i) Indian cinema is no longer, generically, a
‘family entertainment’; ii) films unsuitable for children are still in the
minority, but their proportion is increasing; and iii) imported films –
the majority of which are North American in origin – are far less
liable to be ‘family-friendly’ than indigenous productions.11
The initial push for a children’s film movement in India came
shortly after independence. In 1951, the government-appointed Film
Enquiry Committee recommended state sponsorship of children’s
films, reflecting the perceived importance not only of entertaining,
but of educating, the nation’s children. Nehru was a firm supporter:
There is one thing, I feel, India has been lacking in, and that is
children’s films. Films which are really children’s films are of high
importance. There is a tendency in our books written for children
for the author to consider himself [sic] wise and give lectures to
children on how they should behave and what virtues they should
develop. My own reaction as a child to such lectures, as far as I can
remember, was to hit the person lecturing. That is not the way to
approach children. By lecturing, you inevitably drive children to
evil ways. Don’t sermonise too much. There are subtler ways of
pointing a moral or drawing a lesson. Good children’s films can
be a very powerful instrument in developing the child, and I hope
that the Indian film industry will think of this.12
ThroughNehru’sintervention,in1955theChildren’sFilmSocietywas
formed as a state-funded but artistically-autonomous body charged
9781784530082_13_cha11.indd 189
9781784530082_13_cha11.indd 189 1/2/2015 12:40:13 PM
1/2/2015 12:40:13 PM

5. 190 Family Films in Global Cinema
with producing, exhibiting and distributing films for children. As of
late-2013, the Society has produced in excess of 250 feature films,
shorts and documentaries in multiple languages.
The Children’s Film Society struck gold immediately when its
production Jaldeep (Kedar Sharma, 1956) was awarded the Best
Children’s Film prize at the 1957 Venice International Film Festival.
However, during the 1960s and 1970s the Society found itself under
near-constant assault for the perceived inadequacy of its films and
its ineffective distribution network. Moreover, there were damn-
ing accusations of inefficiency, fraud and corruption, culminating
in the disastrous Estimates Committee report of 1973–74, which
made public several Public Accounts Committee Reports pertaining
to the Society dating from the mid-to-late 1960s. In its 42nd
report,
covering 1965–66, the Accounts Committee lamented that:
Even though the Children’s Film Society has been in existence
for over a decade and that the Government has spent approxi-
mately Rs. 65 lakhs on this Society during the above period, the
results achieved are far from satisfactory. The whole project of
the Society appears, to the Committee, to be badly planned and
inefficiently executed.13
Furthermore, an enquiry appointed to investigate financial
irregularities in its accounts found strong evidence of ‘large-scale
attempt[s] to defraud the Society’.14
In its 62nd
report, covering
1966–67, the Accounts Committee questioned why no action
had been taken by the ministry over its allegations of financial
malpractice, and why a publicly-funded body appeared to be beyond
government control. And in its 78th
report, covering the 1968–69
period, the Committee regretfully noted that civil proceedings
could not be initiated to recover Rs. 92,744 missing through
‘irregular excess expenditure, shortages [and] outstanding dues’
because too much time had elapsed since the alleged malpractice.
It concluded: ‘The Committee deplore that the society, which was
set up with the objective of production of films for children who are
the future hope of the country, was allowed to fall into the hands of
such unscrupulous people.’15
Matters did not improve. The 1979 report by the Working
Group on National Film Policy recommended that the Children’s
Film Society be dissolved, and its responsibilities transferred to
a prospective central organisation primed with ‘promoting the
9781784530082_13_cha11.indd 190
9781784530082_13_cha11.indd 190 1/2/2015 12:40:14 PM
1/2/2015 12:40:14 PM

6. A Brief History of Indian Children’s Cinema 191
production, distribution and exhibition of children’s films’, while
simultaneously undertaking
research into the requirements of films for Indian children and
help[ing] to expand the scope of this genre. It should import films
for children, export and exchange children’s films with other coun-
tries, and undertake sub-titling of children’s film in regional lan-
guages including foreign films in Indian languages.16
Again, these recommendations were not carried out. The Society
came under further fire in 1981 from educationalist Vijaya Mulay,
who alleged that a mere 0.6 per cent of the country’s 246 million
children and adolescents could be reached by its present distribu-
tion strategies – and even this circulation was largely confined to
the urban centres.17
She also refuted claims by the Society that lack
of funds was a major inhibiting factor, contending that almost one-
third of its government-awarded grant in 1978–79 remained unused.
But Mulay reserved her strongest criticism for the quality of its
films, which she described as ‘overtly message-oriented, preachy, and
directed towards the middle class audience’.18
A difficulty which still exists to this day is the absence of con-
sensus on what a ‘children’s film’ is, or should be. Kamini Kaushal,
an actress and former chairperson of the Children’s Film Society,
asserted that:
A good children’s film should have an easy narrative style, a fair
proportion of close-ups, a somewhat slow pace, preferably no flash-
backs, an element of anticipation, abundant action and excitement,
fewdialogues,agooddealofhumourandstraightforwardandbright
photography, preferably in colour [...] A good film maker should
bring himself to the child’s level and probe into his private world.
The film-maker will then be able to channelise [sic] the child’s
thinking in a manner that will arouse his curiosity and consequently
inspire him to educate himself further. He will offer the child what
he wants and not what the film-maker thinks he should be given.19
As Mulay wryly notes, such expectations ‘call for the prowess of a
Superman, who will not only be a good director knowing his film
medium well, but [also] be a trained psychological sociologist and
competent educationist, all rolled into one.’20
Questioning Kaushal’s
understanding of child developmental psychology, she insisted that
9781784530082_13_cha11.indd 191
9781784530082_13_cha11.indd 191 1/2/2015 12:40:14 PM
1/2/2015 12:40:14 PM

7. 192 Family Films in Global Cinema
‘One could have dismissed such ill-informed opinions, had not the
persons quoted been holding key positions in the only organisa-
tion in the country today which makes films for children’.21
Despite
these valid criticisms, however, most of the Society’s films are well-
intentioned, and some of its more recent productions are excellent.
Moreover, armed with a barrage of righteous rhetoric, it has proven
successful in mobilising support. Government backing – though still
relatively meagre – has increased in recent years, with a substantial
raise in overall funding in 2011 from Rs. 40 to Rs. 70 million (US $1.25
million), and a doubling in the amount of ‘qualitative’ children’s films
receiving a Rs. 25 lakh (US $45,000) subsidy (from two to four) com-
ing into operation in early 2012.22
Something approaching a commercial children’s film movement
in Hindi cinema finally emerged in the 1970s. Whereas Children’s
Film Society releases are typically shorter than the average
‘Bollywood’ movie, and mostly lack songs, the likes of Haathi Mere
Saathi, Rani Aur Lalpari and Safed Haathi – although they were not
quite ‘masala’ films – were clearly intended for mass audiences and
were highly popular. In their extended length, privileging of diegetic
song-and-dance numbers, and strong ‘emotional’ overtones (notably
frequent oscillations between sentiment, comedy and tragedy), these
films abided by the formal conventions of Bollywood cinema. They
also benefited from stronger distribution than their Children’s Film
Society counterparts, but, most importantly, their emphasis is on
evokingpleasure,ratherthaninstillingmoralfibre.However,thesame
inhibiting factors remained: diffuse and decentralised production
systems, intransigent suspicion from producers and financiers, and
a pervasive socio-cultural aversion to juvenility. To this day, Satyajit
Ray’s wonderfully inventive Goopy and Bagha trilogy (1969–90) is
barely known outside of Bengal. Perhaps it is a greater surprise that
children’s films were made in 1970s and 1980s India at all, dependent
as they were on free-thinking, audacious investors, and politically-
motivated directors. With the post-liberalisation easing of trade
restrictions in the early 1990s and greater proliferation of Hollywood
‘family’ films, this has changed, somewhat. In 2008, filmmaker (and
former head of the CFSI) Sai Paranjpye observed that ‘[children’s]
films are [now] not being made for altruistic reasons. It’s all for per-
sonal benefit.’23
But despite a greater plurality in output, with mar-
ginally increased production of films in Telugu and Marathi, as well
as Tamil, Malayalam and Kannada, the majority of Indian children’s
films continue to originate within Bollywood.
9781784530082_13_cha11.indd 192
9781784530082_13_cha11.indd 192 1/2/2015 12:40:14 PM
1/2/2015 12:40:14 PM

8. A Brief History of Indian Children’s Cinema 193
Dominant Genres
Although it is hardly practicable to talk about Western conceptions
of ‘genre’ in relation to Indian cinema – with most films transcending
suchspecificationsintheirdiverseformalinfluences–children’sfilms
commonly fall into one of several structuring master-genres: i) the
child film; ii) the family drama; iii) the sports film; iv) the animated
feature; v) the fantasy; and vi) the blockbuster. The most effective
means of examining both the specificities of these films, and devel-
opments in Indian children’s cinema as a whole, is by dealing with
them in such terms.
i) The Child Film. Perhaps the most prominent genre in Indian
children’s cinema since the 1950s is what I will call the ‘child film’.
Typically, child films are small-scale productions centring on young
(pre-adolescent) children and their interactions with the adult
world. Most lack big stars, and are made with limited budgets and
resources. Many are funded through the CFSI, and as such, are built
around a core, didactic theme, designed to stimulate the ethical
awareness of their avowedly juvenile (and occasionally adult) audi-
ences. There is usually a point of narrative reversal, in which the
child protagonist undergoes a moral or spiritual epiphany through
which they renounce their selfish and amoral juvenile identity, and
thus symbolically communicate their readiness to enter the adult
world (e.g., Parichay, Gulzar, 1972; Halo). A common theme is that
of disconnection between childhood and adulthood. The child is
seen struggling to come to terms with uncomprehending, distant or
seemingly callous adult authority figures; sometimes parents or other
family members (e.g., Kitaab, Gulzar, 1977; Taare Zameen Par; Malli,
Santosh Sivan, 1998; Keshu, Sivan, 2009).
There is a general feeling in India that a film about children
axiomatically is a children’s film. However, as we suggested in the
Introduction, many child films are made largely for adults. In the
Hindi production Taare Zameen Par and the Malayalam produc-
tion Keshu – two recent, award-winning child films – the central
child figure is disabled in some way (in the former, he is dyslexic; in
the latter, he is profoundly deaf and mute) and are misunderstood
by their families, who view them as lazy and unintelligent. In both
productions, it is incumbent upon enlightened outsiders to expose
these misconceptions and imbue the child with sufficient confidence
to allow their talents to shine through – both prove to be naturally
superb artists. In the process, their families successfully overcome
9781784530082_13_cha11.indd 193
9781784530082_13_cha11.indd 193 1/2/2015 12:40:14 PM
1/2/2015 12:40:14 PM

9. 194 Family Films in Global Cinema
their prejudices, and the value of the children – intrinsically and to
the community – is reaffirmed. Although widely received as chil-
dren’s films (Keshu was funded and distributed by the Children’s Film
Society), both productions clearly criticise the ignorance of adults
(who may, as spectators, recognise such prejudices within them-
selves). Bollywood superstar Aamir Khan – who produced, directed
and starred in Taare Zameen Par – openly stated that the film was
intended for parents, not children.24
ii) The Family Drama. Alongside the child film, the damily drama –
at its height in the 1970s and 1980s – has been a staple since the early
days of the Children’s Film Society. Productions such as Parichay
and Masoom are ideologically as well as narratively predicated on
the reaffirmation, or reinvigoration, of the family as an institutional
system. This is hardly surprising, given that ‘family’ in Hindu culture
has traditionally constituted not merely a socialising apparatus but
a system of kinship, duty and filial obligation among an extended
network; the so-called ‘joint’ family. In Parichay, what is at stake is
not just the harmonious day-to-day running of the central family,
but its long-term survival. The film opens with a hapless private
tutor being driven from the house of Rai Saheb (Pran) by the end-
lessly disruptive, mischievous antics of his five tutees, Rai Saheb’s
grandchildren, still emotionally devastated by the death of their
Figure 11-1 The modern, urban Indian nuclear-style family unit in Masoom
9781784530082_13_cha11.indd 194
9781784530082_13_cha11.indd 194 1/2/2015 12:40:14 PM
1/2/2015 12:40:14 PM

10. A Brief History of Indian Children’s Cinema 195
father. With the children unable to connect with their grandfather,
and mistreated by their tyrannical aunt (Veena), the family’s survival
rests on the intervention of a sympathetic tutor, Ravi (Jeetendra).
Not only does Ravi succeed in reforming the children’s behaviour,
and reignite Rai Saheb’s long-repressed sense of emotional respon-
sibility towards his surrogate children, but his romance with, and
eventual engagement to, the eldest child, Rama (Jaya Bhaduri),
restores the family to its dual role as support system and provider
of children.
InGulzar’slaterfilm,Kitaab,althoughthefocusismoreonacentral
child figure, again family problems resonate throughout the narrative,
driving young Babla (Master Raju) to run away from home. Sent by
his doting mother (Dina Pathak) to live in the city, Babla finds him-
self neglected by his narcissistic, possibly philandering sister (Vidya
Sinha), and spends much of his time playing truant. Ultimately, Babla
secretly embarks on a long, perilous journey to his mother’s village.
The basic plot, and its grittiness, is reminiscent of Truffaut’s Les
Quatre Cent Coups (1959). Yet whilst that film ends on a note of unset-
tling ambiguity, with the child protagonist still estranged from his
family, in Kitaab a terrified, penitent Babla is forced to reconcile with
his family and apologise for his errant behaviour.
Gulzar also contributed the screenplay to one of the most
highly-regarded Indian family-orientated films, Masoom. In many
ways, Masoom is a meditation on adaptations to ‘traditional’ Indian
social structures and values; the central family unit is structurally
‘nuclear’, rather than ‘joint’. Furthermore, the film deals with the
familial affects of such profane issues as marital infidelity. It begins
with the revelation that patriarch DK (Naseeruddin Shah) – the
head of a happy, affluent family in New Delhi – has an illegitimate
son from a brief extra-marital affair conducted several years earlier.
The mother of the child – Rahul (Jugal Hansraj) – has died and, in
spite of its devastating impact on his wife, Indu (Shabana Azmi),
DK is forced to bring Rahul into the family home. Although Rahul
builds a strong relationship with his half-sisters and, progressively,
with DK, Indu’s revulsion to Rahul (and what he represents) leads
DK to determine to send the boy to a boarding school, in order to
keep the family together.
The film ends on a harmonious, triumphant note, as Indu’s guilt at
transferring her resentment towards DK on to the child moves her
to welcome Rahul into the household. The wife and mother’s deci-
sion to forgive her husband’s adultery, and accept his illegitimate son,
9781784530082_13_cha11.indd 195
9781784530082_13_cha11.indd 195 1/2/2015 12:40:15 PM
1/2/2015 12:40:15 PM

11. 196 Family Films in Global Cinema
reflects the enduring power of social conventions in Hindu culture
positioning the matriarch both as subservient to her husband and as
the compassionately resolute force which holds the family together.
Conversely, DK’s white-collar identity and the family’s clearly afflu-
ent status in modern, urban Delhi bespeak the power and rapidity
of social change. Although the Family Drama has remained a sta-
ple of non-Hindi cinema, in Bollywood it mutated into the slicker,
less realistic but enormously-popular ‘family entertainer’ during the
mid 1990s. While director Kapur has insisted that he did not make
Masoom for children, young star Hansraj believes that it ‘reflected a
child’s emotions’ in a way that most ‘family entertainers’ – such as
Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge (Aditya Chopra, 1995) and Kabhi Khushi
Kabhie Gham... (Karan Joshar, 2001) – do not.25
iii) The Sports Film. The sports film is rather less complicated in its
modes of audience address, reflecting as it does the real-life associa-
tions of mainstream sport – especially cricket – as recreational pur-
suits in which ‘the whole family’ can participate. The sports film has
been almost exclusively a province of Hindi-language cinema, with
the glossy, broad-appeal aspects of Bollywood film mirroring the
similarly universalistic aspects of team sports. The genre was kick-
startedbythecolossalglobalsuccessofLagaan(AshutoshGowariker,
2001), where an extended cricket match (authentically performed by
the cast) operates metaphorically for the social and cultural tensions
between the opposing sides, one comprising British army colonials,
the other a diverse collection of impoverished, but ultimately trium-
phant, Indian villagers. Gowariker, its director, insists that Lagaan is
a children’s movie, arguing that any film that has received a ‘U’ certif-
icate and can be ‘understood and enjoyed by kids’ should be regarded
as such.26
Several other family-orientated sports films have followed,
including Iqbal (Nagesh Kukooner, 2006), Say Salaam India (Subhash
Kapoor, 2007), Chain Kulii Ki Main Kulii (Kittu Saluja, 2007), and
the smash hit Chak De! India (Shimit Amin, 2007).
iv) The Animated Feature. The first major Indian animated feature
didnotemergeuntil2005,withthereleaseofHanuman(V.G.Samant
and Milind Ukey). A mythological narrative – Hanuman is one of the
Hindu gods from the ancient Sanskrit epic, the Ramayana – it artic-
ulated a newly-universalistic, expansionist ethos in Indian ‘family’-
orientated filmmaking. Producer Atul Rao suggested that:
Hanuman is the original superman. He is different from heroes
like Spiderman, Batman and Superman of the West. Hanuman
9781784530082_13_cha11.indd 196
9781784530082_13_cha11.indd 196 1/2/2015 12:40:15 PM
1/2/2015 12:40:15 PM

12. A Brief History of Indian Children’s Cinema 197
has many virtues which would make him a role model [...] We
should present Hanuman in a way that he is accepted by the rest
of the world. In the US, Superman is god. Hanuman surely should
have a much wider appeal.27
Although the standard of animation was a notch below that of
mainstream Hollywood, Hanuman was one of India’s biggest child-
orientated hits for many years, grossing in excess of Rs. 30 million.
Predictably, a cycle of Hindi-language mythologically-themed
animations followed, including Krishna (Aman Khan, 2006), My
Friend Ganesha (Rajiv S. Rula, 2007), Bal Ganesh (Pankaj Sharma,
2007), Hanuman Returns (Arurag Kashyap, 2007), Dashavatar (Bhavik
Thakore, 2008), Ghatothkach (Singeetam Srinivasa Rao, 2009),
Roadside Romeo (Jugal Hansraj, 2008), Ramayana: The Epic (Chetan
Desai, 2010) and Arjun: The W
arrior Prince (Arnab Chaudhuri, 2012).
Such mythological films endorse Hindu religious tradition, but there
are clear parallels with Hollywood. Navin Shah, chief executive of the
Percept Picture Company, admitted: ‘We never took Hanuman as a
mythological character; for us he was the original superhero, so it was
more of a superhero film’.28
Hanuman’s box office success was ultimately misleading. In 2009,
with substantial losses on Hanuman Returns, Krishna, Roadside Romeo,
Dashavatar, Ghatotkach and My Friend Ganesha, The Times of India esti-
mated that the Indian animation industry stood to lose in the region
of Rs. 70 crore (c. US $130 million).29
Because of the scale of these
collective losses, many films hastily assembled in the post-Hanuman
production frenzy were unable to find distributors. Shailendra Singh,
Percept’s joint managing director, observed that: ‘The average Indian
audience hasn’t completely warmed up to animation. A lot of people
probablystillbelieveanimationisforchildren.’30
Nevertheless,Disney
has moved purposely into the Indian market in recent years. Its
co-production with UTV, Arjun: The W
arrior Prince, is the country’s
costliest animated feature to date, combining the mythological focus
of earlier films with greater emphasis on sensorial appeal. Its star,
actor Jaaved Jafferi, insisted that: ‘This mentality that Indians have
that animated films are only for kids is very wrong. Animated films
are high-grossing films at the box-office.’31
Actress Mandira Bedi
affirmed: ‘I am happy a film has been made on such a big superhero.
Today, our kids are growing up on Western concepts and Western
culture. But here an animated film has been made which will promote
Indian culture.’32
However, it, too, bombed.
9781784530082_13_cha11.indd 197
9781784530082_13_cha11.indd 197 1/2/2015 12:40:15 PM
1/2/2015 12:40:15 PM

13. 198 Family Films in Global Cinema
v) Fantasy. Until recently, fantasy occupied a marginal position
in Bollywood. Partly, this reflects budgetary considerations: fan-
tasy worlds tend to be expensive to realise. But it also underpins
India’s traditional emphasis on family and kinship, and concomi-
tant rejection of puerility, in opposition to more properly ‘adult’
values associated with maturation. Yet the attraction of fantasy as
a narrative framework and a vehicle for spectacle remains appar-
ent. Often, the result has been a compromise; a sub-genre compris-
ing ‘mock’, or ambiguous, fantasies. For example, in Makdee, what
appears throughout to be a supernatural narrative – a reclusive
witch transforms a young girl’s sister into a chicken, forcing her
servitude until the ‘curse’ is lifted – is ultimately explained ration-
ally (the ‘witch’ is merely a petty criminal who is keeping the sis-
ter hostage). In the superhero movie Mr. India, the protagonist
inherits his powers of invisibility via a light-refractive suit invented
by his father. And even the climax to Rani Aur Lalpari, in which
a young girl ventures into heaven to convince the Lord of Death
to restore her dying mother, refuses disambiguation as to whether
the child was simply dreaming. In recent years, however, the mar-
ket for fantasy films has opened up considerably. The trend can be
traced back to the mid-1990s, when Spielberg’s Jurassic Park (1993)
broke box office records for a foreign film, grossing over Rs. 50 mil-
lion. As Pendakur observes, ‘In the liberalising Indian economy of
the 1990s, Hollywood film distributors [...] discovered a huge pent
up demand for movies with glitzy special effects’.33
Since the mil-
lennium, there has been a perceptible shift in emphasis in Indian
fantasies, where fantastic elements have no longer been presented
ambiguously or apologetically.
Figure 11-2 Jadu, the benign, very Hollywood-esque Extra-Terrestrial of
Koi...Mil Gaya
9781784530082_13_cha11.indd 198
9781784530082_13_cha11.indd 198 1/2/2015 12:40:15 PM
1/2/2015 12:40:15 PM

14. A Brief History of Indian Children’s Cinema 199
vi) The Blockbuster. In the big-budget smash hit Koi...Mil Gaya
(Rakesh Roshan, 2003), we see the fullest appropriation of Western
fantasytropes.Thefilmcentresondim-wittedyoungRohit(Hrithik
Roshan), who incurred brain damage when his discredited scientist
father – ridiculed when he presented evidence of UFOs to his col-
leagues – lost control of his car, killing him and injuring his preg-
nant wife. Rohit, who is bullied by his much-younger schoolmates
because of his disability, discovers an alien – which he names Jadu –
in his back yard and keeps its existence hidden. Jadu is rescued at
the film’s close by his returning mother-ship, but not before he
imbues Rohit with super-human intelligence. With a storyline that
borrows explicitly from the Spielberg films Close Encounters of the
Third Kind (1977) and E.T. (1982) – while retaining central Bollywood
characteristics of melodrama, song-and-dance and strongly emo-
tive content – Roshan created a new type of fantasy film, a hybrid
of Hollywood-style visual appeal and ‘Indian’ narrative/thematic
structure. A similar hybridisation can be seen in subsequent block-
buster fantasy films, including Krrish (Rakesh Roshan, 2006), the
vastly-successful sequel to Koi...Mil Gaya; the box office flop Aladin
(Sujoy Ghosh, 2009); and the Disney-distributed films Anaganaga O
Dheerudu (Prakash Kovelamudi, 2011), Zokkoman (Satyajit Bhatkal,
2011) and Arjun: The Warrior Prince.
Current Trends
As in North America during the 1950s and 1960s, the emergence
of the teenager as a dominant socio-economic entity in India has
paved the way for dramatic stylistic and commercial changes in
the ‘children’s film’. As Elizabeth Williams Ørberg has observed,
many recent Bollywood films – traditionally a vanguard for social
conservatism, despite their glamour – have ‘begun to address new
lifestyles and family mores such as premarital sex, unwed mother-
hood, alternative sexualities, live-in relationships, bachelorhood,
“singledom”, infidelity and divorce.’34
Furthermore, urban middle-
class youth (known as ‘post-liberators’) are forced to grapple with
conflicting attitudes to such concerns as social, civic and familial
duty, courtship, marriage (arranged or otherwise, and the tradition
of endogamy) and national honour, all of which relate directly or
indirectly to themes explored, affirmed or subverted by ‘family’ and
children’s films.
9781784530082_13_cha11.indd 199
9781784530082_13_cha11.indd 199 1/2/2015 12:40:16 PM
1/2/2015 12:40:16 PM

15. 200 Family Films in Global Cinema
Among younger urban children, too, entertainment preferences
and patterns have been affected by shifting socio-cultural values and
greater consumer choice. As Shakuntala Banaji argues, ‘the media
environment surrounding children in a metropolis like Bombay
[Mumbai], India has altered almost unrecognisably in the last two
decades.’35
A study of the entertainment habits of children aged 9–12
in Mumbai found that:
All the children [...] talked knowledgeably about aspects of
older teenage culture (both Western and Indian) and spoke in a
sophisticated manner about issues as diverse as relationships, sex
(which caused some shyness and much hilarity), potential careers,
bullying, advertising, fashion, national identity, managing money
and adolescent crushes.36
Derek Bose suggests that ‘with changing times, the maturity of chil-
dren has changed’, with children now ‘preferring to watch either
Hollywood action films or even Bollywood films’ in preference to
so-called ‘children’s films’.37
Although the term ‘child’ is still widely
and misleadingly applied to anyone under the age of 13, a recognis-
able ‘tween’ urban sub-culture has emerged around such franchises
as Transformers and Hannah Montana. The ‘tween’ phenomenon,
surely, is socio-cultural acknowledgement that the once-immutable
boundaries between ‘childhood’ and ‘adulthood’ are weakening –
even as such ‘crossover’ entertainment franchises as Harry Potter
succeed in appealing to multiple demographic sections. Bose advises
that instead of ‘kids’ movies’, the industry focus its attentions on
‘films that appeal to people of all age groups’.38
In rural areas – particularly among poorer communities – screen
entertainment is scarcer, although Hollywood programming remains
far more accessible than the latest Children’s Film Society release. As
director Vishal Bhardwaj observes, ‘if we watch television, we find so
many kids’ channels’, but they ‘are not made in India’, and instead are
‘dubbed in local languages. We don’t have anything to offer to our
children in India’.39
Arguably, Indian cinema is still failing to provide
children with their own entertainment spaces. Although several
recent Indian child films, such as Chillar Party (Nitesh Tiwari and
Vikas Bahl, 2011) and Stanley Ka Dabba (Amole Gupta, 2011), have
attempted specifically to entertain children, increasing demographic
segmentation – differentiating toddlers, ‘tweens’ and everything in
the middle – has made the production of movies for ‘children’, as
9781784530082_13_cha11.indd 200
9781784530082_13_cha11.indd 200 1/2/2015 12:40:16 PM
1/2/2015 12:40:16 PM

16. A Brief History of Indian Children’s Cinema 201
a homogenous entity, increasingly anachronistic, not to say uncom-
mercial. It is unsurprising, then, that ‘family’ entertainment in
the Hollywood (i.e., ‘youth’-orientated) style continues to grow in
momentum.
Young people’s changing attitudes to screen entertainment – or,
perhaps, their increasing ability to articulate their desires – is threat-
ening to displace the paternalistic ethos that has governed Indian
cinema since its inception. The country’s enormous social, religious,
geographic,linguisticandculturalplurality,andtheenduringstrength
of its core values, make it impossible to predict how far ‘youth
culture’ will ultimately extend. But the transformation of Indian
children’s entertainment is a demonstrable reality. If the Children’s
Film Society’s continued existence bespeaks the immense rhetori-
cal attraction of peculiarly ‘Indian’ family entertainment which – in
its small-scale, local, culturally-specific inflection – positions itself
in opposition to a perceptually invasive and mass-market Western
entertainment model, the increasing popularity of Hollywood-
flavoured blockbusters like Krrish underpins a contrary tendency
towards cultural aspecificity. Disney’s recent distribution deal with
UTV Motion Pictures suggests that it perceives an untapped local
market in such all-age entertainment. Mahesh Samat, managing
director of The Walt Disney Company, India, explained that:
‘Together with UTV, our goal is to produce films that have a direct
connection with the dynamic and expanding India audience and
that embody Disney brand values – optimistic, fun, meaningful and
emotional entertainment for the entire family.’40
Several of the most
successful recent Bollywood ‘family’ films have approximated the
kineticism, narrative transparency and aesthetic appeal of main-
stream Hollywood without sacrificing their cultural uniqueness
(melodrama, romance, song-and-dance, etc.). However, such films
are still liable to be perceived as symptomatic of the infiltration of
foreign values into the local cultural sphere. As a result, children’s
films and ‘family’ entertainment – so often the battleground of
ideologues on all parts of the political spectrum – are likely to be sites
of considerable debate in the years to come.
Notes
1. Margaret Khalakdina, Early Child Care in India, eds Halbert B. Robinson
and Nancy M. Robinson (London and New York: Gordon and Breach,
1979), p. 159.
9781784530082_13_cha11.indd 201
9781784530082_13_cha11.indd 201 1/2/2015 12:40:16 PM
1/2/2015 12:40:16 PM

17. 202 Family Films in Global Cinema
2. Radhika Bhirani, ‘New Children’s Films Are Fun for Adults as Well’,
Bollywood.com, 25 July 2011. <http://www.bollywood.com/new-child-
rens-films-are-fun-adults-well> [accessed 5/6/2012].
3. Tejaswini Ganti, Bollywood: a Guide to Popular Hindi Cinema (New York
and London: Routledge, 2004), pp. 45–46.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. ‘Clean Films Necessary to Promote Family Values: CM’, The Times of
India, 24 March 2012. <http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/
2012–03-24/hyderabad/31233624_1_film-awards-nandi-film-actor-
award> [accessed 7/5/2012].
7. Manjunath Pendakur, ‘India’s National Film Policy: Shifting Currents
in the 1990s’ in Albert Moran, ed., Film Policy: International, National
and Regional Perspectives (London and New York: Routledge, 1996), pp.
145–68.
8. Ibid., pp. 151–52.
9. Manpreet Kaur, ‘A Film is No More a Family Outing: Dharmendra’,
Bollywood.com, 13 July 2011. <http://www.bollywood.com/film-no-more-
family-outing-dharmendra> [accessed 7/5/2012].
10. ‘Comedy, Drama, Action’, The Express Tribune, 30 April 2012. <http://
tribune.com.pk/story/372162/comedy-drama-action> [accessed 7/5/
2012.]
11. These statistics are taken from: ‘Annual Report: 2010’ of the Central
BoardofFilmClassification,MinistryofInformationandBroadcasting,
Government of India, pp. 18–19; ‘Annual Report: 2011’ of the Central
BoardofFilmClassification,MinistryofInformationandBroadcasting,
Government of India, pp. 19–20.
12. Nehru on Social Issues, eds S. P. Agrawal and J. C. Aggarwal (New Delhi:
Askok Kumar Mittal, 1989), p. 188.
13. Cited in Vinayak Purohit, Arts of Transitional India: Twentieth Century,
Vol. 2 (Bombay: Popular Prakashan, 1988), pp. 1138–40.
14. Ibid.
15. Ibid.
16. ‘Working Group on National Film Policy, 1979 – Report’, Ministry
of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, 1980, pp.
325–26.
17. Vijaya Mulay, ‘Where are the Children’s Films?’, Vidura, 8 December
1981. <http://www.cscsarchive.org:8081/MediaArchive/art.nsf/(docid)/
6DC28EDE07455F1065256DBF0027625A> [accessed 15/6/2012].
18. Ibid.
19. Ibid.
20. Ibid.
21. Ibid.
22. Rebecca Hawkes, ‘Call for More Children’s Films on Indian State TV’,
Rapidtvnews.com, 21 July 2011. <http://www.rapidtvnews.com/index.
php/2011072113766/call-for-more-childrens-films-on-indian-state-tv.
html> [accessed 5/6/2012]; Muralidhara Khajane, ‘A Children’s Film for
9781784530082_13_cha11.indd 202
9781784530082_13_cha11.indd 202 1/2/2015 12:40:16 PM
1/2/2015 12:40:16 PM

18. A Brief History of Indian Children’s Cinema 203
Adults Too’, The Hindu, 3 April 2012. <http://www.thehindu.com/news/
cities/bangalore/article3273748.ece> [accessed 7/5/2012].
23. Radhika Bhirani, ‘Children’s Films a Genre Neglected, Directionless’,
The Hindustan Times, 6 August 2008. <http://www.hindustantimes.
com/News-Feed/CinemaScope/Children-s-films-a-genre-neglected-
directionless/Article1–329298.aspx> [accessed 7/5/2012].
24. ‘Aamir Goes Gaga Over His “Taare Zameen Par”’, Bollywood.com, 13
December 2007. <http://www.bollywood.com/node/2632> [accessed
7/5/2012].
25. Bharati Dubey, ‘Tiny Twinkle in Tinseltown’, The Times of India, 6
January 2012. <http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012–01-06/
mumbai/30597499_1_child-actors-masoom-films> [accessed 7/5/2012].
26. ‘Ashutosh Thinks Lagaan as “Children’s Movie”’, The Hindustan
Times, 4 August 2008. <http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/
DressCircle/Ashutosh-thinks-Lagaan-as-children-s-movie/Article1–
328776.aspx> [accessed 7/5/2012].
27. Ch Sushil Rao, ‘Roll Over Superman, Hanuman’s Here’, The Times of
India, 22 June 2003. <http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2003–
06-22/hyderabad/27206906_1_hanuman-toonz-animation-india-super-
man> [accessed 18/6/2012].
28. Jyothi Prabhakar and Vishwas Gautam, ‘Children’s Films, a Myth?’
The Times of India, 14 November 2008. <http://articles.timesofindia.
indiatimes.com/2008–11-14/news-interviews/27915211_1_children-s-
film-society-bal-ganesh-hanuman-returns> [accessed 21/6/2012].
29. Meena Iyer, ‘Animation Films Fail to Rock the Box Office’, The Times
of India, 1 January 2009. <http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/
2009–01-01/mumbai/28046310_1_indian-animation-animation-films-
animation-industry> [accessed 18/6/2012].
30. Ibid.
31. ‘Animated Films not Just for Kids: Jaaved Jaffiri’, The Times of India, 26
May 2012. <http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012–05-26/news
-interviews/31864220_1_animated-films-indian-culture-screening>
[accessed 7/5/2012].
32. Ibid.
33. Pendakur, ‘India’s National Film Policy’, p. 151.
34. Elizabeth Williams Ørberg, The ‘Paradox’ of Being Young in New Delhi:
Urban Middle Class Youth Negotiations with Popular Indian Film (Sweden:
Lund University, 2008), pp. 5–6.
35. Shakuntala Banaji, ‘“Adverts Make Me Want to Break the Television”:
Indian Children and Their Audiovisual Media Environment in Three
Contrasting Locations’ in Shakuntala Banaji, ed., South Asian Media
Cultures: Audiences, Representations, Contexts (London: Anthem Press,
2010), pp. 51–72.
36. Ibid., p. 56.
37. Prithwish Ganguly, ‘Children’s Films Spell Poor Success in Bollywood’,
The Hindustan Times, 30 June 2007. <http://www.hindustantimes.
com/News-Feed/DressCircle/Children-s-films-spell-poor-success-in-
Bollywood/Article1–233930.aspx> [accessed 7/5/2012].
9781784530082_13_cha11.indd 203
9781784530082_13_cha11.indd 203 1/2/2015 12:40:16 PM
1/2/2015 12:40:16 PM

19. 204 Family Films in Global Cinema
38. Ibid.
39. Prithwish Ganguly, ‘Bollywood Doesn’t Make Good Children’s Films’,
TheHindustanTimes,10August2007.<http://www.hindustantimes.com/
News-Feed/DressCircle/Bollywood-doesn-t-make-good-children-s-
films/Article1–241691.aspx> [accessed 7/5/2012].
40. ‘Walt Disney, UTV to Co-Produce Family Films, The Economic Times,
19 May 2011. <http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/news-by-
industry/media/entertainment/entertainment/walt-disney-utv-to-co-
produce-family-films/articleshow/8439285.cms> [accessed 5/6/2012].
9781784530082_13_cha11.indd 204
9781784530082_13_cha11.indd 204 1/2/2015 12:40:16 PM
1/2/2015 12:40:16 PM