Anyone who goes through a brief history of censoring in Indian films must know that the very term censor board, which has been hogging headlines of late, is in fact a misnomer. History says the Bombay Board of Film Censors was reconstituted as the Central Board of Film Censors with the implementation of the Cinematograph Act, 1952. A few decades later, in 1983, the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules were revised and since then this government entity came to be known as Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC).
In short, the second 'C' in CBFC stands for certification and not censor, as many of us think. But, unfortunately those occupying top positions in the so-called 'trimming' agency seem to be the least aware of the job they are entrusted to do. After a weeks-long legal battle over censoring of Bollywood film 'Udta Punjab', the CBFC has courted another controversy, this time in Kerala, with its adamant stance that Kathakali, a debutant director's Malayalam film, cannot be certified in its original form as it contains nudity.
Read also: Kerala's 'Udta': Film censor orders cuts in 'Kathakali'; filmmakers protest
Sijo Kannanaikkal, the director, had told media that even after he blurred the particular scenes found objectionable in the letter which the censor board regional office gave him, the film was denied a certificate. "I do not even mind an 'A' certificate," he was quoted as saying in a media report.
In another report, Thiruvananthapuram regional censor officer Prathibha was quoted as defending herself, saying the film-maker had not given the board the request letter for the film to be considered for ‘A’ certification.
Let those involved in the issue settle the matter. But the entire episode brings to fore once again the unnecessary technicalities in getting clearance for a film to be screened. The CBFC members and officials, often based on their convictions about the world order and morality, act as censors who order merciless 'cuts'. Even to be certified as an 'adults only' movie, they demand certain scenes or words be removed from the film. Rajeev Ravi's 'Kammatipaadam' faced a similar fate recently. The director was forced to take away a caste name used in the film which ultimately discussed the social evil called caste in a realistic manner.
While those in power may defend the idea of censoring as a preventive measure to stop people from shooting and screening anything they want on screen -- to be precise, nudity, filmmakers call the act an infringement on their creativity and freedom of expression.
It is evident that the decisions of the so-called Censor Board are often driven by social stigmas associated with nudity and a rigid moral sense. However, with its draconian decisions, the agency turns out to be a laughing stock in front of those who look at films as a strong medium of expression.
The agency should stick to its business, that is to certify what comes in front of it. The notion that it have the power to ban something that does not suit the interests of its members amounts to moral policing and is undemocratic. The thought that a nude scene, shot with the total consent of an artist, may spoil the culture, sounds absurd at a time when nudity in all its forms is easily available at a mouse click.
The CBFC must at least remember that gone are the days when people would throng theatres for a glimpse of a bare body. The matter gets worse when the authoritarian body succumbs to the interests of their political ring masters to deny certification to films that stand against their interests.
Films that speak up or attempt to show anything radical and unacceptable to the rigid societal norms easily get axed in the hands of the censors who are mere political-appointees lacking a deep sense of appreciation and social realities.
The CBFC had burnt its fingers by calling for 89 cuts and removal of the word Punjab from the title of the film Udta Punjab. Considering a plea by the makers of the film against the CBFC order, the the Bombay High Court had made it clear that the CBFC does not have power to censor films.
“There is no mention of the word ‘censor’ in board. Board should use its powers as per Constitution and Supreme Court’s directions,” the HC bench observed. Now, the row over Kathakali, which is being dubbed as 'Kerala's Udta Punjab' by media shows that the CBFC has not learnt from its mistakes.
The scene will change only if the agency is freed from political and bureaucratic clutches. Unfortunately, it seems a distant dream in a country where petty politics plays up above all ideologies.
