[IMC Bombay] on censorship of films

[shammi nanda]

I had written a note on censorship as a reaction to the cuts imposed by the 
censor board on Anand’ Patwardhan’s  film ‘War and Peace’. Though I have 
questioned the relevance of the censor board, I am myself not sure what 
exactly it’s impact will be. However I am planning to make a detailed study 
of the functioning of the censorship in India. I wanted to hear other 
peoples views on censorship and that is why I am posting it on the list. 
Maybe it  could be the beginning of an interesting debate on censorship of 
films.

Shammi

CENSORSHIP AND INDIAN CINEMA

“Censorship is when a work of art expressing an idea which does not fall 
under current convention is seized, cut up, withdrawn, impounded, ignored, 
maligned, or otherwise made inaccessible to its audience”. (quote from a 
study by Women’s World Organisation for Rights, Literature and Development)

It was the controversy around the denial of censors certificate to Anand 
Patwardhan’s film “War and Peace” which interested me into looking  at why 
is the State interested in censoring what we see? What is it that it thinks 
is dangerous for whom and why? Is it a stray case of Board members taking 
decisions callously or is it a part of a well thought out strategy by which 
Censor Board functions? Is it’s existence stifling progressive cinema and is 
an attack on the freedom of expression? Are we losing more than what we are 
gaining on account of censorship?
On the one side we find State promoting reactionary films like  “Gadar” or 
“Border” which make the audiences frenzied enough to shout Pakistan Murdabad 
during the screening or “Satya” which shows indiscriminate killing of 
‘gangsters’ and even makes them tax free but it does not allow Patwardhan’s 
films to be screened. The fact is that his film is critical of India’s  
Nuclear Bomb, which has been projected by the State as a major national 
achievement, while those other films endorse the State’s point of view thus 
Censor Board does act as an institution of the State which exists to direct 
the public discourse and to safeguard its interests.

All the violence that is taking place today needs a super structure of a 
large group of people, which may not participate in the carnage but support 
it tacitly. As long as we have films like Gadar, we will have the class 
which supports these kind of carnage and cuts in Patwardhan’s films are made 
to ensure that any viewpoint other than the one of the State does not exist 
in the public discourse and in this case the State would not want people to 
question the ideology of violence.

As it is the film production and distribution mechanism is so tuned that it 
is difficult for a filmmaker with an alternative view to raise funds to make 
a film and show it . If after a lot of struggle, if one does  make a film 
with an alternative viewpoint, as in the case of Patwardhan, we have the 
Censor Board between the people and the filmmaker.

All over the world the prime concern of censors is portrayal of violence and 
sex. The fact that the State wants sex to be portrayed in a certain way, 
reflects on the kind of sexuality that the State thinks should exist and 
attempts to control the private lives of its citizens. It seems that the 
Censor Board often represents the view of existing dominant patriarchy and 
by keeping out any discussion of sexuality in public domain it attempts to 
keep it in the four walls of the household which is also the place of 
control of a woman. If the Censor Board’s job is to check the ‘corruption of 
mind’ and to check pornographic films, in today’s times where anyone with 
access to the internet can see infinite amount of pornography, one wonders 
how much use is the Censor Board  in stopping it.

Often the Censor Board looks at a film’s scenes or shots in isolation and 
misses out on the intent of the film. In the process it might misinterpret 
or oversimplify films. Keeping in mind that terms like vulgar, obscene, 
indecent etc are extremely subjective, the Censor Board might demand a cut 
or two on account of nudity. However, a film with characters fully clothed 
can be ‘vulgar’ whereas one with nudity could look ‘unoffending’, depending 
on the intention of the filmmaker. If we take into account the intent and 
see films holistically it will be obvious that some of the films which claim 
to be ‘clean family entertainment’ and Saas Bahu type of serials are 
reactionary and extremely dangerous.

A look at the reaction to the film “Fire” can give further insight about the 
concern of the State and other dominant groups towards sexuality. Shiv Sena 
stopped the film from being screened by threatening the theatre owners. The  
Censor Board while acting on their behest tried to recall the film which was 
later refused by the supreme court. The objection to the film was that it 
showed a lesbian relation which according to its opponents was against 
Indian tradition and that it ‘distorts’ Indian culture. Here it is a case of 
an alternative sexuality which threatens the notion of ‘Indian Family’. Its 
opponent’s were concerned about the corruption of the minds of women. Often 
the notion that a “particular film can be seen with the family” is a veiled 
concern for protecting women and children. Restrictions on sexual material 
-- whether in serious art or in commercial pornography -- are often imposed 
in the name of "protecting" women. These restrictions do nothing to promote 
women's equality and much to infantilize them. The theory that ideas, 
information, or images involving sex are inherently offensive to women only 
shores up destructive Victorian stereotypes of female purity and asexuality.

There is another kind of censorship, the one imposed by terror tactics of 
various reactionary groups or ‘thought police’. In the case of film ‘Water’ 
Deepa Mehata was not allowed to shoot it  despite all clearances for 
shooting it. The archaic rule of getting the script approved by I&B ministry 
for a foreign film and having a government official at the shooting to see 
whether the script is followed was also taken care of, even after this 
permission the Indian State could not provide her security from a bunch of 
lumpens. Recently, some films about the Gujrat Carnage were not allowed to 
be screened at a college in Bombay.  ABVP had complained to the police that 
the films might disturb the peace of the city and the videotapes were 
confiscated by the police.

One is often at a loss as to how we should handle situations like 
Patwardhan’s. Should we fight the board’s decision on a case to case basis, 
try to build a public opinion, or ask for a more sensitive Censor Board. But 
as long as the State censors films, it will be the subjective will of a few 
individuals who, while acting on behalf of the state, will be seeing and 
deciding for us as to what we should see, and eventually shaping our very 
thoughts to fit a certain ideology. In India the debate around censorship 
has always centred around the justification of a certain cut made by the 
Censor Board but rarely has there been any public debate which has 
questioned the relevance and existence of the Censor Board. Often one faces 
the dilemma whether at all we should have a Censor Board. Seeing certain 
reactionary and regressive films one thinks of taking recourse to the Censor 
Board.
Given the reach and power of the film medium one is cautious to say that 
their should not be any censorship of  films as their might be a flood of C 
grade or reactionary films. Perhaps there is a different way of tackling 
this problem and it is time to look into the role that can be played by 
criticism, analysis and cinema literacy.

In our constitution we have the freedom of expression and Censor Board side 
by side, we have a newly acquired Right to Information Bill alongside an 
Official Secrets Act.  Though one agrees that no right can be absolute but 
at times it is the  functioning of these institutions which is often 
questionable.  Is their existence an attack on freedom of expression? It 
seems that Censorship can be a weapon in the hands of the State to make the 
people go with it’s ideology and not letting them think in any other way. 
Often the Censor Board functions to impose the State’s notion of Indian-ness 
and Nationhood.

I think that it is necessary at this time to take a look at the Censor Board 
and its functioning in the past and its power to attack the freedom of 
expression, we have to see how these controls on our freedom to speech and 
our freedom to listen to others, affect our thinking and our day to day 
lives.

Shammi Nanda


_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com