Censoring Cinema
On December 19th, Asia Society India Centre hosted a public panel discussion around censorship and the film certification process in India. Titled ‘Censoring Cinema’, the conversation was moderated by Anil Dharker, Writer, Critic, and Former Advisor to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, joined by Anjum Rajabali, Screenwriter and Former Member of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), and two young Directors, Alankrita Shrivastava and Ravi Jadhav. Considering India's political polarization in recent years, the conversation sought to analyze how India's film industry is affected by censorship, and the role government plays.
The conversation opened with the one film incessantly circulated through news media and in direct line with theme of the discussion, Padmavati. Using Padmavati as a starting example, panelists situated the film in the long line of cinematic predecessors that ran into certification trouble over the past decades. They agreed that any film that causes "agitation" or "refutes a community's position," is sure to be denied certification. Acknowledging the nebulous criterion of what may be deemed offensive or when exactly "viii: human sensibilities are not offended by vulgarity, obscenity or depravity (CBFC Guidelines)", the panelists then discussed the role of the Board. Jadhav, whose most recent film, Nude (2017), was taken off the screening list at the recently held International Film Festival of India in Goa, expressed concern that perhaps just the title of the film may have caused issue with the Censor Board. He conveyed a desire for the board to be made up of people who understood artistic intention and approached each film with more openness, such as filmmakers themselves. Dharker, moderated such a point emphasizing that the very function of the board is to represent society in the widest sense. However, all panelists agreed major authoritarian issues ensue with the Board in an almost "lords and subjects" manner.
If the Board is meant to "represent society" then India's society, itself, was then pulled into examination. Shrivastava, best known for her film Lipstick Under my Burkha (2016), which was first denied certification for being "too lady-oriented," addressed India's prevailing culture against female agency in Indian cinema and continual gender tensions. The engaging discussion also analyzed how some Indian communities have long-held sensitivities about glorifying the past. If a film interferes with the vision of how one chooses to remember the past, issues ensue. "Leadership decides what history is to be believed and what is not to be" said Rajabali, who also stated that politicians use the Censor Board to implement their policy.
Many topics, such as self-censorship, history & truth, and mob-mentality, were covered, through which all agreed that art above all is meant to provoke, even disturb, and make the viewer ask questions. When asked if filmmakers censored themselves, Shrivastava expressed how she feels more emboldened to make films on subjects she feels are important to engage with. "We are also citizens, we know what to show and not to show" Jadhav added.
As reported by Lekha Jandhyala, Programme Assistant, Asia Society India Centre
Watch the full program (1 hour, 26 minutes) below: