Focus

IS CENSORSHIP REDUNDANT?

It’s a debate as old as cinema itself. Yet, film industry leaders attempt to revaluate the need for censorship in the light of recent developments...

Whether to make the film industry fall in line with its whip, suppress political dissension or use the machinery to provide berths to nondescript party members, the government has let censorship survive over 50 years since Independence. It’s also been an effective tool to ward off litigation that might spring up on account of pressure groups’ raising objections to scenes. After all, censorship is a lesser evil than the onslaught of groups with vested interests.

On the other hand, there are those advocating the removal of censorship. They argue the issue of pre-censorship should be done away with if the government has to move towards maturity in democratic principles in a true sense. They feel the film industry should be entrusted with the task of self-censorship, advocating that the system be given a trial run of a year or two, after which, it may be scrapped if found unsatisfactory.

What irks the film industry is the discrimination that exists in film censorship. The foreign films are liberally censored because they represent the culture of the country of their origin. On the other hand, the government has not imposed any censorship on television. Nor is there any control over the satellite channels, some of which keep showing adult fare.

Filmmakers wonder why there should be censorship for films, while TV gets by with none. Almost every video shop hires out blue films. Video parlours, too, continue to show blue films. What’s worse, suggestively-titled small-budget films like Jawani and Jawani Ki Josh continue to interpolate hardcore sex scenes after censorship, that are referred to, politely, as ‘bits’ in industry parlance.

In other words, the government has been thoroughly ineffective in controlling sex creeping into entertainment fare which is easily accessible to impressionable minds. Yet, the government persists with censorship of films. Even the categories of censorship have become the stuff of derision, because adult certified films are aired on television with impunity.

Censorship of films has always been a contentious issue. The English imposed it in 1918 because they did not want any dissension against their The experience of the filmmakers since Independence has been harrowing. Time and again, it has been proved that the government uses censorship to suppress political statements in films, be it Andha Kanoon, Ardh Satya, or Aandhi. To make matters worse, what is passable in one regional censor office is not allowed by another regional centre.

WE’RE STILL NOT READY
FOR SELF-CENSORSHIP
Pahlaj Nihalani
Pahlaj Nihalani, president of the Association of Motion Picture & TV Programme Producers, feels censorship should continue. “Even after certification, political groups continue to pressurise the government. Yet the government tag of approval is still a protective umbrella for the film. Some of the low-budget films continue to interpolate ‘bits’, which spoil the name of the film industry. Such malpractice must be checked, for it only shows we’re still not ready for self-censorship. Today, censorship is more liberal. The fact that censors have passed films like Bandit Queen, Fire and even Split Wide Open proves that fact. After Meri Awaz Suno, the government has also not exercised its power under section 6 of the Cinematograph Act. Filmmaking is a commercial enterprise, and nobody wants any trouble either from the censors or the public.

ALL FOR STATUS QUO
KCN Chandrashekhar
KCN Chandrashekhar, president of the Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce, also wants status quo to be maintained in film censorship. “Our people are not mature enough to exercise self-censorship because internal squabbles and individual egos still come into play. Nobody will observe a self-imposed censorship code. Even in the matter of publicity material, it goes overboard, and some of the posters displayed in Bangalore city are obnoxious. Bits are added in films whether it is an English or Hindi one. The signatures of certificates given by industry bodies are forged. There is no restraint or sincerity left in filmdom. This is my observation and I strongly believe the government’s policy of censorship must continue.”

WANTED: DISCUSSIONS
Manoj Munot
Manoj Munot, vice president of the Western India Film Producers Association, is also in favour of government-controlled censorship. “If the government removes censorship, our society will never let a single film run smoothly in theatres because there are too many pressure groups waiting to pounce upon filmmakers, to find fault with them. What is required is a workshop between the censors and filmmakers to find ways to rationalise censorship of films. The censors butcher the small films. Recently, they cut 6000 feet from a film, can you believe it, leaving hardly 8000 feet, reducing it to a documentary? Censors hold talks with the big producers and not with the low budget films which constitute 90 per cent of the production in India. Why can’t censors take cognisance of the ground reality and hold talks with the producers?,” he asks.

GIVE INDUSTRY A CHANCE
DVS Raju
However, DVS Raju, the veteran filmmaker and leader of the South Indian film industry who once headed National Film Development Corporation, insists the government should entrust censorship to the film industry, since it has effectively done the censorship of publicity materials through trade bodies. “Allowing self-censorship is the logical continuation of the publicity scrutinising committee. Like in the advanced countries, the film industry should be made responsible for maintaining self restraint. What is happening now is that people without any knowledge of films are appointed on the censor panels. Censorship should not be politicised. Majority of the members of the advisory panel feel it is a status symbol to be on the panel of the censor board. They are political appointees. The censorship machinery is studded with political people, eroding the very credibility of censorship. Whichever party comes to power, they bring in their own men to the censor panels. I remember the same BJP MPs were vocal against the pattern of censorship machinery. But what are they doing now that they are in power? It is time the government lets the film industry observe self censorship. We the filmfolk deserve a chance to show we’re responsible and accountable.”

WHY FILMS ALONE?
D Rama Naidu
Producer, studio owner and MP, D Rama Naidu feels there must be self-censorship and he will take up the matter in parliament. “What is happening now is that the political parties are pushing their own men on the advisory panels who do not know anything about films. However, there is no censorship for television. Why should there be censorship for films alone?,” he asks.

ALL FOR REGIONAL FLAVOUR
Ajit Bhattacharya
Ajit Bhattacharya of the Eastern India Motion Picture Association, on the other hand, feels censorship must continue and a representative of EIMPA should be appointed on the censor board, so that a proper justification of films can be done. “Many Bengali producers are getting their films censored from Bhubaneshwar because they get certificates more easily there than in Calcutta. The censors in Calcutta are very strict. People from the region should constitute the censor panel, because they understand the ethos of the region better.”

BRING IN CATEGORIES
GOVIND NIHALANI
Govind Nihalani says he is totally against state censorship. “Censorship as it exists is unpredictable, conservative and unproductive. Censorship should reflect the changing values of people, their lifestyles and progress of society. We talk of freedom of expression but in reality, the freedom exists only in name. The colonial masters imposed censorship because they wanted to curb national sentiment. Whenever the talk of self censorship comes up there is an argument that our audience is not intelligent. I don’t buy this argument. The audience knows how to weed out unwanted things in films. The double meaning songs have stopped not because the censors objected but because the audience did not want them. People who want to make muck will continue to make it. But there are serious filmmakers like Subhash Ghai and Yash Chopra who do not. Why should they be penalised? There must be self censorship. There should not be censorship of films. An easy way out is introducing categories. Like in Western films where films are rated X or Double X. The audience which wants to see X rated films can see them. Let us have total freedom. It may be given a trial run for five years. Let us see what happens thereafter.”

CENSORS ARE REDUNDANT
GULZAR
Gulzar finds censorship of films redundant since censors are not in a position to curb undesirable material. “There is no sense in having a censorship body when films are shown illegally and excessive violence and sex are allowed to be shown on the television channels. Its very existence is redundant. Freedom of expression is given to some and not to others, which doesn’t make sense. When the basic structure of society and administration is defective, what is the point in applying corrective measures through censorship?” he asks.

Msm Desai