Freedom of Expression And Censorship
“Man is born free, and everywhere he
is in chains.”
These
are the dramatic opening lines of Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s immensely powerful
treatise "The Social Contract."
Freedom is the most fundamental pillar of democracy: in its absence
democracy turns into autocracy. The French Revolution of 1789 made Liberty,
Equality and Fraternity the most sacrosanct values of humanity. Any ruler or
government that ensnared man away to a life of bondage has always met with
perdition eventually. Their lives and reigns have been written in blood in the
annals of history for posterity to remember them with derision and disdain.
Closer
to our own home and hearth, gone are the days when parents and teachers (were)
ruled by the dictum: ‘Spare the rod, spoil the child.’ Now
every young parent gives so much freedom and leverage to the child that the kid
feels heady at miniscule achievements, and parents look askance at teachers who
display so much as an inkling of disapproval towards their ward. No sooner do
the parents notice such disparagement towards their child than they unleash
their belligerent instinct towards the ‘offending’ teacher. Such is the
importance and weightage given today to freedom and choice in an individual’s
life from childhood onwards.
On
the other hand, there are the ultra-patriotic, ultra-moralistic and
ultra-‘responsible’ citizenry who are out to impose their decrees on all and
sundry, dictating what the latter should see, hear, read, taste or consume! It
is the same ‘patriots’ who mouth lengthy platitudes on human rights and, if
given a chance, individual liberty, to boot.
The
framers of the Indian constitution envisaged and guaranteed seven Rights as the
most fundamental of rights – though the number was reduced to six after the
deletion of the Right to Property by the 44th Constitutional
Amendment. The Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression was placed at the
top of their list. However, this Right has become now one of the most maligned
ones.
The
Censor Board has taken upon itself the right and freedom to mutilate and
impound whatever matter it regards as objectionable, in utter disregard to the raison
d'être that had prompted the artiste to append it along with, say, other scenes
in a film. This imbecile mutilation does not just curtail but disrespects the
artistic freedom enjoyed and given expression to by the artiste.
Recently,
Anurag Kashyap’s Udta Punjab bore the brunt of the butcher’s knife and caused a
furore all over the nation. News channels all over India in all languages were
agog with high decibel debates. The producers were wary with the Censor Board,
as, they maintained, the film had depicted the reality of drug menace in Punjab
very vividly and realistically.
The
film ‘Aligarh’ based on the last years of the life Prof Shrinivas
Ramchandra Siras was slapped with an ‘A’ certificate due to allusions to
homosexuality. In 2015, the word ‘lesbian’
was muted in Dum Lagake Haisha, which is a powerful feminist statement on
marriage.
The
last two movies were not apologias on homosexuality or lesbianism. Rather they
depicted hardcore reality, which many would have balked at referencing even
during table talk! Terry Tempest William says: “Creativity involves breaking out
of established patterns in order to look at things in a different way.”
The producers of the above films were doing just that!
The
Censor Board was established by the British in 1920 to regulate the public
exhibition of films, especially to suppress content that was considered anti-colonial.
With the implementation of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, the board was
reconstituted, and the rules were revised again in 1983 to assume the current
form. Such censorship of films was deemed necessary due to the potency of the
audio-visual medium to capture the attention of the audience and mould their
thought process. Much water has flown down the Ganga since 1920 and 1952, and
the world has metamorphosed itself into a digitalized unfathomable black hole
that is beyond the ken and comprehension of the interbellum generation. Yet the
Censor Board is as self-righteous as ever, recommending curtailment of scenes.
For example, take the film Miss Lovely.
Despite being acclaimed all over the world in numerous film festivals, director
Ashim Ahluwalia was asked by the Censor Board to make 157 cuts in the film!
It
is not just technology and ease of film making that have altered (and have been
altered in turn) during the hundred odd years since the establishment of the
Censor Board: even the value systems have undergone a transformation that will
shock the wits out of the older generation. The HUFs and arranged marriages
that were so inviolable in a familial set up have been toppled and trampled upon
by the millennial generation. Aged parents who had lived a life of freedom – in
a state of nature, as Hobbes would describe – are caged up in Old Age Homes as
good riddance.
Pampering
and indulgence have become synonymous with freedom today. When a young parent
chides their child, the other parent takes offense at the former, since they
feel that if the freedom of the child is hampered with even in small measures,
their free and natural growth will be hindered, engendering disappointment and
stress, resulting in stunted growth as an individual. (In such a scenario, what
values do you think are going to be imbibed by the child?)
It
is against this backdrop that censorship has to be viewed if it is to be beheld
and understood from a vantage position. No doubt the formators of the Censor
Board had impeccable intentions – that the impressionable mind of the youth
should not be adversely impacted by what is shown or seen on the screen, thanks
to the realistic illusion presented therein.
On
the other hand, for the millennials, content is what they hold. Their cellular
phone with the latest configuration (and now 4G) is the whole world and beyond
for them. Whatever that the older generation wanted to keep out of their sight
is in the palm of their hands. If it was love or lust that the Censor Board
wished to conceal, teenagers studying in schools are more conversant with it and,
at times, have had more firsthand experience than an adult 50 years ago. If it
was expletives and cusswords that are sought to be hidden from them, ask
teachers about the words and pictures scribbled on blackboards and carved on
desks and benches. They will also tell you the number of CDs (a decade ago) and
now mobile phones confiscated by them almost on a daily basis with hardcore
pornographic material. There are collegians who regularly indulge in such
pervert pleasures through legal subscriptions! Not taking these into
consideration blinkers one’s vision, like that of a horse.
What,
then, does the Censor Board purport to suppress? What do all these moralistic
and holier-than-thou diktats tantamount to? Suppression of the Creative Impulse. Massacre of Originality. Crushing of Artistic Sensibility. Nothing
else.
The
number of films that have faced the Censor Board’s axe due to sundry reasons,
including vulgar language, explicit scenes, gender issues, the Kashmir
conundrum, religion etc is mindboggling.
Besides
the Censor Board, there are political parties, state governments and even some
private organizations that have played a major role in banning the fruits of
such creative endeavour, birthed after much toil and sacrifice.
In
2011, Northern States banned ‘Aarakshan’ (Reservation) due to its
outright portrayal of caste quotas in government jobs and education. Bandit
Queen, a film based on the life of Phoolan Devi, was banned due to
vulgarity, although the film is a realistic depiction of whatever happened in
the life of Phoolan Devi (which, incidentally, no government could forestall).
Nevertheless, picturization of the same was banned! Parzania, a film based on
the Gujarat riots, won a national award for its cinematic excellence, but it
was banned in Gujarat due to the perceived sensitivity of the issue.
Internationally
acclaimed filmmaker Deepa Mehta’s Fire (1996) and Water (2005), Mira Nair’s
Kama
Sutra, A Tale of Love (1996) were all banned in India. However, did
such a ban prevent Indians from having a dekko and relishing the films in
question? Definitely no. Pirated copies and Torrents were available for free
download and sharing, albeit illegally!
By
censoring content, the Censor Board is doing a disservice to creativity and
innovativeness. In fact, the Board is overstepping its brief. What is commonly
known as the Censor Board is in reality Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). It is meant only to ‘certify’ films and not to maim them. Initially,
their task had been to classify them into two categories: U and A. Later on,
U/A [equivalent to Under Parental Guidance (PG)] and S (meant for Special class
of persons/ for private viewing) were added.
In
my considered view, the Censor Board needs to be censured, and it should censor itself from extending
beyond its legitimate mandate and stick to its bounden task of certification.
However,
since ‘rights’ does not mean libertinism, the Censor Board may serve as a
watchdog with a view to ensuring that unpalatable matter is not bandied about.
In case the Board feels that some content is offensive or may create
unpleasantness or divisiveness among viewers, certain suggestions or
recommendations may be given in confidence to the producers who ought to have
the liberty to consider and accept or override the recommendations. The
producers too should also maintain secrecy of the suggestions and refrain from
maligning the authorities.
However,
it is high time to have a re-look into the scope and responsibilities of the
Censor Board and set appropriate parameters so that it remains relevant to the
millennial society. If the members of the Board are unwilling to grow up and
learn, creative artistes should come together as one body and fight against
such authoritarianism. If a government manipulates the censorship Act to
suppress dissension, it ought to be dealt with a heavy hand. We cannot just
resign ourselves to the situation and hope that things will improve on their
own.
On the other hand,
producers and artists ought to moderate themselves, instead of leaving
themselves to be moderated by the Censor Board, for self-moderation is the best form of censorship.
