To cut or not to cut

Udta Punjab row: While CBFC needs to change with the times, filmmakers should refrain from going overboard

The Udta Punjab battle has scarred many, led to hyperactivity within the industry as well as on social media and left a trail of personal attacks and political expediency in its wake. Trouble began late May when the Examining Committee of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) brought a stay on the film.

They wanted 13 categories of changes with a total of 89 cuts, including excessive use of expletives, as well as scenes of drug consumption. Specific cuts – like a predatory dog named Jackie Chain–as well as a scene of leading man Shahid Kapoor urinating on the audience during a rock concert - were also suggested. Also, there was objection to the use of the word “Punjab” in the title.

Anurag Kashyap, the co-producer, the face of the film’s fight against the censors–with his track record of censor hiccups–refused to go to the Revising Committee because he did not have high hopes from it. Kashyap sought help from the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT), a government body that functions independently of the CBFC, but decided against it as a member’s leave of absence would have meant delay in the film’s release. The producers thus bypassed FCAT and went to court.

As the entire industry rallied around the producers – Ekta Kapoor’s Balaji Telefilms, and Kashyap and partners under his banner Phantom Films – the Bombay High Court overruled the CBFC and allowed the film’s release with just one cut, Shahid’s now infamous scene. Meanwhile, a petition in the Supreme Court by an NGO called Human Rights Awareness Association claimed that the film showed Punjab in bad light, but on June 16, the apex court declined a stay. The Punjab and Haryana High Court, too, dismissed a stay on the film.

On June 17, as per schedule, Udta Punjab was released in 1,800 halls and has, reportedly, already been screened in some countries overseas. A leaked pirated version online has added to the woes of the producers. However, wild allegations over a “vindictive” CBFC are baseless, since in no format is the film ever retained by the board. Most people consider this fight as a long-simmering censor-filmmaker tussle that has now boiled over. This major imbroglio has raised, for the umpteenth time, a number of questions and issues, both general and specific to the film. Do we need censors in a democracy, especially now, in the Internet era? Since the erstwhile censor board was renamed Central Board of Film Certification years ago, should it not live up to its name and certify films as per their content, rather than ordering cuts? Does gag on efforts to highlight a real issue serve any purpose?

On the other hand, with our present classification of films as U (universal exhibition), U/A (under-18s need to be accompanied by adults) and A (adults only), and the huge disparity in our population in economic and educational levels, cultural values and so on, how much of such freedom can be afforded by the Indian society? Even today, so many impressionable, even educated, minds still cannot delineate the difference between real and reel, and the police and social workers also find so many crimes and offences inspired by cinema.

Finally, do we really need to show verbal or physical depravity merely to depict darker aspects of society “realistically”? Social ills as bad, or worse, than drug abuse, like sexual exploitation, child labour, prostitution or communal conflicts have been depicted by committed filmmakers for decades. Real-life depravity has been shown with skilled symbolism, and that too more out of choice rather than any fear of the censors. Language, whether in the spoken word or lyrics, has been kept wholesome. After all, in India, cinema is still about family viewership.

Proof of the pudding

Having watched the film, I can state that Udta Punjab exposes the drug menace, using the state as the backdrop because of drug statistics and cinematic convenience, to highlight a global issue. However, expletives in the film are in needless overdrive, and the urinating scene would have added precisely nothing. More important, even if a single cussword had not been used, the script, characters and situations, and thus the impact, would have remained absolutely the same. This clearly shows misuse of the freedom of expression to outrage, sensationalise and generally draw undue attention.

In actual fact, the film may have won its argument with authorities, but will stand to lose so many friends, the audience. However, the other proposed cuts by the CBFC, like junkies consuming drugs, certain words from a song “Chitta ve” (including ‘chitta’, which means a white narcotic) were downright immature.

There is sufficient audio-visual substance within the film condemning or warning against the use of drugs with hints about tackling the menace at every level. Also, other suggested cuts like references to “Punjab” and words like “MLA”, “elections”, “Parliament” and “party”, were completely ludicrous. Of course, the entire controversy, while it lasted, highlighted how political parties are quick to try and gain mileage out of such contretemps. The larger issue that crops up, however, is whether making such subjects will need recourse to courts despite an existing government-appointed body. Yes, a precedent has been set, but when will the authorities, now equated with “moral policing”, adapt to changing social mores and times?

For the record, no CBFC chief watches a film alone, but only acts on the report from the team. After receiving loads of personal flak and also making needless allegations, the defensive Pahlaj Nihalani also made a sane statement. He said the archaic Cinematograph Act should be amended as his team was merely following existing guidelines. Information & Broadcasting Minister Arun Jaitley has assured that a quick overhaul of norms is coming, with a committee headed by Shyam Benegal looking into every aspect.

Nevertheless, the ideal way out is good self-censorship from the filmmakers themselves. Filmmakers must find ways to lure and engage audiences, not alienate them. Yes, arbitrary censorship can demotivate creativity and brave filmmaking, but in a country like ours with low literacy and other ills enumerated above, what we certainly do not need is a lack of responsibility along with our much valued freedom of expression.

(The writer is a Mumbai-based film critic, author and former National Film Awards Jury member)