<p class="bodytext">The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) cited a strange reason for denying clearance to a Malayalam film starring Suresh Gopi – it objected to the name of the film’s protagonist, Janaki. The Board contended that it was inappropriate to present a character that bears another name of Sita as a sexual violence survivor in the film. That the character is cross-examined by a lawyer belonging to another religion was also cited. The CBFC did not even need a complaint before making its judgement. It decided that the film would hurt sentiments and might create law and order problems. The Board also suggested more than 90 cuts in the film which is about the survivor’s fight for justice.</p>.<p class="bodytext">When the matter was taken to the Kerala High Court, the court rightly asked why the name Janaki could not be used. The makers, however, agreed on two changes: Janaki would now be called Janaki V and her name would be muted in the courtroom scene. The court directed the CBFC to issue the certificate for the film, now called <span class="italic">Janaki V v/s State of Kerala</span>. It is unfortunate that the film’s release had to be secured by compromising artistic freedom, which derives from the right to freedom of speech and expression. This is not the first instance of unreasonable revision forced on films. Earlier this year, post-release changes were made to another Malayalam film, <span class="italic">Empuraan</span>, on the grounds that some of its scenes hurt Hindu sentiments. Every such compromise sets a bad precedent and emboldens people to make more such demands.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The CBFC is a certification body and it should not act as a censoring authority. It decided that the film was not fit for viewing after the state film certification body cleared the film. Janaki is a common Indian name – to place it in the context of faith and community, and to view an artistic work through that lens is wrong. The Board has expanded the area of intolerance – naming characters could now become tricky, not only in films but in any work of fiction. Wouldn’t there be second thoughts before naming villains Ram, Kishan, or Ganesh? The trend of attacking films and other works of art based on “hurt sentiments”, as seen in the case of films such as <span class="italic">Padmaavat </span>and novels such as The <span class="italic">Satanic Verses</span>, is increasingly worrying. Art has a function to provoke, and a free and healthy society should accept it.</p>
<p class="bodytext">The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) cited a strange reason for denying clearance to a Malayalam film starring Suresh Gopi – it objected to the name of the film’s protagonist, Janaki. The Board contended that it was inappropriate to present a character that bears another name of Sita as a sexual violence survivor in the film. That the character is cross-examined by a lawyer belonging to another religion was also cited. The CBFC did not even need a complaint before making its judgement. It decided that the film would hurt sentiments and might create law and order problems. The Board also suggested more than 90 cuts in the film which is about the survivor’s fight for justice.</p>.<p class="bodytext">When the matter was taken to the Kerala High Court, the court rightly asked why the name Janaki could not be used. The makers, however, agreed on two changes: Janaki would now be called Janaki V and her name would be muted in the courtroom scene. The court directed the CBFC to issue the certificate for the film, now called <span class="italic">Janaki V v/s State of Kerala</span>. It is unfortunate that the film’s release had to be secured by compromising artistic freedom, which derives from the right to freedom of speech and expression. This is not the first instance of unreasonable revision forced on films. Earlier this year, post-release changes were made to another Malayalam film, <span class="italic">Empuraan</span>, on the grounds that some of its scenes hurt Hindu sentiments. Every such compromise sets a bad precedent and emboldens people to make more such demands.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The CBFC is a certification body and it should not act as a censoring authority. It decided that the film was not fit for viewing after the state film certification body cleared the film. Janaki is a common Indian name – to place it in the context of faith and community, and to view an artistic work through that lens is wrong. The Board has expanded the area of intolerance – naming characters could now become tricky, not only in films but in any work of fiction. Wouldn’t there be second thoughts before naming villains Ram, Kishan, or Ganesh? The trend of attacking films and other works of art based on “hurt sentiments”, as seen in the case of films such as <span class="italic">Padmaavat </span>and novels such as The <span class="italic">Satanic Verses</span>, is increasingly worrying. Art has a function to provoke, and a free and healthy society should accept it.</p>
