<div>The verdict of the Bombay High Court has failed to make the head of the Central Board for Film Certification (CBFC) introspect. This can be traced to the outcomes in earlier instances as well. <br /><br />The Shyam Benegal Committee was set up to revamp the norms of film certification on January 1, after several controversies due to the arbitrary application of the guidelines by CBFC since the appointment of Pahlaj Nihalani as the head. The committee submitted its report on the Cinematograph Act on April 26. One of the objectives of the guidelines stated by the committee is “to ensure that artistic expression and creative freedom are not unduly curbed…and the process of certification by CBFC is responsive, at all times, to social change.” <br /><br />In 2013, the Mudgal Committee used similar words while citing the principles for guidance in certifying films. Headed by Justice Mukul Mudgal, retired chief justice of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, the panel was set up to revise CBFC rules (laid down in 1952), after the row over the illegal ban on Kamal Hasan’s film Vishwaroopam. The ban was illegal because the Supreme Court had already stated during the Arakhshan case that once a film is certified, it cannot be banned citing law and order problems. The Mudgal Committee had taken note of Sadda Haque, Madras Café and Ram Leela also which had suffered the same fate in various states. <br /><br />The Benegal Committee had to remind the CBFC once again of the changing times. But the irony is that the rulers seem to refuse to respect the committees they set up. It remains to be seen when the Benegal Committee guidelines would be actually implemented. The Udta Punjab controversy has caused furious reactions among the film fraternity. The potential audience is amused to read about the mindless cuts suggested by the CBFC. <br /><br />Do we have to remain satisfied still with the fairy tales of the nowhere land that our ancestors used to watch during the first phase of the history of Indian cinema? Do we have no right or courage to face what is actually happening in our times? The Udta Punjab case was taken to the high court which stated that creativity should not be crushed and asked the CBFC to change with the times. Cinema of today along with its audience has marched ahead, while the CBFC lingers in medieval age. <br /><br />Nihalani, while seeking amendments to the Act, suggests that “producers of a film which has been refused certification should not be allowed to create media criticism or opinion about the film.” This is an outright demand to have the right to throttle democracy itself. Why is the CBFC afraid of criticism? “In order to preserve Indian cinema”, the Benegal Committee has even recommended that “every applicant be asked to deposit the director’s cut in the National Film Archives of India for preservation of Indian cinema, instead of the certified version, in order to truly reflect the cinematic history of Indian cinema.” This suggests how the committee values the preservation of the basic sensitivities of the filmmaker. <br /><br />Authentic historical records<br /><br />This effort would throw light on the gradual growth of Indian cinema and is of utmost importance for the documentation of the history of Indian cinema. Authentic historical records could be obtained only from unsuppressed sources. What the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting has to say on this is yet to be seen, for the ruling party is said to have the agenda to change history itself.<br /><br />It is but natural that a demand to oust Nihalani would once again spring up in the film fraternity. Nihalani’s arbitrary decisions have been continuously controversial and recently in the case of Udta Punjab when criticised, he remarked, “Yes, I am prime minister’s chamcha”. The words are too eloquent to comment. The head of a responsible autonomous body using such a language and trying to lure the government by his decision itself questions the autonomous nature of the body. <br /><br />Merely replacing the controversial chairman would not solve the problem. The need of the hour is to bring in a sensible person who has the vision to behold beyond the set norms, keeping with the changing times and whose actions are not politically motivated. If at all the replacement takes place, the government is likely to appoint a person who would continue to cater to its own ideology. But there does not seem to be such a chance for the ruling party and the government would consider it as their defeat. Earlier instances have proved the point. <br /><br />To use the scissors to suite one’s personal or political interests is neither going to add to the glory of the CBFC nor that of the government. If the judiciary has to intervene every now and then to sort out the certification issues of films, what reputation can the CBFC boast about? If the members of the CBFC could borrow the prudence that our judiciary has, perhaps the situation will improve. <br /><br /><em>(The writer is a Mumbai-based film journalist)</em><br /><br /></div>
<div>The verdict of the Bombay High Court has failed to make the head of the Central Board for Film Certification (CBFC) introspect. This can be traced to the outcomes in earlier instances as well. <br /><br />The Shyam Benegal Committee was set up to revamp the norms of film certification on January 1, after several controversies due to the arbitrary application of the guidelines by CBFC since the appointment of Pahlaj Nihalani as the head. The committee submitted its report on the Cinematograph Act on April 26. One of the objectives of the guidelines stated by the committee is “to ensure that artistic expression and creative freedom are not unduly curbed…and the process of certification by CBFC is responsive, at all times, to social change.” <br /><br />In 2013, the Mudgal Committee used similar words while citing the principles for guidance in certifying films. Headed by Justice Mukul Mudgal, retired chief justice of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, the panel was set up to revise CBFC rules (laid down in 1952), after the row over the illegal ban on Kamal Hasan’s film Vishwaroopam. The ban was illegal because the Supreme Court had already stated during the Arakhshan case that once a film is certified, it cannot be banned citing law and order problems. The Mudgal Committee had taken note of Sadda Haque, Madras Café and Ram Leela also which had suffered the same fate in various states. <br /><br />The Benegal Committee had to remind the CBFC once again of the changing times. But the irony is that the rulers seem to refuse to respect the committees they set up. It remains to be seen when the Benegal Committee guidelines would be actually implemented. The Udta Punjab controversy has caused furious reactions among the film fraternity. The potential audience is amused to read about the mindless cuts suggested by the CBFC. <br /><br />Do we have to remain satisfied still with the fairy tales of the nowhere land that our ancestors used to watch during the first phase of the history of Indian cinema? Do we have no right or courage to face what is actually happening in our times? The Udta Punjab case was taken to the high court which stated that creativity should not be crushed and asked the CBFC to change with the times. Cinema of today along with its audience has marched ahead, while the CBFC lingers in medieval age. <br /><br />Nihalani, while seeking amendments to the Act, suggests that “producers of a film which has been refused certification should not be allowed to create media criticism or opinion about the film.” This is an outright demand to have the right to throttle democracy itself. Why is the CBFC afraid of criticism? “In order to preserve Indian cinema”, the Benegal Committee has even recommended that “every applicant be asked to deposit the director’s cut in the National Film Archives of India for preservation of Indian cinema, instead of the certified version, in order to truly reflect the cinematic history of Indian cinema.” This suggests how the committee values the preservation of the basic sensitivities of the filmmaker. <br /><br />Authentic historical records<br /><br />This effort would throw light on the gradual growth of Indian cinema and is of utmost importance for the documentation of the history of Indian cinema. Authentic historical records could be obtained only from unsuppressed sources. What the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting has to say on this is yet to be seen, for the ruling party is said to have the agenda to change history itself.<br /><br />It is but natural that a demand to oust Nihalani would once again spring up in the film fraternity. Nihalani’s arbitrary decisions have been continuously controversial and recently in the case of Udta Punjab when criticised, he remarked, “Yes, I am prime minister’s chamcha”. The words are too eloquent to comment. The head of a responsible autonomous body using such a language and trying to lure the government by his decision itself questions the autonomous nature of the body. <br /><br />Merely replacing the controversial chairman would not solve the problem. The need of the hour is to bring in a sensible person who has the vision to behold beyond the set norms, keeping with the changing times and whose actions are not politically motivated. If at all the replacement takes place, the government is likely to appoint a person who would continue to cater to its own ideology. But there does not seem to be such a chance for the ruling party and the government would consider it as their defeat. Earlier instances have proved the point. <br /><br />To use the scissors to suite one’s personal or political interests is neither going to add to the glory of the CBFC nor that of the government. If the judiciary has to intervene every now and then to sort out the certification issues of films, what reputation can the CBFC boast about? If the members of the CBFC could borrow the prudence that our judiciary has, perhaps the situation will improve. <br /><br /><em>(The writer is a Mumbai-based film journalist)</em><br /><br /></div>
