MF Husain to ‘Padmaavat’, the Battle for Artistic Freedom Goes On

The debate between censorship vs certification is fraught with politics.

The American legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin charted out three main reasons as to why free expression matters. First - we must not accept collective control of the culture; Second – to hold government and other powerful groups accountable and Third - democratic fairness wherein everyone must have not just a vote but a voice, even if we dislike what they are saying.

Cinema, apart from enthralling and entertaining the audience, also tends to offer the audience a voice of dissent. It tells the people what they do not want to hear, it depicts the harsh realities of our society and sometimes the story, even though set to music, could question the government of its misgivings.

The classic ‘tradition vs change’ debate looms over the film fraternity. On one hand we have the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) of India, equipped with an unnecessarily conservative and moralistic prism. On the other hand, we have the artists, who would appreciate and flourish with a liberal approach towards their art form.

The artistic expression of thought through cinema has the ability to impact society at large in unprecedented ways, from sparking political debates to being a catalyst in social change. Cinema has an impelling power of persuasion and perhaps, it is only fair for films to be the only art form regulated by an Act of Parliament.

The CBFC is empowered to grant a certificate of exhibition to the film post its examination or refuse to do so if the film in question is against the interest of the sovereignty, integrity and security of India, damages friendly relations with foreign states, incites criminal activities or disturbs public order, involves defamation or leads to contempt of court. The said premise for rejecting a certificate to a film can take the shape of censorship since the criteria for rejecting lacks objectivity and depends on the moral standards and social understanding of the individual(s) responsible for granting/rejecting the certificate.

Our wounded soldier, Mr Bhansali is no stranger to the irrationalities of our film certification model. Long before his magnum opus Padmavati/Padmaavat became the subject matter of high decibel prime time debates, dining room conversations and the eventual order of the Supreme Court that set aside the notification passed by the states of Madhya Pradesh, Haryana, Rajasthan and Gujarat against the release of his film, Mr Bhansali faced the brunt of our friendly fringe group Shiv Sena for his film Ram-leela in 2013. Fortunately, the Delhi High Court came to his rescue and ruled that a film must be viewed from the standards of a reasonable and strong-minded person and not those of weak and vacillating one.

Needless to say, the courts in India have regarded cinema as an art form capable of varied interpretations and representations and has upheld the constitutional right of free speech and expression at various occasions.

Every form of art survives on patronage, coupled with appreciation and censorship of a film will have a lesser impact on the filmmaker in comparison to the audience’s rejection of the very theme of the film. Censorship and protests against a film would curtail the right of the Indian audience to view the film of their choice and rejection/ appreciation of the film takes a back seat when the issue is the very exhibition of the film.

Systematic Curtailment of Free Thought

In 1972, play writer Vijay Tendulkar wrote Ghasiram Kotwal, which faced huge backlash from the Marathi fringe group Shiv Sena (now amazingly, a powerful political force). The plot revolves around a common man seeking power who confronts the people who are already in a position of power and the subsequent personality changes that the protagonist undergoes during the struggle to reach at the top. Subsequently, the play was banned as it was deemed to be anti-Brahmin, historically incorrect and capable of causing public outrage.

Which is not surprising as the concept of “politics of vote bank” muddled with the (current and otherwise) ruling party's ideology will naturally side with the sentiments of the community to appease their own interests.

It is a matter of fact that an agitation towards an art form is almost always followed by a state controlled policing of the broadcast/publication in question.

For instance, during the infamous Husain-Doshi Gufa incident, the subject art work was vandalised by the goons of Bajrang Dal and the Gujarat Police simply let them be, MF Husain was forced into exile due to a bombardment of law suits filed by various Hindutva fringe groups, and the rest as they say is history.

Musings aside, the situation has only become worse since instead of adopting legal recourse to curb an artist’s free expression, we now simply prefer to harass artists by subjugating them to the functionalities of an ignorant censor board, which imposes its conservative sensibilities on a massive young population.

I also believe that censorship could also lead to financial ramifications for the filmmakers.

A disputed release will naturally generate media attention and the curious section of the society might indulge in piracy, thereby, eating into the revenue of the filmmaker and the government as well, since it will be robbed away from the entertainment taxes levied on the exhibition of films.

The Way Forward

Recently, the Shyam Benegal Committee was put to task to ponder upon the dichotomy between censorship and certification and even though its recommendations have been accepted, it remains to be seen if they will be adopted by the parliament vide Cinematograph Bill 2013. The recommendations enable CBFC to rate a film based on context, theme, tone and impact instead of censoring an objectionable scene and shifts the onus on the viewer whether or not to consume the available content, without the casual burning of effigies and violent protests.

Deplorably enough, until we see any of these reforms taking a tangible form, we will continue to live in a time where any dissenting voice would be curbed to avoid uncomfortable questions posed to the ruling government or the sensibilities of various fringe groups in our country, since they would rather operate from authority than rationale.

In the words of the inimitable Mark Twain: “Censorship is telling a man that he can’t eat steak because a baby can’t chew it.”

(Rishi Wadhwa is an Associate at Saikrishna & Associates. He works in the area of public policy which involves analysis of regulations/legislation in the fields of media and entertainment, copyright and trademark law.)

(Disclaimer: This is a personal blog and the views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for the same.)

(We Indians have much to talk about these days. But what would you tell India if you had the chance? Pick up the phone and write or record your Letter To India. Don’t be silent, tell her how you feel. Mail us your letter at [e-mail]. We’ll make sure India gets your message)