EDITORIALS

Flight of Common Sense

With the Udta Punjab controversy, the censor board has gone too far.

he Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) might as

well be renamed the Central Board of Film Censorship.
For what is popularly known as the censor board continues to do precisely that, censor instead of certify. Its propensity
to demand irrational cuts in films has grown exponentially over
the last year, especially since the appointment of small-time
film director Pahlaj Nihalani as its chair, whose principal qualification is his admiration for Narendra Modi and his proximity
to the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). This time, though,
Nihalani might have gone too far. By demanding unsupportable
and excessive cuts in the yet-to-be-released film Udta Punjab,
Nihalani has succeeded in bringing together a diverse and
competitive film fraternity on one platform. They are now united
in demanding that he be sacked.
The censor boards reaction to Udta Punjab is neither new nor
surprising. For decades, the board has overreacted to political
films, or those with content that might offend some group or
community. Instead of certifying such films for restricted
viewing, the board has demanded unreasonable cuts and
changes. In some cases, films have been sought to be banned
altogether. In the majority of cases, producers ultimately fall in
line, as they have to save their investments. In exceptional instances, the boards rulings have been reversed but only after a
protracted battle through reviewing committees and courts.
This time too, the director of Udta Punjab, Abhishek Chaubey,
was reportedly tempted to give in. He was persuaded not to do
so by Anurag Kashyap, the co-producer.
In a film based on the well-documented drug problem of
youth in Punjab, the censor board has asked for all references
to Punjab or any of its cities to be deleted, any reference to
election, party, MP, MLA and Parliament to be removed,
all expletives to be muted, no close-ups of addicts injecting
themselves to be shown and even asked for the name of a dog
called Jackie Chan to be changed! In addition, the board has
insisted on a disclaimer that states, We acknowledge the battle
against drugs being fought by the government and the police.
In short, it is demanding a new film, one that does not refer to
the reality it is trying to depict, one that removes the politics
of the drug problem in Punjab and in fact, one that does not
mention Punjab at all. Is this the job of a censor board? Is it even
within its remit? No one forces audiences to watch films. If they
are badly made, distort reality, depict untruths or are offensive,
8

there are laws under which the film-makers can be prosecuted.

Why should a board asked to certify films take upon itself the
role of super film-maker and essentially decide to re-edit and
change entire films?
The only explanation for the boards overreaction to Udta
Punjab is precisely the one that the government vigorously
denies. Punjab faces an election in February 2017. It is ruled by
the BJP in alliance with the Shiromani Akali Dal. The extent
of drug use amongst the youth and the nexus between top
politicians, police personnel and drug dealers has been investigated by the media and is hardly a state secret. It is already
an election issue that the Congress party and the Aam Aadmi
Party (AAP) are ratcheting up in the run-up to the elections. So
Nihalanis concern that the film shows Punjab in a bad light,
and his unsubstantiated charge that Kashyap took money from
AAP to make the film, only reinforces the suspicion that he is
more concerned about the political fallout of the film than any
problem with the content of the film. Surely, one film on Punjabs
drug problem cannot exacerbate the reality where an estimated
2.32 lakh individuals are opiate dependent and 8.6 lakh are
users, comprising 4.5% of the states adult population. These
figures are based on a survey conducted by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences and a non-governmental organisation.
Evidently Nihalani wants to prove he is more loyal than the king
by not permitting anything, even a Bollywood film that could
add to the growing disillusionment of the electorate in Punjab
towards the ruling coalition.
Kashyap and Chaubey have a tough battle ahead with this
film. But their struggle to get Udta Punjab through the censor
board has brought us back to the old question: do we need a
censor board? The government has two reports before it, one by
the Justice Mukul Mudgal Committee in 2013 and by the Shyam
Benegal Committee this year. Both recommend that the CBFCs
principal job is certification and that cuts and changes should be
demanded in limited and exceptional cases. There has been no
action taken on these recommendations. Instead, in the face of
controversies like the one around Udta Punjab, government
representatives are falling over themselves reiterating their
commitment to creativity while doing nothing about the actions
of the CBFC. This is doublespeak, typical of all governments that
want to retain the power to control popular media. Udta Punjab
is not the problem; it is the mindset of people like Nihalani.
JUNE 11, 2016

vol lI no 24

EPW

Economic & Political Weekly