Ka Bodyscapes being denied censoring is a right wing conspiracy, alleges director Jayan Cherian

Close on the heels of Pahlaj Nihalani, the Chairperson of the Censor Board, coming under fire for denying censorship to the film

Lipstick Under My Burkha

, Malayalam director Jayan Cherian revealed recently that the Board has denied censorship to his film as well,

Ka Bodyscapes

, which has homosexuality as a major theme.

The film was earlier rejected by the Censor Board in Kerala and also the first revising committee in Chennai. The reason cited by the Board this time is “glorifying” homosexual relationships, “vulgarity”, depicting Hinduism in a “derogatory” fashion and depicting a “female Muslim character masturbating”.
Meanwhile, Jayan had filed a writ petition challenging the decision at the Kerala High Court, and the court’s judgement had come out in favour of the film. However, the

CBFC

chose to disregard the court’s request to censor the film and as of now, Ka Bodyscapes will not be allowed to be screened in any festival or theatre in India. It was not screened at the IFFK for this reason.

In a new twist, a few days back, Pahlaj Nihalani clarified to media that the “CBFC is not homophobic.” He went on to say that Ka Bodyscapes allegedly shows Hindu religion and mythology in a bad light.

Jayan Cherian, however, outrightly rejects these allegations, claiming that the real reason why his film was denied certification is right wing politics at play. We explore.

Excerpts from the CBFC letter
Ka Bodyscapes is glorifying the subject of gay and homosexual relationship, nudity accentuating vital parts of the male body (in paintings) in closed shots in the movie. The religion of Hindu is portrayed in a derogatory manner especially Lord Hanuman (shown in a poor light as gay) which may cause law and order problem in society… Also, a Muslim character is shown as masturbating. The film has references to Hindu organisations indirectly, which is unwarranted. (sic)


If a depiction of a male body part is an issue, why don’t they censor all temples with Shivalingas?
JAYAN CHERIAN, director
The real reason why the film was denied certification is because the board is unable to go against the ruling party but they are not able to say it. Simply everyone, from the regional censor board members in Kerala to the review committee in Chennai have right wing allegiances. Pahlaj Nihalani himself and the team in Mumbai are no different.

Nowhere in the film is Hanuman depicted as gay, as alleged by the Board. Just because an apparently homosexual man worships Hanuman, it doesn’t mean he is gay. Also, it’s laughable that accentuation of male body parts need to be censored. The Shivalinga is worshiped in our temples. Will they censor all temples? Bahubali has a huge Shivalinga as its poster itself. Aamir Khan’s PK has a man dressed up as Siva running around.
The High Court had directed that there is no reason for the film to be banned. If at all the Board has a problem with any of the visuals, it should sit with the filmmaker and blur out the offensive parts, was the court’s directive. I am left with no choices now. I’m waiting for advice from the High Court. If the High Court asks me to go to Supreme Court, I will do so. But cases in the Supreme Court drag on for decades. I can apply for the appellate tribunal but Pahlaj Nihalani himself is on the appellate.

The real meaning of democracy is lost when there is no space for a voice to say something which the system doesn’t approve of.

Excerpts from the judgement of Justice P B Sureshkumar:
Mere references to homosexuality and masturbation by women may not amount to
obscenity or vulgarity. The freedom to think and act differently is an essential
feature of democracy. The said freedom includes freedom to react and respond to the same situations differently and distinctly. One cannot expect everybody to express themselves in the same manner.
If the freedom to express one’s ideas is not conceded, there will not be any creativity at all. (sic)


To deny the film censorship based on any of these reasons is ridiculous
Sanal Kumar Sasidharan, director
We all know what is happening. The ruling government does not permit anything they don’t approve of, which doesn’t go with their ideology. They just give some reason or the other for it. I have seen that film and I didn’t find anything offensive in it as alleged.
It doesn’t insult any particular community though I have differences with regard to its aesthetic capabilities. To deny it censorship based on any of these reasons is ridiculous. We claim to be very liberal but things are moving in a very undemocratic manner. It’s not becoming of the constitution. My film Sexy Durga has not been sent for censoring yet. But I fear the same happening to it as well, saying it insults a Hindu deity.

So what if Hanuman is depicted as gay?
Jijo Kuriakose, Founder, Queerala
They had specifically said in the report that they have a problem with the film “glorifying homosexuality’’. When people have a problem against a particular community, they don’t say it outrightly. In the first place, Hanuman is not shown as gay in the film. But even if he is, what is the problem? Anti-Hindutva becomes an issue for the Board when it is related to homosexuality. Ka Bodyscapes is a movie about homosexuals. How can such portions be cut out of the movie?