voiced their anger, fear and frustration common to minorities in any totalitarian country;instead of plastic gloss of national pride, the basic formation of the modern state wasquestioned. Indian documentary films came of age. But still the language and form waslargely dependant on the war propaganda style. The real of the cinema varite, the god’svoice of the commentary, the agenda driven representation of people were still the basicingredients. There was another problem. As far as the private screening was concerned, theopportunities were rare and far between. Besides, the ordinary people, after beingexposed to compulsory viewing of inane documentaries of FD, got allergic to the worddocumentary. Hence the documentaries of 70’s and 80’s were viewed only by aprivileged/elite/politicised audience. Some filmmakers, though, traveled around thecountry with a film projector and cans of films on their shoulders. But every filmmakercould not be that militant and thus got lost in the oblivion. By `80s film societymovement became very popular in India. But even their members strongly resenteddocumentary films for being lesser in aesthetics and didactic and moralistic. But thedamage was done. The general documentary filmmaking lacked the enthusiasm to thinkabout form and style of representation as part of the politics. The aesthetics and the gazeof war films still prevailed.
Then came the waves of gender consciousness and women’s movement in ‘80s. Themovement, though initially viewed as antagonistic, creatively opened up many socialplaces. It questioned, taught its activists to re-examine every text, every form and everystructure. It helped making the borders of all kinds more fluid, all identities less rigid, allexpressions more multi-cultural and thus more layered. It cannot be an accident that inthe 80’s came a large no. of women into documentary filmmaking. All of them were notassociated with the movement, some were even antagonistic towards feminism- but theyall brought a different style to documentary films, rather broke the old style of god’svoiced, definite, correct, linear documentaries. These filmmakers, both women and men,not necessarily were better than their predecessors, but definitely were different anddistinct. Their style was more interactive, more transparent and definitely less polemic. In ‘90s two more twists came to be. One was the rapid expansion of satellite culture thatcreated a need for different kinds of programmes, even if only to maintain a variety in thenarrative style. Political programmes like current affairs programmes, talk shows, publicdebates and various other forms of