Events & Issues

New Delhi, 9 March 2017

Film Certification

UNJUST, KILLING CREATIVITY

By Dr Oishee Mukherjee

Yet another film has got embroiled in controversy and sparked a debate. The refusal of certification by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to ‘Lipstick Under My Burkha,’ has invited sharp criticism. It forgets that the raison d’être of cinema is not merely to entertain but unearth the darker capricious side too.  

Shockingly, the hullabaloo comes even as the film won the Spirit of Asia Award at Tokyo International Film Festival and Oxfam Award for Best Film on Gender Equality at the Mumbai Film Festival. The film is to be screened at the Miami Film Festival and in the international competition of only eight features at the International Women’s Film Festival at Creteil, Paris and later head to the London Asian Film Festival at London.    

The ban on the film was reflected in a communication by Pahlaj Nihalani headed CBFC to producer Prakash Jha. It states: “The story is lady oriented, their fantasy above life. There are continuous sexual scenes, abusive words and audio pornography and a bit sensitive touch about one particular section of society”. In recent times, Anurag Kashyap’s ‘Udta Punjab’ had got into a controversy as well as the CBFC had refused a certificate to ‘Haraamkhor’, but the makers approached the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal and got a green signal for release.   

The term ‘lady oriented’ possibly makes no sense more so when the President of the country recently stated: “The acid test of any society is its attitude towards women and children. India should not fail this test. It is being widely felt that the decision to refuse certification to the film is “an assault on women’s rights”.    

Director Alankrita Shrivastava has stated: “As a woman and as a filmmaker no one can take away my voice”. I will refuse to succumb. In a country where there is so much discrimination against women, so much violence against women, isn’t it essential to listen to women’s stories from their point of view?”   

Earlier in a judgment, the Bombay High Court had pointed out that CBFC was dealing with a new generation of film makers who intend to experiment on various social issues and compete in the international arena. “To stop that abruptly by extreme measures may kill creativity. To interfere with works mindlessly will not be conducive to creativity in India and its growth”. It further pointed out that filmmakers of today are “aggressive and brutal in their works. They should not be treated harshly just because of this”.  The allegations that Nihalani was treating the censor board like his personal fiefdom and taking arbitrary decisions was manifest again in the case of this film.   

Jha has decided to appeal to the Film Certificate Appellate Tribunal (FCAT) which had earlier found the CBFC’s approach “totally arbitrary and capricious”. In fact the Tribunal had stated that CBFC has been taking decisions without any transparency and without even informing the applicants as to why their certificate has been refused.   

Meanwhile, as before, film personalities have joined the debate, denouncing the decision in not granting certification. Projection of reality from the point of the opposite sex cannot be a reason to deny certification. Though some minor cuts may be allowed, the tendency to censor, which has been increasing with successive governments, cannot be said to be judicious and questions have rightly been raised about its justification. In most cases, even cuts, recommended by the CBFC, have been found to be unjust and sometimes “kill creativity” which, according to legendary actor Amitabha Bachchan should not be allowed.   

Veteran Director Shyam Benegal, who headed a committee that was constituted to review certification rules and submitted its report, last October suggested possible role changes of the CBFC. In fact, the committee had stated that the CBFC had no right to recommend cuts in a film. He had found the film ‘Udta Punjab’ portraying “a rather unfortunate fact that drugs routed from Central Asia and Afghanistan come into India via Punjab and the State is vulnerable to this kind of infiltration”, and these problems need to be understood. Insofar as the present film, Benegal expressed surprise that Nihalani was following the same old rules and trying to cripple the voice of modern filmmakers on flimsy grounds.

Former I&B Minister Jaitley had reportedly stated that the Benegal committee report had suggested some changes which would be duly considered as certification norms would have to be liberal and forward looking. But, as statements by the political class can never be taken seriously, no decision has yet been taken on the recommendations made.  

“The State has no right to curtail freedom of speech and no right to curtail business of films”, most film makers have observed. In Bengal, veteran director Goutam Ghose, stated that CBFC can give grades and only “if there is a possibility of communal instigation, certification can be refused”. Most other film makers resented the CBFC’s decision on grounds of curbing creative outpouring.

Questions have been raised whether the Government has been carrying out the colonial legacy and treating films in proper light. Could Satyajit Ray’s memorable film, Pather Panchali, have been released without depicting stark poverty and squalor? Another renowned film personality of Bengal, Mrinal Sen in many of his films portrayed the political scenario of the 70s. Even the CBFC chief allowed release of the Haider that had scenes depicting State repression in Kashmir.   

The understanding of films has to change and it has to be accepted that this could be an effective medium for depiction of social and political reality. Obviously, there could be criticism for social inaction of the State in different areas of our life and reflection of these cannot be considered to be detrimental to the interests of society. These may be considered to be eye-openers for respective governments to take action and tackle the problem in right earnest. One may bring comparison with ‘Social Audit’, which is also intended to evaluate performance of a government, organisations and make recommendations to help improve functioning.

It remains quite surprising why role and powers of the CBFC have not been reviewed and outlined based on the Bombay High Court ruling and the report of the Benegal committee. A pragmatic approach to the whole issue is the need of the hour so that new generation of filmmakers could take up socio-political problems and portray these without being asked to interfere with  their art form and unnecessarily harassing them.

In a democratic society, the voice of artists cannot be stifled. It is only through portrayal of different problems that awareness would be generated and the same tackled judiciously. It is expected that the Government would not cause any further delay and promptly lay down proper guidelines regarding the functioning of the CBFC. It would also be judicious for the chairman of the CBFC to resign and make way for a person who would implement the new guidelines.  

Sadly, there has been a recent trend to curb dissent among intellectuals and artistes which is obviously not conducive to a healthy and secular society. If society has to grow and become an agent of change, all forms of opinion should be allowed to be generated. Whimsical bans will be an anti-thesis. --- INFA      

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)