Logwritten
SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 2009 6:16 AM IST

If you ask people in the West to rate the most influential decades of the second half of the 20th century, it is the 1960s that they usually remember with the most affection. And even those who don’t actually remember the 1960s (as the cliché goes “if you remember the Sixties, you weren’t really there”) will concede that they represented a watershed in popular culture.

That ’70s show: (clockwise from left) Bachchan owned cinema; Hema and Dharam paired to create history; Kishore Kumar sang his way to immortality.

That ’70s show: (clockwise from left) Bachchan owned cinema; Hema and Dharam paired to create history; Kishore Kumar sang his way to immortality.

It began with Swinging London (a phrase coined by The Sunday Times but popularized globally by Time magazine) and its explosion of creative talent in such fields as photography, fashion, art and advertising. To this culture/media boom add the influence of The Beatles and Rolling Stones and you had the beginnings of what we now call the rock culture.

Across the Atlantic, the Sixties were the decade of Timothy Leary, of turning on, tuning in and dropping out, of Andy Warhol and 15 minutes of fame, of the British invasion (of pop stars), of the hippie movement, of wearing flowers in your hair in San Francisco, of the Summer of Love, of Woodstock, of the anti-Vietnam War protests, of Bob Dylan, Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young, of Jimi Hendrix and of Easy Rider (1969) and the death of the old Hollywood.

In contrast, the Seventies are now seen as the Me-Decade, a bland selfish era of polyester suits, bad haircuts, crap music and no great social ferment. That view is not entirely fair but the caricature persists nevertheless. The world is full of people who still say things like “I am a child of the Sixties”; virtually nobody wants to be a child of the Seventies.

I was reminded of the contrast between the Sixties and the Seventies while watching a VCD of Farah Khan’s entertaining and self-mocking Om Shanti Om. Farah loves the Seventies. Her first movie, Main Hoon Na was a homage to the masala movies of the 1970s and Om Shanti Om follows a similar path.

Why, I wondered, did nobody want to pay tribute to the Hindi movies of the Sixties? The short answer seemed to be that there was no great public nostalgia for the Indian popular culture of the Sixties. People remembered individual movies (Sangam, Ganga Jamuna and Waqt perhaps) but nobody saw the Sixties as an epochal decade in any sense.

In fact, you could well argue that what the Sixties were to the West, the Seventies were to India.

Take Hindi cinema. The only stars we remember from Sixties (Raj Kapoor, Dev Anand and Dilip Kumar) were really holdovers from the 1950s. The stars of the Sixties themselves tended to be losers like Joy Mukherjee and Biswajeet. (Though I’ll grant you Shammi Kapoor). Even the Sixties heroines — Mala Sinha, Asha Parekh, Nanda etc.— have been largely forgotten.

Contrast Sixties Hindi cinema with the Seventies. The decade began with the rise of Rajesh Khanna and quickly became the personal property of Amitabh Bachchan. The top star couples—Bachchan and Rekha/Zeenat Aman/Parveen Babi and most often, Shashi Kapoor—are still remembered with affection as are Khanna and his two biggest heroines, Mumtaz and Sharmila Tagore. Even Dharmendra and Hema Malini who represented a counterpoint to the Bachchan clique remain legends in the public imagination.

So it is with the movies. The Seventies were the decade of Salim-Javed, of Ramesh Sippy, of Manmohan Desai, of Prakash Mehra, of Yash Chopra (but then that’s true of every decade) and of Shyam Benegal, whose Ankur, released in 1973, created a whole new genre of cinema. It is possible to watch 1970s movies for fun today but the films of the Sixties are mere historical curiosities. (If you can sit through Mera Naam Joker, you deserve a prize).

Even the music changed. There is little nostalgia for the playback singers of the Sixties (Mukesh, Manna Dey, Mahendra Kapoor, Mohammed Rafi etc.) but Kishore Kumar remains as popular today as he was in the Seventies. Rahul Dev Burman crawled out from under his father’s shadow after Aradhana (1969, they collaborated on the score) and the Seventies were his decade (starting with the two brilliant but completely different scores for Hare Rama Hare Krishna, 1971, and Amar Prem, 1971) and his Seventies songs are still recorded by new singers every month.

It wasn’t just the movie industry that changed. The Seventies were a pivotal decade for media. Nari Hira invented the magazine boom when he launched Stardust and that publication created India’s first celebrity editor in Shobhaa De. Khushwant Singh transformed the Illustrated Weekly, Aroon Purie published the slick India Today, Ashok Advani produced India’s first business magazine, and M.J. Akbar became the first high-profile serious editor in India with the success of Sunday in 1976.

Drugs were never very big in India — not in the Sixties or the Seventies. But in the Sixties, it was almost impossible to get a drink. Most states required you to carry a liquor permit and prohibition was still in vogue. It wasn’t till the 1970s that Maharashtra liberalized the sale of beer at Irani restaurants and it suddenly became possible to go out and buy a bottle of vodka in the shops.

The liberalization coincided with a hotel boom. Till 1972, the Taj group consisted of only the old Bombay Taj. By the end of the decade, there were Taj hotels in Delhi, Chennai, Goa and many other places. The Maurya, Mughal and Chola, the first ITC hotels, opened in the mid-Seventies and the Oberois only moved south of Delhi in 1973 when they opened in Mumbai.

You could argue that India in 1969 was not dramatically different from India in 1960 (except for politics where the death of Jawaharlal Nehru in 1964 led to the decline of the Congress). But India was a very different place in 1979 from the country it had been in 1970.

Suddenly, it was alive, it was vibrant, its popular culture was rocking and the old rules had been rewritten in such fields as movies, media and music. We’ve moved on since then, of course, but reminders of the 1970s are still around — from Amitabh to the Kishore Kumar cult to Farah’s film tributes to that influential decade.

Forget about the Sixties. They meant nothing to us. It’s the Seventies that were India’s decisive decade.

Write to Vir at pursuits@livemint.com

Tags - Find More Articles On:
READ MORE ARTICLES BY:
 
ram Said:


Seventies was also about Emergency, India's first major win in cricket at West Indies, followed by England, the spin quartet were at their best, Sunil Gavaskar emerged to create a renaissance in Indian cricket, the early days of television. Vir has quoted several facts, but has not put his finger on what is that has made the Seventies an exciting and promising decade. We need more on that Vir.

Posted On 3/7/2008 10:12:50 AM
mintoo Said:


It is rubbish to say that after Rajesh Khanna's kingdom (late 60s to mid 70s)there was the era which is called Amitabh's personal property (1975 onwards). Actually 1975 onwards, there was a wave of multistar films, so from mid 70s to about whole 80s there was contributions of Dharmendra, Shashi Kapoor, Vinod Khana, Shatrughan Sinha, Rishi Kapoor, Sanjiv Kumar, etc., but due to manipulative media hype Amitabh was highlighted in a most undeserved way. However, only Rajesh Khanna fought against the multistar trend during this era and performed in high stature solo star films with lot of substances. This is history which should not be distorted. Thanks

Posted On 3/7/2008 11:50:38 PM
Hussein Said:


This is not true, Mohammed Rafi Saheb is more popular than Kishore Kumar, even today. Rafi saheb has more fans than KK.

Posted On 3/8/2008 2:09:36 AM
Zaffer Said:


The ability to write absolutely anything without any recourse to survey or statistics appears to be the modus operandi of writers of such articles. Please provide some evidence for your spurious assertions. Just because you say the 1970's were more popular than the sixties does not make it so - did you do a survey of people across India (is this even possible to do accurately). From my understanding you appear to be interested in writing an article without any actual evidence and just an opinion. The argument that the 1960's are forgotten is so rediculous and childish. I can just as easily say the 1990's are forgotten and so-called reporters such as this person live only for the next titbit of information about Bollywood stars as the west does about Paris Hilton or Britney Spears. By the way the only thing that made Aradhana memorable in terms of changing the times wasn't the songs (SD Burman did better and admitted he did so, in Guide) and any idiot can see this if they have an inkling of musical appreciation. It was the fact that the filmfare award went to Roop Tera Mastana. No why was this so? It was a mediocre song at best but it became a craze after you see the scene for the song in the movie - yes Sharmila Tagore in a wet clinging Sari suggestively prancing around. You can tell which part of their "brains" the academy voted with that year. Compare this to another song that year which Madan Mohan regarded as his favourite (Yeh Duniya yeh mehfil from Heer Ranjha) . Now imagine the two songs being sung next to each other by the respective singers and tell me which has class and is art and which is the equivalent of Junk food. I suppose the best comparison is comparing a classic like Yesterday by the Beatles to Hit me baby one more time by Britney Spears. One is the most covered english song of all time the other has a piece of trailer trash gyrating in a skin tight costume and will be forgotten in 10 years. Which category do you think this writer belongs to?

Posted On 3/8/2008 3:23:56 PM
r Said:


Vir, Kishore might be your favorite singer( mine too!), but it is a bit naive to consign Rafi, Mukesh and Mannadey et.al to memories only. Maybe you should tune into the music scene a bit more. Better still, give programs like "Aap ki Farmaish" etc a listen....

Posted On 3/9/2008 11:02:55 AM
Varun Said:


It's atrocious that you have reduced Rafi and Mukesh to zilch. I am as much a fan of Kishore Da as of Rafi Sa'b and mind you, there are quite a few who would rate Rafi as the best Hindi movie playback singer of all time. I could not get myself to read the rest of your article after this insane sentence. In fact, I still do not believe that an experienced journalist like you is unaware of these singers fan following.

Posted On 3/10/2008 5:19:27 PM
Vir Said:


I completely disagree. The logic is extremely weak. Real changes happened in India only in the 90s. Just because a new generation of stars took over means nothing/ You cant conclude from that it was the turning point in our country's history

Posted On 3/14/2008 1:54:52 PM
Sudip Said:


Jornalists like Vir Sangvi and Pritish Nandi are none other than agents of western culture in India. very few music lover would agree with Vir who has relegated Rafi to the sixties. The Rafi legacy is even stronger than Lata's. Right from the youth in SRGMP to their kid counterparts sing songs mostly of the sixties, especially the ones by Rafi. Right from the singing of "Suhani Raat Dhal chuki" in 1949, Rafi defined modern music. Even today when one listens to the songs of Gangster or Dil Chahta hai, one feels "if only Rafi sang them".

Posted On 3/18/2008 5:49:51 AM
Re: Sammy Said:


Bizarre article.. Rafi legacy lives on and on..The plain, open throated style of Kishore is no longer in style..Vir has no ears for music.

Posted On 3/18/2008 10:54:55 AM
Tapendra Said:


This bozo understands nothing about music. Comparing the loud, flamboyant Kishore to the smooth, silken, melodious Rafi is atrocious, to say the least.

Posted On 3/18/2008 9:09:12 PM
Manmohan Said:


Vir, You know what.......The "loser" actors of 60s had bigger musical hits that the "he-men" of 70s for only one reason: RAFI

Posted On 3/21/2008 9:06:52 PM
anil Said:


Yes, you are correct. The seventies saw heroes rajesh khanna, amitabh, composer rd burman and kishore kumar. all crazy. the immortal songs subg by kishore "zindagi ik safar hai suhana, zindagi ka safr, yeh jeevan hai, chingari koi bhadake, ho mere dil ki chain are immortal.

Posted On 5/12/2008 7:19:47 PM
mo Said:


for a journalist there seems to be very little research done to advocate your argument. Mohammed Rafi is widely regarded as the greatest male playback singer that the subcontinent ever produced. it is true that historically from 1971 to 1975 Kishore was the more popular, but from 1976 after Laila Majnu Rafi returned to the top till his death (bear in mind he won the filmfare award in 1977) testimony to this is his output at the time of his death was the highest out of male playback singers. opinions can be formed and changed but facts remain so.

Posted On 8/29/2008 4:53:56 PM
Samar Said:


Poorly researched article! If the writer can say that there is little nostalgia for Rafi, he is clearly dimwitted! He better ask the honchos at Saregama India that which albums still sell the most, and they would answer it is Rafi's, especially his combo with Shammi Kapoor. Invariably in most music contests on TV, participants sing Rafi's songs more. So how does the author assert that there is little nostalgia for Rafi and Mukesh! The writer feels that the Raj Kapoor-Mukesh combination has no nostalgia; he needs to get his head examined! The 60s were called 'swinging' because there was a sense of optimism, even escapism in many of the films of the time, while the films of the 50s were more tradegy-rooted themes. This article is just another example of pushing personal preferences through twisted logic. Pity it had to be someone of the calibre of Vir Sanghvi, whose insight and clarity I cannot admire anymore!

Posted On 10/17/2008 3:31:45 PM