A committee headed by film-maker Shyam Benegal has made a progressive and well-timed recommendation to the information and broadcasting (I&B) ministry that the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC)
should not impose excision on films and its role be limited to
certification. This suggestion implies that the Board would have to
jettison its proclivity to ban films or modify content and limit itself
to certification under specific categories such as Adult, U12 or U15
(i.e. fit for viewing by those below 12 or 15 years of age) and so on.
It is telling that for years, the CBFC has
been baldly known by "Censor Board" - and it appears to have lived up
to this relatively pejorative label in the new century. The roster of
films the board has banned in the 2000s covers those that deal with the
rights of LGBT (lesbian,
gay, bisexual and transgender), Islamic terrorists, the Gujarat riots,
Hindu social mores, the Catholic church, sex, nudity and even one on
Doon School.
Under the leadership of a self-proclaimed acolyte of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Pahlaj Nihalani, the Censor Board's activities touched new heights of absurdity. Last year, reportedly in consultation with a junior I&B minister, it thought fit to issue a list of acceptable Hindi swear-words to be used in cinema. It also recommended that kissing scenes be excised from the James Bond movie Spectre (did the Board really think that Indian audiences believed 007 was a celibate?). This year, it certified Jungle Book as U/A (that is, acceptable for children watching under adult supervision) on grounds that scenes of animated animals jumping out of the screen may frighten younger children - this for a generation that is weaned on video games depicting far greater violence.
Such escalating intervention suggests that the CBFC's role is that of an arbiter of Indian culture defined by the government of the day. This is out of sync with the demands of a modern and modernising society in an evolving democracy like India. In any country, it is possible that some people will be unhappy with some aspect of every movie that is released. In a uniquely multi-cultural society like India, this issue gets magnified several-fold. Governments, ever conscious of specific vote banks, can be expected to be vulnerable to such blandishments. To have a regulator affiliated to the government to carry out each ruling dispensation's cultural agenda is unhealthy and undesirable. The en masse resignation of the previous Board on account of being overruled on its decision to ban a tawdry film by a religious sect underlines the inevitable tensions between politics and culture in a free society. Definitions of obscenity or other cultural values are decisions that cannot be arbitrated.
Besides, it is all too well known that proscription is ultimately self-defeating thanks to the time-honoured and widespread traditions of samizdat values in all societies. In the old days it was manifest in the robust market for pirated films and music; today, technology makes access to banned films/scenes even easier via such open-sharing platforms as Torrents, among others. Indeed, it is a sign of a confident and mature society when censorship is applied with a light touch and that is the direction in which the Benegal panel is clearly pointing. It is also true that the movie industry has not helped itself in this regard. For example, the US movie industry suffered similar controversies from the early days and eventually sought a solution in the chaos of multiple censor boards by creating a self-regulating association headed by a paid professional. Though its functioning was far from perfect and controversies abounded, it evolved over the years into a voluntary movie classification system called the Motion Picture Code that rates a movie on the way the content is handled. Self-regulation is a handy principle for all creative businesses to follow - whether the media, art dealers, book publishers or the music industry - because it provides the best bulwark against the politicisation of culture.
Under the leadership of a self-proclaimed acolyte of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Pahlaj Nihalani, the Censor Board's activities touched new heights of absurdity. Last year, reportedly in consultation with a junior I&B minister, it thought fit to issue a list of acceptable Hindi swear-words to be used in cinema. It also recommended that kissing scenes be excised from the James Bond movie Spectre (did the Board really think that Indian audiences believed 007 was a celibate?). This year, it certified Jungle Book as U/A (that is, acceptable for children watching under adult supervision) on grounds that scenes of animated animals jumping out of the screen may frighten younger children - this for a generation that is weaned on video games depicting far greater violence.
Such escalating intervention suggests that the CBFC's role is that of an arbiter of Indian culture defined by the government of the day. This is out of sync with the demands of a modern and modernising society in an evolving democracy like India. In any country, it is possible that some people will be unhappy with some aspect of every movie that is released. In a uniquely multi-cultural society like India, this issue gets magnified several-fold. Governments, ever conscious of specific vote banks, can be expected to be vulnerable to such blandishments. To have a regulator affiliated to the government to carry out each ruling dispensation's cultural agenda is unhealthy and undesirable. The en masse resignation of the previous Board on account of being overruled on its decision to ban a tawdry film by a religious sect underlines the inevitable tensions between politics and culture in a free society. Definitions of obscenity or other cultural values are decisions that cannot be arbitrated.
Besides, it is all too well known that proscription is ultimately self-defeating thanks to the time-honoured and widespread traditions of samizdat values in all societies. In the old days it was manifest in the robust market for pirated films and music; today, technology makes access to banned films/scenes even easier via such open-sharing platforms as Torrents, among others. Indeed, it is a sign of a confident and mature society when censorship is applied with a light touch and that is the direction in which the Benegal panel is clearly pointing. It is also true that the movie industry has not helped itself in this regard. For example, the US movie industry suffered similar controversies from the early days and eventually sought a solution in the chaos of multiple censor boards by creating a self-regulating association headed by a paid professional. Though its functioning was far from perfect and controversies abounded, it evolved over the years into a voluntary movie classification system called the Motion Picture Code that rates a movie on the way the content is handled. Self-regulation is a handy principle for all creative businesses to follow - whether the media, art dealers, book publishers or the music industry - because it provides the best bulwark against the politicisation of culture.
