<p>The denial of screening permission for some films at the just-concluded International Film Festival of Kerala (IFFK) again raises questions about threats to freedom of expression and the government’s meddling in cultural institutions. </p><p>The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting had communicated to the Kerala government that some films slated for the festival should not be screened. Although as many as 19 films were denied censorship exemptions, over the days, clearances were granted for some. This affected the overall scheduling. It created an unprecedented situation and signalled that the instinct for censorship was expanding into new areas. </p><p>The Kerala government announced that it would defy the denial of censorship exemption and directed the organisers to screen all slated films. But the screening of some films was eventually cancelled. Though it was claimed that the denial of exemption was due to procedural reasons, it is widely held that it was politically motivated. Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan strongly criticised the ministry’s action and said it was "yet another move to impose the Sangh Parivar agenda of suppressing diversity and voices of dissent.’’ </p>.<p>There were no convincing grounds for the denial of exemption — uninformed in some cases, ridiculous in others, and wrong and unfair in all cases. One film that did not get clearance was Battleship Potemkin, an all-time classic, whose 100th anniversary falls this year. Among those denied screening were some Palestinian films, raising the doubt that they were disfavoured because they were Palestinian. </p><p>The Hour of the Furnaces, a 1968 political documentary from Argentina about revolutionary activism, also drew disapproval. A Spanish film titled <em>Beef</em> did not pass muster because, presumably, beef is not just an objectionable food item but also an unacceptable word. Ironically, the film has nothing to do with beef — it is about hip-hop culture. Obviously, the film was not seen by those who decided against it. In this scenario, Charlie Chaplin’s classic <em>The Great Dictator</em> had no chance. All these films have been screened at many other festivals.</p>.<p>The ministry has the power to deny a censorship exemption for a film if it affects the country's security and integrity, disturbs law and order, or impacts relations with other countries. None of these films could be rejected on those grounds. The decision could have been prompted by ignorance, as with Beef, or motivated by a mischievous wish to unsettle a popular cultural event in an Opposition-ruled state. Beyond that, it is an attack on freedom of speech and expression and a sign of narrow politics that seeks to crush the diverse, cosmopolitan nature of the artistic spirit.</p>
<p>The denial of screening permission for some films at the just-concluded International Film Festival of Kerala (IFFK) again raises questions about threats to freedom of expression and the government’s meddling in cultural institutions. </p><p>The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting had communicated to the Kerala government that some films slated for the festival should not be screened. Although as many as 19 films were denied censorship exemptions, over the days, clearances were granted for some. This affected the overall scheduling. It created an unprecedented situation and signalled that the instinct for censorship was expanding into new areas. </p><p>The Kerala government announced that it would defy the denial of censorship exemption and directed the organisers to screen all slated films. But the screening of some films was eventually cancelled. Though it was claimed that the denial of exemption was due to procedural reasons, it is widely held that it was politically motivated. Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan strongly criticised the ministry’s action and said it was "yet another move to impose the Sangh Parivar agenda of suppressing diversity and voices of dissent.’’ </p>.<p>There were no convincing grounds for the denial of exemption — uninformed in some cases, ridiculous in others, and wrong and unfair in all cases. One film that did not get clearance was Battleship Potemkin, an all-time classic, whose 100th anniversary falls this year. Among those denied screening were some Palestinian films, raising the doubt that they were disfavoured because they were Palestinian. </p><p>The Hour of the Furnaces, a 1968 political documentary from Argentina about revolutionary activism, also drew disapproval. A Spanish film titled <em>Beef</em> did not pass muster because, presumably, beef is not just an objectionable food item but also an unacceptable word. Ironically, the film has nothing to do with beef — it is about hip-hop culture. Obviously, the film was not seen by those who decided against it. In this scenario, Charlie Chaplin’s classic <em>The Great Dictator</em> had no chance. All these films have been screened at many other festivals.</p>.<p>The ministry has the power to deny a censorship exemption for a film if it affects the country's security and integrity, disturbs law and order, or impacts relations with other countries. None of these films could be rejected on those grounds. The decision could have been prompted by ignorance, as with Beef, or motivated by a mischievous wish to unsettle a popular cultural event in an Opposition-ruled state. Beyond that, it is an attack on freedom of speech and expression and a sign of narrow politics that seeks to crush the diverse, cosmopolitan nature of the artistic spirit.</p>
