The sequence of greatest historical interest in Captain Reed’s film features the capture of three Congress protesters in a country road. They walk in step, bearing Congress flags, towards an awaiting group of British military personnel and Indian policemen. When they reach them the leading military officer attempts to wrestle the flags off them, and he is later joined in this task by another officer. Meanwhile, the leading Indian policeman beats one of the Congress protesters with a stick, and is later joined by half a dozen Indian policemen, also raising their sticks.

There is something odd about the footage, however. Although it is filmed from the position that we would expect Captain Reed (or an assistant) to occupy, i.e. from amongst the policemen and troops, it appears to be staged. In light of the comments made by Reed in his letter, the actions of the protesters appear overly formal and too overt, and their number is surprisingly small. In addition, the way that they are set upon is not entirely convincing. Reed writes of his trepidation during these manoeuvres, but the action that takes place here is orderly and shows the police and military in absolute control. Most telling is the fact that, not only does this footage look staged, it is also re-staged. Shot from a slightly different angle, the whole process is repeated, with the film cutting just before the officers rid the protesters of their flags. Unfortunately, there is no documentation explaining this sequence. The Imperial War Museum have noted that ‘It is unclear whether this film is a training exercise or actual small-scale encounter between villagers and troops or police’. The fact that this action was filmed adds further confusion: is this the documentation, or perhaps the enforced re-enactment, of a genuine protest? Does it represent the way the military wished their actions to be perceived? Or did it serve as a training film? One outcome that remains the same no matter what prompted the film, is that the British-backed authorities had no qualms about meeting ‘non-violence’ with violence.

The surrounding material sheds no further light on these matters, but it does provide a complement to this moment of conflict. Reed has also captured routine military activity. Here there is a split between shots showing small groups of British officers, who can be seen at ease and smiling for the camera, and the footage of Indian troops, who are instead usually witnessed en masse. They are seen at inspection, performing exercises, and carrying out their daily duties. In neither instance is there any sense of this activity being orchestrated for the camera in the manner of the civil disobedience section. There is also footage of the military’s off-duty sporting activities. Both Europeans and Indians can be seen playing games that have been imported to the sub-continent: tennis, golf, volley ball and quoits. Reed also reveals something of his home life: there is a long scene in which he focuses upon the dexterity of his houseboy, Mali, as he repairs a roof. Finally, there are several scenes that illustrate Reed’s interest in Indian life. This collection of films begins with a sequence in which he focuses upon camels, and it concludes with a dynamic, but blurred sequence where he attempts to capture everything that passes by him as he films from a vehicle that is passing through a town. In between there is footage of some Dewar villagers. Here he pans across them making an ethnographical record of their expressions. There are also some shots of a wedding procession, in which he attempts to convey the full spectacle, focussing first on the brass band and then on the resplendent bride who rides a white horse. This ceremony was filmed in the district of Sholapur, and as such provides the strongest contrast, in both substance and sentiment, to Reed’s battles with the protesters.

Richard Osborne (February 2010)