Do we need a censor?

NIKITA DOVAL / TNN / Apr 3, 2006, 20:59 IST

Text Size

Small
Medium
Large

How relevant and rational is our censorship system? We explore what the industry feels about the issue.

How relevant and rational is our censorship system? We explore what the industry feels about the issue.
Censorship has always been a sore point with Indian filmmakers, be it a documentary or a commercial film. If, at times, the Board objects to a bikini-clad model (Mallika Sherawat in Shaadi Se Pehle) they overlook Rakhi Sawant dressed in just flesh-coloured tidbits in Ek Haseena Ek Khiladi.
They might ban a documentary on the Gujarat riots (Final Solution) but films that preach jingoism seem to sail through. With a new set of guidelines being followed for every film that is submitted for censorship, the industry is left wondering what will lead to objections next.
Many also wonder whether the Indian film industry even needs a Censor Board or would they be better off with a rating agency like the Motion Pictures Association of America.

"We do need a Censor Board. But, what we also need are clearer guidelines as to what is acceptable," says actor and filmmaker Makrand Deshpande.
If one day the Board is on an anti-sex trip, then the next day "it could very well be anti-social. There are no clear rules," he says.
What irks the industry most is that certain films can get away with jingoism and Pak-bashing as the events are fictional, while those which are based on real events are banned.

"It negates your fundamental right to freedom of expression," feels Deshpande. The Board, most makers feel, often focuses on the small elements overlooking the larger picture.
"Tyre ke peeche pade hain and they overlook the entire car," says Subhash Ghai while Sudhir Mishra still fumes when he remembers how Chameli was stuck with the Censor Board since it hinted at child prostitution and "they said that child prostitution is illegal in India, so how can you acknowledge it!"
The constitution of the Board is also a sore point with the makers. "How can five people, who have little or no qualification as far as films are concerned, represent the view and mindset of a million-strong population?" asks Subhash Ghai.
While others feel the Board is needed to stop all kind of movies flooding the theatres, Rakesh Sharma, director of Final Solution, is vocal in advocating its removal. "Nobody should be vested with the right to ban, mutilate or maim a film.
It is better to have a rating agency, which will tell the viewers which film is suitable for kids and which is not. The audience can decide for itself which film it wants to watch."
A rating agency, according to Sharma, will be well complimented by a council, which can look into complaints that anyone might have against a film.
"But a rating agency will also work only when there are effective people in it, especially those not connected with the government," feels Ken Ghosh.
But there are others like Vinta Nanda who veto the idea of a rating agency as "it just maintains a veil of hypocrisy. The US faces the same problem with a rating agency in place, so how will it help us?"
But, without a Censor Board and even a rating agency in place, who is to say what kind of work will be done? "The audience always has a choice when it comes to watching films. They are mature enough to know what they want to see," says Nanda.

End of Article