The medium was controversial right from the beginning. ‘The Kiss’, one of the first few commercial films produced in 1896 in the US, caused a huge controversy as it was termed ‘shocking and obscene’ by the moviegoers. The Roman Catholic Church of the era immediately called for the censorship.
At an early stage, globally, everyone realised that cinema is a powerful medium to reach out to the masses and it has an innate capacity to influence an individual’s mind. Filmmakers understood that messages encapsulated in an audio-visual format can create a magical suspension of disbelief and the masses embraced the medium as an ultimate form of entertainment. Soon, the governments of respective countries were smart enough to chalk out the policies to monitor and control the audio visual content.
In India too, cinema within no time became an integral part of the nation’s cultural identity. Post-independence, the freedom of speech and expression was enshrined in our constitution and filmmakers’ cinematic expression soon started prospering under this constitutional shield.
Later, every movie which had a claim to touch upon any sensitive political, cultural or historical aspects ended up inviting a controversy in some or other way.
In this context, as expected, the protest against the epic period drama film ‘Padmavati’ is escalating as the movie nears to its release date. A fringe group from Rajasthan called the Karni Sena has called for a nationwide bandh on December 1 and gone even to the extent of threatening lead actor Deepika Padukone and director Sanjay Leela Bhansali with physical harm.
The film fraternity has extended its support to the makers of the movie and the rationale is, that the right to free expression (the right to freedom in Article 19 guarantees the Freedom of speech and expression, as one of its six freedoms) is being suppressed and eroded. The state, as usual, is in crisis management mode and the argument is that the freedom of speech and expression is subjected to reasonable restraints (Clause - 2 of Article 19 of the Indian constitution enables the legislature to impose certain restrictions).
The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), a statutory body working under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has a bigger and crucial role to play in such contexts but unfortunately, the board has failed (yet again) to emerge stronger. The chairperson of the board and its members are appointed by the ministry and their task is to view and certify the films keeping in mind both, the Article 19 as well as the Clause (2) i.e. the right to free expression and the reasonable restrictions upon it. The juxtaposition of Article 19 and its Clause 2 imply that the state and the artist mind are bound to be in a conflicting position many times and the role of the board is to resolve such conflict through its thoughtful certification. Unfortunately, the board has lost its credibility due to its erroneous and questionable viewing and certification protocols and methods.
In this country where, commercial artistes like Bhansali (under the pretext of creative liberty) go to any extent of moulding historical facts; the fringe elements like Karni Sena do not hesitate to surpass the boundaries of democratic peaceful protest; the dysfunctional government which has no agenda but to appease its voters and the star struck moviegoers who seek nothing but an addictive entertainment, the statutory body of CBFC can play a stronger role if it redefines its ambiguous certification standards and establishes a better connect with all stakeholders.
