Hawas or murder?

How do you define a country where a film like Girlfriend, which explores alternative sexuality, is slapped with an ‘A'' certificate, yet a movie like Aan, which shows more blood than the body contains — gets a ‘U'' tag, allowing kids to watch it with their parents?
Or, for that matter, a city which creates a ruckus over men showing off their briefs in ads but where any nine-year-old can access hardcore pornography online?
You call it India.Closer home, you call it Mumbai. And you call it confused.
The message that seems to be conveyed is that whereas explicit sex on the screen has an adverse impact on young minds, they are left untouched by the extreme violence that our films unleash on them!
How can that be true in a city where we have 15-year-old Vijay Sharma murdering his mother and later admitting that he was influenced by movies in doing so? What about the 11-year-old city lad last month who stabbed his friend with a glass bottle, after seeing his favourite star do it on screen?
Professor of Psychology Manisha Sen opines, "Showing violence in films or in the media per se may not be damaging. But if it is shown as a form of justification, ie, a child sees his parents killed and grows up to take bloody revenge, it sends out a dangerous message. Sex, on the other hand, is something a kid is curious about at 14 or 15. His psycho-sexuality is at a very vulnerable stage and he''s finding out about sex anyway through the net, books, films and peers. So it''s very important that a teenager is exposed to it, but again, not in a way so that he comes away with wrong ideas."
So, are we saying that violence is a no-no, but sex shown in films is fine? No way, say the people we interviewed. All we are trying to say is that if explicit sex is bad, so is explicit violence. And that is the truth the censor board needs to wake up to.
President of the city''s parent-teacher association united forum Arundhati Chavan, says,
"Exposing children to both violence and sex at a tender age is dangerous. Moreover, the way in which sex is portrayed in Hindi films is vulgar."
However, there is a school of thought which stresses that showing violence on the screen is far more dangerous than showing sex. And so, the Censor Board needs to be far more careful when passing violent scenes in films.
Pritish Nandy belongs to this group. He says, "The world is not destroyed by sex, it''s destroyed by violence. Yet, when mindless violence is shown every day, few object. Both sex and violence should be allowed for either limited adult or youth viewing. Let''s not be hypocrites. Kids in school know more about sex than you or I ever did."
Former oomph girl Pooja Bedi agrees in part: "There is an age and place for everything. Obviously a six-year-old wouldn''t understand or enjoy a film on sex. But if you think a 14-year-old doesn''t know what''s what, you''re kidding yourself. Kids need to be exposed to real life, because a little knowledge is dangerous," she says.
But, what does the Censor Board have to say in defence? Chief Anupam Kher is guarded in his response. "With so much real bloodshed, mutilated bodies and war on TV, our senses have become numbed. Kids know it''s just ketchup when they see a star hitting another on screen. Violence in films is more comical than scary these days," he says.
Kher''s take on sex is expected: "Sex is still a hush-hush subject in middle-class homes. Sadly, society is not liberated enough to let children know about sex."
Is Mr Kher then saying that society is liberated enough to allow their kids to be exposed to limitless violence on the screen? Mumbai, kya bolti tu?
dhiman.chattopadhyay@timesgroup.com