JOIN USThe prayers of the film industry were answered last week when the government sacked the controversial Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) Chairman Pahlaj Nihalani months before his tenure was to end, and replaced him with lyricist and ad-man Prasoon Joshi. Bollywood, which had borne the brunt of Nihalani’s sanskari scissors, heaved a collective sigh of relief and welcomed the new incumbent with enthusiasm.
What has also allayed industry apprehensions is that apart from Prasoon Joshi, the newly constituted board also includes national award winning actress Vidya Balan, whose choice of films and roles provide ample evidence that she is no prude. The nomination of respected names such as National School of Drama Director Waman Kendre, Hindi author Narendra Kohli, Kannada film-maker T S Nagabharana, south Indian actor Gautami among others, is also heartening.
The CBFC has constantly been in the news for the last few years, courtesy Nihalani, for demanding major cuts in films starting from Udta Punjab to recent ones like Indu Sarkar, Lipstick under my Burkha, Babumoshai Bandookbaaz and the Shahrukh Khan-starrer When Harry met Sejal. Even the Bond film Spectre could not escape Nihalani’s scissors. His objections ranged from the use of cuss words to the depiction of intimate scenes or even suggestive dialogue. Thus, the makers of When Harry met Sejal were asked to drop the word ‘intercourse’ from a dialogue if they wanted a ‘Universal’ rating, while even for being awarded an ‘Adult’ rating, the creators of Babumoshai Bandookbaaz were directed to make 48 cuts.
Moreover, Nihalani didn’t just stop at moral policing. He also resorted to political censorship, whether it was in the case of Indu Sarkar, based on the Emergency, in which he wanted names of political parties to be removed, or when he ridiculously demanded that words and phrases like ‘Gujarat’, ‘cow’ and ‘Hindutva view of India’ be beeped out from a documentary on Nobel laureate Amartya Sen, titled The Argumentative Indian.
It is this perception and practice of moral and political policing that the new CBFC board and its new chairman will have to reverse right away. According to media reports, in his first comments on being appointed CBFC chief, Prasoon Joshi said that his approach would be to look at a film-maker’s intent before allowing or disallowing content that could be deemed offensive or cheap. Apparently, though, he has also said he does not advocate complete freedom of expression and that cinema had to function within the confines of society’s acceptability.
Vidya Balan’s media statement was, however, more unequivocal. It said, “I look forward to this new and exciting phase where our cinema will be allowed to reflect the sensibilities, realities and the complexities of the society we are living in today”.
While it is certain that the new CBFC will be far less controversial and tyrannical, the question is, will it still remain a conservative body trying to safeguard public taste and morality and uphold societal values, as Joshi’s remarks seem to indicate, or will it help make film certification as a concept more modern, enlightened and liberal? There is no doubt that some form of review and certification of films is desirable and necessary, but what exactly does the Joshi formulation of looking at a filmmaker’s intent mean?
Judging intent?
The overwhelming bulk of films made in India are for entertainment. Entertainment by itself is a flexible concept, depending on the target audience. Violence and sex have been stock ingredients of entertainment for decades because audiences seem to have a taste and appetite for it. So, how will it be possible for the CBFC to discern between aesthetic creativity and cheap titillation to form an opinion about the filmmaker’s intent? Just take the case of ‘item numbers.’ Can there be any other intention of a filmmaker other than to provide male audiences something to ogle at?
So, at the most, what the CBFC might be able to decide is whether an item number or parts of it are suitable for viewing by a particular age group and inform the filmmaker the category of certification it is prepared to offer.
And that is precisely why Joshi and the new CBFC board would do a world of good to the process of film certification in India if they simply nudged the government towards adopting the Shyam Benegal Committee recommendations, which have been waiting formal acceptance and implementation since 2016.
Indeed, instead of coming up with another arbitrary set of ambiguous norms about a film-maker’s intention or providing scope for discretion, which might generate more controversies, wouldn’t it be more advisable for Joshi to informally start using the Benegal Committee recommendations as a guideline while reviewing films for certification, since the film industry by and large finds the framework reasonable.
The Film Certification Appellate Tribunal’s recent decision on Babumoshai Bandookbaaz only strengthens this common sense, enlightened approach towards certification. Dismissing the 48 cuts demanded by the CBFC under Pahlaj Nihalani, the tribunal cleared the film with just eight minor, voluntary cuts. It is a lesson the new CBFC board would do well to heed.
(The writer is a Pune-based crime novelist and filmmaker)