1. iol, mss eur/F191/191.
2. Examples include Derné 2000; Dickey 1993, 1995, 2001; Nakassis and Dean
2007; L. Srinivas 2002; and S. V. Srinivas 2009.
3. E≈cient narrative overviews can be found in Bhowmik 2009 and Vasudev
4. I decided to pursue an immanent critique of Indian ﬁlm censorship because I
sensed that its internal contradictions opened up questions that a more externalist
analysis would miss. At the same time, my immanentist orientation has its costs. I
am aware, for example, that there is much of direct relevance to my argument that
emerges out of the nonvisual aspects of cinematic experience, not least in the
dimension of sound (Altman, ed., 1992). Although several passages clearly imply a
movement beyond the visual and toward a more general (perhaps synaesthesic)
phenomenology of spectatorship (see, for instance, Sobchack 2004), I remain con-
scious that I have inherited my informants’ habit of imagining the cinema pri-
marily in terms of seeing.
5. A quick word about my use of the phrase mass publicity. Many would argue
that the age of ‘‘masses’’—of ‘‘mass democracy,’’ ‘‘mass culture,’’ even ‘‘mass media’’
—has been historically supplanted by more di√erentiated structures of politics,
marketing, and media. I cling to the term mass not out of some nostalgia for a