2. THE LANDSCAPE:

As a photographer do you think you are a classicist?

Yes, I always look for form, aesthetic appeal, contextual importance and a meaningful moment. Very often I encounter a situation that has a universal appeal, that is not likely to repeat itself, nor can I plan for it. I manage to compose it in a form that is likely to have a lasting impact on the viewer. 

Why do you try to avoid the modern in your pictures?

I do not consciously avoid the modern for the simple reason that it is modern. I value the photograph for its association with an age or culture or a pure accidental happening, which cannot be replicated. In a fast changing situation resulting in urbanization, technology, development etc., anything that is modern is likely to be commonplace. Thereby, its aesthetic appeal is lessened. Hence, when I visit the countryside, I encounter a situation/picture which to my mind represents a slice of our culture which may not survive for long.  My career as a photojournalist goes back to sixty years. Many of the changes which we now see were not there in the rural areas earlier. So, the pictures that I shot so long ago in those places have an antique value and serve as a historical record of the past. They also have an aesthetic appeal today. They can be termed period pictures.

There is a certain metaphorical stillness in your pictures? Do you hate the speed of modern life?

Yes. I do not like the speed and noise of modern life. It is true that several of my photographs, which I value, were taken because they tended to satisfy my very personal feelings. It could be a situation, which appeared to answer my inner craving for peace, or a unique experience, however commonplace it might have been. They might have been feelings of sadness, poverty or sheer joy. I am happier living in a small town than a metropolitan city. In fact, I could have easily settled down in Delhi where I spent 32 years of my professional life. But I did not do so as my mind and heart craved for my roots in serene Mysore where I was born and educated.

Why do you most often go back to palaces, traditions, temples and the rural idyll for your pictures?

Honestly. I am a photographer of the common people who hit no headlines but who matter. Most of them live and work in the rural idyll. They may be poor but have a dignified bearing about them, are hospitable, respectful of elders and cherish decent human values. They appeal to me.

Do you worry for things that are past and values that are gone by?

I really worry about some of the values that have been devalued today in the family, social and cultural life. Temperamentally, I do not want to worry about things that have happened.  The process of worrying about the past, in my opinion, is not conducive to mental and physical well being. Certain of the values that carried great weight in the past like honesty, commitment, personal and professional discipline and service to the needy, influenced me personally as a human being and as a photojournalist. I hope my deep faith in life and its great values get reflected in my work.

How conscious are you of history when you shoot?

A great deal. Whenever I shoot pictures that have a bearing on the past I am influenced professionally by the fact that I am witness to an event that is important. Every photographer must have a sense of history. Photojournalism is undoubtedly the visual biography of man on earth. There is a great responsibility on us to document our land, our people and our culture vis-a-vis the deliberate engineering of social and other shifts in our rapidly changing society. All too often we become aware of the change when it is too late, when the new has supplanted the old. This utter lack of interest at looking at contemporary history with a future perspective has already cost us dear. Major personalities and events from our public life have often gone unrecorded in terms of photojournalistic documentation. Photography is history and life. The major contribution of the photographer/photojournalist has been to preserve for posterity the memorable moments of contemporary history which, I think, is the everlasting aspect of photojournalism. The photographer is a serious witness in the court of history.  The better photograph ceases to be a thing of the past. It acquires a life of its own and remains perennially fresh and relevant. 

Why do the rich, famous and powerful get so humanised in your pictures? Did you never want to capture their arrogance and violence?

I have not made any deliberate attempt to humanize them. I have been an honest witness to what I saw. Sometimes, it just happened that even such people you refer to presented their human aspects and I captured them that way.

Did Indira Gandhi fascinate you as a photographic subject as much as Nehru? 

No. I loved to photograph Jawaharlal Nehru. His charismatic personality and bearing and his many moods fascinated me.

Is poverty a great subject for photography?

Pathos is an integral part of life. Poverty enhances this. I feel deeply moved when I see such a lethal combination of poverty, negligence, ill health and a society indifferent to all this. By nature I am moved deeply at the sight of suffering of this kind and get concerned about it. The sight of a hungry child crying for food and a neglected diseased infant, stabs me with guilt and I feel that all mankind is guilty.

Are you a very cerebral photographer? Do you brood over your subjects?

No. I do not brood over my subjects but, on location, I might patiently wait during an event, anticipating a decisive moment. I do not also worry too much about camera positions, shutter speed and the lenses to use.  When I see something meaningful happening, my mind moves like lightning. All the time I am observing. Like any work of art, a photograph well conceived and properly realized, can awaken those who see it to the plight of the less fortunate. In its own way, a picture can activate the conscience. A sensitive photographer helps us 'see' what the eye has noticed but the mind has not absorbed. It is here that the photographer can become an artist. Without being preachy, he can sensitize, motivate and subtly show us the need to search our own hearts. If, to some, my work appears as something inseparable from art, I would feel a sense of fulfillment. 

How do you explain the effortlessness behind your pictures?

My work gives the viewer a feeling of effortlessness.  But behind it all lies concentrated observation, thought and concern for the subject and a sensitive mind-eye combination at work.  This combination, sometimes, helps me to find beauty even amidst seeming chaos. My pictures are slices of human life, which I have enjoyed seeing. They are gentle and personal. Spontaneity is the quintessence of a good picture. When I see that flowering in any individual's action or event, I go for it quickly and unobtrusively.

You are said to be a 'discoverer' and not a 'recorder'? Can you tell us how you 'discover' your pictures?

Sensitivity and freezing spontaneity is the quintessence of a photographer at work. It is all in the art of seeing and cultivating the art of omission – what to include and what to exclude. A sensitive eye can spot beauty even in chaos. The eyes conduct a dialogue with the world. There is beauty all around us. It is there, asking to be communicated, talking to and challenging our eyes.  The great motivation is to discover and design the beauty. Here comes the art of omission. The photographer-artist must know what to include - even amidst chaos - and what to exclude while focusing on the main subject of interest. A suitable example is my picture taken at Varanasi of a pilgrim (looking like Gandhi) engrossed in reading using a vyasapita. He is in the center of the picture frame and all around him is chaos of shrubbery, dirt etc. The overall effect is a symmetrical and well-designed frame that is beautiful and soothing to the eyes.

How much do you engage your subject or how close do you get to him/her when you shoot? For instance how close did you get to Pandit Nehru or Mallikarjun Mansur or Satyajit Ray?

Except for normal courtesies and talk, I do not do anything else. It was different with Satyajit Ray. I used to meet him whenever he visited Delhi. On his invitation, I also visited him at Calcutta. I spent a whole week with him when he was shooting MAHANAGAR. His humanism attracted me. His friendliness was great. Whenever he had some leisurely hours on his Delhi visits, he used to shoot some black and white pictures of whatever interested him. He would come to my home to borrow my camera for the day.

How much does your own perception of the person influence the photograph you take of him/her?

It depends on how emotionally I react to them at a particular moment.. Can I capture the beauty of Gayatri Devi or the pensive mood of Jawaharlal or the Satyajit Ray looking like a Roman senator? I used to ask myself before clicking.

Where do you find the charm of a human being concentrated? In what gesture? In which part of the body?

The eyes. And, naturally, in the smile.

You have invested a lot of time shooting people, how serious a student of human anatomy have you been?

I am not a student of human anatomy in a textual sense. I love taking pictures of the common people. I am a photographer of people.

What is it in a woman that appeals to yours senses and lenses?

Anything that is expressive of a feeling. It could be a part of the body like a wrinkled face or hands.

There is a meditative/reflective quality in all your pictures. Nehru is pensive and also the man in the bazar sitting huddled in a basket. Can you reflect on this pensive quality of your pictures? Where does it come from?

I always react to people in their pensive mood if I chance to see them. I do not make an effort to particularly hunt them out. I like this pensive mood, which is directly linked to the mind and I wonder what is going on in the person's mind. Incidentally, I happen to be the product of a family culture with a strong religious background. My mother, in particular, has influenced my attitude which is somewhat meditative.  

Is it important for a photographer to have a social agenda? Or is it money that decides what he shoots?

It is very important for the photographer to always remember that he is an honest witness to history that is unfolding before him every moment. Documenting the world as seen by him can certainly be called his social agenda. Money is important but secondary. Don't let others refer to you as a mercenary. I would appeal to all photographers to be human. A super combination of integrity, humanism, modesty and a sense of service should be the foundation on which a photographer must build his life.

Do you shoot children because you like the condition of being a child?

Yes. Even at my advanced age, I keep craving for my childhood. I grew up in a family of fifteen children, I being the eldest. In fact, my own young brothers and sisters were my early subjects for the camera.  I also come from a tradition that has always regarded the child as the incarnation of God. Every child is everybody's child. No child can be somebody else's child. When I look at children I regain my own childhood vision of joy and wonderment.

As a photographer, how do you want to be remembered?

As an unostentatious person who loved people and remained humble.

Page 1 of 3