'Moving court without approaching FCAT is a dangerous trend'

KOLKATA: In the round one of the controversy regarding the censor certification of the film that allegedly portrays Jawaharlal Nehru in a negative light, the film’s director has gone a step backward. The censorship row regarding director Milan Bhowmik’s “Danga The Riot” starring Gajendra Chauhan as Shyamaprasad Mukherjee was dragged to court in September. The controversy had gathered so much momentum that it had also created a rift within Bharatiya Janata Party with political bigwigs taking sides.Though the director has withdrawn the writ petition, the rift within the party has only widened.
While accepting his defeat in round one, BJP sympathiser Bhowmik says, “The ‘tarikh-pe-tarikh’ syndrome in the court was too taxing and financially draining. By now, we’ve spent approximately Rs 17 lakh. Finally, I decided to drop the writ petition. I am aware that my film had caused a rift within BJP and that my detractors within the party has won in the first round.”
Meanwhile, the round two of the fight for certification has begun. Bhowmik, in whose forthcoming film the Bengal governor Keshari Nath Tripathi has penned the lyrics of a song, has submitted an application to the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT) on November 7. “It is the prerogative of the producer to decide when he wants to approach the court or the FCAT. The film’s producer wanted to go to court. There was a delay and it’s okay if he has decided to approach FCAT now,” Chauhan explains.
That’s where the new controversy has begun. BJP’s Rajya Sabha MP George Baker says, “The director should have approached FCAT in the beginning. He raised this hue and cry to garner publicity.”
Even the former regional officer of CBFC Dibyendu Das, under whose supervision this film was examined in Kolkata, said, “Moving court without approaching FCAT is a dangerous trend. CBFC fought for a cause and that has been established. I am glad the court didn’t entertain such a plea.”
Bhowmik refuses to comment on Baker’s statement but admits that union minister Babul Supriyo had also asked why he hadn’t approached FCAT in the beginning. “Babul was right. Had I approached FCAT before, I might have already got a verdict,” Bhowmik says, adding he will fight till the end to ensure the film’s release.
According to Baker, who is also a CBFC member, any authority that releases “a film with the potential to threaten the social fabric” must take the responsibility to handle any untoward incident. Though he hasn’t watched the film and won’t comment on it directly, he disagrees with the idea of the film attempting to tarnish Nehru’s image including use of words like ‘aaiyash’ to describe the leader. “There is no point in trying to smear history with anything that could make us points of ridicule. Principally, I wouldn’t want derogatory comments being made about Nehru. One can amend a constitution but can’t amend a bad name given to any individual,” Baker says.
Chauhan wants the law to decide by checking facts. He points out that the film portrays Nehru when he wasn’t India’s prime minister. “He was a leader and I find nothing wrong in using such a word in this context. Anyone can go online and read Rajiv Dixit’s lectures on Nehru describing these aspects of his life. Besides, ‘aaiyash’ isn’t a hard-hitting word. Anyone who has a very good standard of living, is well-dressed and presents himself in a certain fashion can be addressed that way,” Chauhan points out.