“We want to promote experimental cinema and showcase a more relevant side of Indian cinema that is not just restricted to Bollywood. So our selection includes quite a few debut films,” said Neelam Kapur, Director DFF (Directorate of Film Festivals) She was speaking at the inaugural function of a festival of 42 films that began screening at Nandan II from March 15 to March 27.

SRFTI alumni Bishnu Deb Haldar’s 24-minute non-feature film Bagher Bachcha (Tiger Cub) was the inaugural film. This was followed by Shyamprasad’s Malayal-am film Ore Kadal (The Sea Within), based on Sunil Gangopadhyay’s Hirak Deepti. Among eagerly awaited films were Buddhadeb Dasgupta’s Ami, Yaasin O Amaar Madhubala, Samir Chanda’s Ek Nodir Galpo, Adoor Gopalakrishnan’s Naalu Pennungal and The Dance of Shiva, Supriyo Sen’s Hope Dies Last in War and Ladly Mukhopadhyay’s Whose Land It Is Anyway?

Trouble began right after Whose Land It Is Anyway? was screened. A large section of the audience began to raise slogans against the CPM-led government in their strong response to the film. Many of them booed the Ruling Party. Ladly Mukhopadhay’s 40-minute film, Whose Land is it Anyway? is a critique of the Left Front government’s acquisition of 1,000 acres of land for a Tata small car factory in Singur, and it’s handling of the agitation that followed in 2006-07.

The screening that was originally scheduled for the 2.00 pm show, was put off for the 6.00 pm. show. But immediately afterwards, in response to the agitation by a section of the audience, Nilanjan Chattopadhyay, CEO, Nandan, shot off a fax to the DFF Delhi, asking the office to give reasons why this film was sent for screening within this package. All screenings of all Panorama films at Nandan were scrapped immediately, including films that did not offend the image or prestige of the Left-ruled CPM government depriving the audience of the opportunity of watching the remaining films.

Whose Land It Is Anyway? uses lucid logic and well-researched facts and data to present his argument against the West Bengal State Government’s decision to industrialize Singur. True that we have been seeing all this across our television screens everyday. But a commentary on a television news channel and a scathing comment placed on celluloid or DVD is not the same. Jointly conceived and scripted by Ladly Mukhopadyay and Ravi Shankar Bal, the film is significant and topical. “Just 20 percent of the farmers have actually agreed to surrender their land. 80 percent of the farmers have still not given/sold their land,” says one local. Another one butts in. “The land here does not have any label of the CPM or Trinamool or Congress stamped on it. Was it not the Government’s duty to go to the peasants from door to door and discuss their plans with them?” he asks.

“We live in a democratic country that grants the Press the greatest freedom. Freedom of expression is our constitutional right. How then, can a mere government bureaucrat question the discretion of the DFF for including my film in the screening programme? Selectors like Arun Khopkar and Pankaj Butalia among others already selected Whose Land is It Anywayfor the Indian Panorama at Goa. Proscribing a film they had chosen, is not only questioning their judgement, but also questioning the judgement of the DFF and insulting their choice,” said Ladly Mukherjee at the Press Conference held at Kolkata’s Press Club on May 2.

“What makes this shocking is that, the DFF in Delhi, a wing of the Union I&B ministry which organises international and other film festivals, (including Whose Land It Is Anyway?) had already sent the synopses of all the Panorama films to Nandan, some time before the festival. Why did they not care to go through the synopses if they are so touchy about films that are critical of the Ruling Party’s moves to industrialize the state at the cost of the local residents by forcing them to migrate or adjust to the ‘changes’ in the socio-economic culture of their livelihoods?” asked Nilanjan Bhattacharya, a documentary filmmaker, at the Press Conference. Other eminent members present were Biplab Chakraborty, a noted theatre personality and artist Suvaprasanna.

Will these self-appointed censors of a ‘board’ they have created for themselves to hide ugly truths please explain how “the content of a film (that) directly violates the ethical principles of centre-state relationship?” according to the FAX? What ‘ethical principles of centre-state relationship’ are being violated when the film is being screened in just one State - West Bengal? One wonders what is so ‘unethical’ about this screening unless one knows what these ‘ethical principles’ are? Will the honourable CEO kindly spell them out for the benefit of ignoramuses like yours truly? The extra-cautious CEO begins the FAX with “I am directed to state that it is highly objectionable to include such a controversial film in the Indian Panorama package,” following this with “I am further directed to inform you that all the screenings earmarked on 27 March, 2008, will remain suspended till a satisfactory reply is received from your office.”

Why does the FAX refuse to define what it means by terms like ‘objectionable’ and ‘controversial film?’ Cinema being a free and fluid agent of education, entertainment, information and social change evokes equally free, fluid responses from the audience. One will recall that a Member of Parliament who was a film celebrity in her own right, found Satyajit Ray’s Pather Panchali objectionable because of its depiction of poverty. The only solace Ladly can draw from this proscription is that he is in august company and that the audience had already seen his film.

Meanwhile Neelam Kapur, Director, DFF stated recently that they have replied to Nandan after they received the Fax from CEO, Nandan.

DFF reacted strongly to the issue and stated that a film gets selected in the prestigious Indian Panorama by an eminent and independent panel of juries and since these films are all censored no objections can be raised against the selection whatsoever… DFF do not and cannot discriminate between film A and film B for any reasons and IP is showcased as a whole package. It is most unfortunate that Nandan took such a step and cancelled the last days screening of IP films.