Vikas Dubey Encounter : शिवसेना नेता संजय राउत बोले- यूपी पुलिस से सवाल पूछकर उनका मनोबल गिराना उचित नहीं Vikas Dubey Encounter : शिवसेना नेता संजय राउत बोले- यूपी पुलिस से सवाल पूछकर उनका मनोबल गिराना उचित नहीं Source by

  In a letter denying permission to screen the award-winning film Lipstick Under My Burkha in India earlier this year, the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) wrote that the film was a “lady-oriented film… with a bit sensitive touch about one particular section of society”. The letter sent to the filmmakers sparked outrage. Eventually, the Bombay high court overruled the CBFC.

The image shown below is the letter from the CBFC;

Cinemas are medium for social reforms. It is not only a piece of art but a tool for expressing human feelings and idea of the contemporary society. With a value of over 180 billion Indian rupees and producing more than 1500 films per year, Indian Film Industry is one of the largest. Even sustaining the high position, the industry’s distribution of the opportunity in a gender-equal mannerism is a question mark!

why gender equality and discriminations high among women in industry??? What are the situation of the women filmmakers and women-centric characters?? Why are filmmakers thinking from a male audience perspective for making and marketing films?? Why male chauvinism is high in Bollywood?? How Kerala women filmmakers won the battle against patriarchy??

Even when women shines gloriously in various fields like science, space, business and writing by marking their breakthrough achievements, the film industry still showcase male chauvinism and patriarchy in various forms.

Gender Inequality in Indian Films…

Before Independence…A Period of High Patriarchy.

In the initial stages of history, the medial was handled largely by men and the media images of men and women were tailored according to the preference of men.

Being an extremely patriarchal society where the male has a dominant role and women being subordinate of men, highly reflected in Indian Cinema.

Inspired by ‘Manusmriti’– an age-old Dharmashastra written by Manu for followers of Hindu faith – a female actor is never allowed to transgresses the scriptural paradigm that mediates women’s role as always in obedience and servitude to man, like Sita – the scriptural paradigm of femininity.

In the beginning, the role of women in Indian cinema was always subjected to be an obedient daughter, taking care of her sibling, helping mother in the kitchen and marrying a man of her fathers choice.

Another role include as a self-sacrificing mother who don’t have any desires in her life.

The third and most abused image of a woman presented onscreen is the role of an ideal wife. Wife who sacrificed everything for her husband. Thus, the wife is expected to be immensely devoted to her husband at the cost of her own pleasures, desires, and ambitions. This ideal wife has to be sexually pure, taking care of the children and live faithfully under the dominance of her husband and once she becomes a widow should lead her life embracing the husband’s memories.

Later in Films, there were difference showcased between good women and bad women. The bad women who usually is against the values and beliefs of the society. The dichotomy between good-bad women were popular in films, which distinguish between the heroine and the negative women. whereas men always remain centre character and control other characters and is always pure…

Apart from the patriarchal system, the caste system was also a curse to the Indian film industry before independence and portraying a heroic character from the untouchable will certainly lead to failure of the film.

The portrayal of women in the film reflected the societies thoughts before independence where women were considered as impotent, defenceless, low and dependent on the males. In such a situation introducing a role change in films may disturb the patriarchy system and the film would be a fail.

The first Malayalam Vikadakumaran directed by J C Daniel in 1920s out of his passion for making a film was stopped screening by the upper caste men as the film portrays a low caste woman as the heroine ( well depicted in the film Celluloid, directed by Kamal).

Indian film post Independence…The Curse of a patrilineal System!

The Indian Film Industry gained more colour after independence. The women gained more freedom from the husbands and four-cornered walls to an open workforce society after feministic movements in India.

The representation of women in Indian Cinema has increased after independence but since a patrilineal system( where descent and inheritance are traced through the male line and men are generally in control of the distribution of family resources.) governs the society, the characters given to the female actress were of the same kind.

1980 saw the beginning of the action era in Indian Film Industry where the men were highly worshipped by the audience for the extraordinary superpower he had to fight bunches (12*n) of enemies in the air.

The heroines lost their strength and space to the hero. She was reduced to a glamorous component of the films. She danced around trees, kidnapped, raped or get killed.

It was the time when the people start to believe the superpowers of the actor is real, started to get admired by their romance, fight and saving poor people from crooked villains. The fan power for such heroes raised in such a way that the incidents of people electing film stars as the chief ministers and leaders are evident in a few states.

In such a high time for men in cinemas, the roles of women were less accepted by the common people and female-centric films saw a failure in common people as it showcases the struggles of women rather than thrillers and actions.

Thus in post Independence, the contribution of women in Indian film has increased but always stayed down the line of the patriarchal society. The film gained colour, high sound system, more clarity and high technology but the women still get biased due to highly existing gender discrimination in the society.

#Challenge 1

Hey, have you ever watched these movies????

Petta (2019) Tamil Movie Poster

Well, Good that you may have watched a few( great, if you have watched all) of those movies.

Indian Film Post- globalisation…Liberated but Controlled! 

Globalisation has shifted society to another dimension where liberalisation plays an important role in bringing gender rights. The second feminist wave evolved in America get reflected in India and gender equality in the Indian film industry has stepped up.

Still, there were criticisms and patriarchial symptoms which supporters mass male-dominant films where women were considered as an “adding beauty character”. The advancement in film technology rarely supported the women audience and looked from a men perspective way.

Vast differences between the male and female characters also occur in their respective occupations onscreen. While men are shown in their workplaces, in meetings with their colleagues or even in uniforms and hence ‘on duty’, women are largely shown within the domestic sphere—their labour within the home rendered invisible by its marked absence.

Sexism in Indian Film

The studies shows that Bollywood stands high in male chauvinism in films. In 1995, it was a leather jacket-clad Raj from Aditya Chopra’s debut, Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge, who found no issues with ‘flirting’ with a woman travelling with her friends, even after she has asked him to back off. The study takes an expansive look at the next couple of decades as well. Whether it is Rahul in Kuch Kuch Hota Hai (1998), Rancho in 3 Idiots (2009) or Barfi in Barfi! (2012), a woman’s personal or professional space is often taken for granted.

A recent analysis which shows about sexism in Bollywood;

Sexism is not new to Tamil and Malayalam cinemas, the industry has long been an example of stereotyping, misogyny as ‘macho’ (and macho is always a man!). The whistles, that heroes receive when they berate a woman, chastise her or do moral policing explains the embedded ‘chauvinism’ in Tamil audiences. While these stereotypes flourish under ‘creative freedom’, the glorification of ‘male chauvinism’ has become a genre by its own right.

Characters and dialogue

Male characters account for nearly twice as many as female characters (Graph 2) in the credits. Try looking at the number of dialogues between the male and female protagonists and the latter only manages to cross one-third of the total figure.

Dialogue Distribution among men and women in films

Controversies surrounding Women in Cinemas…

The Post-modern society after globalisation and its impact on liberalisation leads to advancement of high technologies in films. There were may female directors contributing to the Indian Film Industry and most of them have women-centric characters in their films.

Deepa Mehta’s  Fire and Water

Women centred films where women have tried to break the conventions have stirred immense conflicts and controversies in the Indian society. Films like Fire, directed by Deepa Mehta( 1998) e recipient of several international awards when it was released in the US and Europe in 1996.

This movie depicted a romantic relationship between two sisters in law in an urban, middle-class household of North India. The film when released in India gained extensive criticisms, especially the rigid Hindu families.

The Shiv Sena an extreme right-wing of Hindu organization led by Bal Thackery, violently opposed the screening of this movie leading to riots. According to them, this film’s story attempted to degrade Indian women, and it encouraged the collapse of marriage and family.

Another film of her, Water (2005) which showcased a plot supporting the right for women. There were large criticisms and riots all over by the same group which destroyed her fame in her last film.

The main reason of this riot was not due to the portrayal of women like her previous film Fire, but it was because a women director was daring enough to make a period film that divulged the dark side of Hindu religion, especially to the Western audience.

The various religious and political groups anticipated that this was an attempt to make an anti-Hindu unit for the West. It was further believed that there was political doctrine and plan behind organizing a nuisance even before the shooting of the film.

Aandhi (1975)

This political drama centres around a woman politician whose appearance was uncannily similar to that of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.

This led the film to face allegations that it was based on her, especially Gandhi’s relationship with her estranged husband.

However, the filmmakers had only borrowed the protagonist’s look from the Prime Minister and the rest had nothing to do with her life.

Even after its release, the director was asked to remove scenes which showed the lead actress smoking and drinking during an election campaign and the film was completely banned during the national Emergency later that year.

Bandit Queen (1994)

The biographical film is based on the life of Phoolan Devi, a feared woman dacoit who led a gang of bandits in northern India.

Phoolan belonged to a poor low caste family and was married to a man three times her age. She later took to a life of crime.

The film, directed by Bafta-winner Shekhar Kapur, was criticised for its excessive use of abusive language, sexual content and nudity.

Despite the backlash, Bandit Queen went on to win the National Film Award for Best Feature Film.

The Pink Mirror (2006)

The Pink Mirror is the first mainstream film to have two transsexuals as protagonists.

While it was a groundbreaking moment in Indian cinema, the Central Board of Film Certification had other opinions, calling the film “’ vulgar and offensive”.

The Pink Mirror remains banned in India but it went on to win the Jury Award for Best Feature at the New York LGBT Film Festival and the Best Film of the Festival at Question de Genre in Lille, France. You can catch the film on Netflix now.

S… Durga (2017):

Initially called Sexy Durga, the film’s name was changed to S Durga by the CBFC while giving clearance with a U/A certificate.

The film also received 21 audio mutes but no scene cuts. Directed by Sanal Kumar Sasidharan, the film highlights the patriarchal set up in Kerala through the eyes of an eloping couple and the horrors they endure on the way.

The film, which was first included in IFFI Goa, was later removed from the Indian Panorama section at the behest of the Union Ministry (which considered the title to be insulting to Hindu sentiments).

The director then approached the Kerala High Court, which in turn ordered the film to be screened at IFFI.

Kasaba (2016):

The film was criticised for glorifying misogyny, more so as it showed Mammootty playing a cop who makes sexually explicit remarks to a lady officer and get away with it, accompanied by celebratory BGM.

Two years later, actor Parvathy found herself in the eye of a storm when she criticised Mammootty for acting in a film like Kasaba that glorified misogyny. That was enough for his fans to go on a rampage on her FB page, demanding an apology and showering her with every expletive available in the dictionary.

Of course, Parvathy did no such thing and issued a counter-attack, with the adage OMKV – or go to hell for all I care (being the kinder translation) – at those who targeted her, like director Jude Antony Joseph. She proudly hashtagged herself as feminichi and resolutely stuck to her guns.

How Men and Women are Portrayed in a Film…

In most movies its common that the hero who, initiate a fight as the villain( men) catch his shoulder leading to vengeance and revenge and to add beauty to the revenge in the film he falls in love with a girl that he sees from a bus, helping the blinds to cross the road or bargaining with the flower seller(slow motion). Romance, Songs, Rain dance are welcomed as per the wish of the hero and at last the villains Kidnap his girl threaten the hero through the phone. Hero will reach the place to fight the villains in air and take back her(slow motion)` happy endings…

Another simple way to analyse stereotyping in films is by closely looking at the trailers of the films. The trailers have a major portion of it as male-centric hiding women faces.

Research analysis on 880 Bollywood movies

  The use of vulgar words on women by the hero boost the audience and waves of claps and whistles echo in theatre.

There is a scene in a Malayalam movie where the hero is proposing a woman with a blatantly chauvinistic dialogue. He says he wants a woman whom he can kick around after returning home sozzled and who would deliver his babies and wail when he dies.

There are also characters like Jose Alex IAS from the movie king who says a long dialogues suppressing women.

I feel I shouldn’t have written it. When I wrote it, I never thought of belittling women or even degrading the gender, it was just contextual for the film. Those who clapped for those lines have later found it disturbing. If I knew that what I was writing based on a situation will have a different interpretation in the future, I wouldn’t have written that. Definitely, I regret it. If a woman who sits in a crowd finds that my dialogues in the film is degrading her gender or has offended her, I agree that it was a mistake from my side. But I would like to make it very clear that I have never intended to demean anybody.   ¬ Renji Panicker 

Research analysis on the adjectives used on men and women in Indian Films

Not surprisingly, gender stereotyping extends to the kind of roles male and female actors enact and the occupations they are shown to be engaged. In most films, it is evident that the males have the roles of doctor, police officers, gangster… and females have the roles of teacher, secretary, student…

It’s evident than even in films which are widely accepted by the audience( both male and female) there are plots and scenes which show misogynist dialogues. Mind it, these are superstars who can profoundly influence the psyche of the average film-going youth. When they glorify such misogynist scenes in their movies passing it off as heroism, it can have disastrous consequences.

Marketing Strategy Of Indian Films…

Film marketing and advertising play a key role in the success or failure of films, and films are also sites for advertising.

Research shows that in India, The largest film audiences come from poor lower caste and lower class urban males (Ganti, 2004).

This group numbers around 165 million. They have low levels of disposable income and, as men have much higher status than women, women are more likely to be confined to the home than men, though they still attend the cinema, in lesser numbers.

Key aspects of Indian society that film advertising represents and encapsulates are the preoccupations, tastes and fantasies of the predominantly male mass market that are being targeted. The pulling power of stars, along with the genre of the movie, is the main attraction for audiences.

The movies are marketed from the perspective of men as the audience in the theatre is more men than women

There is a change in trend in film marketing in states like Kerala in which the audience accept films both artistic as well as entertainment films and the question of whether the film is “suited for the family” is often asked among the audience a yes to the question is a green flag for the family members( men and women) to be in the theatre or else is men who go for watching it.

Gender Discriminations in the Indian Film Industry…

Equal Pay????

Despite the continued efforts of activists and policymakers, in many ways, gender equality is still a pipe dream. Research shows gender discrimination mostly against women and in favour of men in many realms, including the workplace.

Even though the overall gap in India has reduced slightly from 2104 to 2015, according to Monster Salary Index, women on the whole still make 25% less than men, and as many as 68.5% of women in Indian workforce feel they have experienced wage inequality.

The actresses are paid much less than actors in the  Indian industry even though they have established their stardom through films.

The gender pay gap in Bollywood results from the patriarchal mindset of society, which does not see women as heroes, superstar Amir Khan has said.

Globally in Film Industries, the trend of paying less to female stars than male stars are evident form articles and researches… Even Globe itself is a Patriarchal village…

 Casting Couch…

After the #metoo movement, the women were strong enough to raise their voice against the sexual harassment and discrimination they faced. Casting couch, one of the evil in the Indian film industry faced by newcomers was one such harassment faced by women for entering in to cinema.

It was the film industry which gave us the term casting couch. Today it remains a professional body where that couch has become almost institutionalised.

The metaphorical casting couch is the place where young newcomers, seeking to break into the world of glamour and glitz, are often forced to offer sexual favours in return for roles.

And it continues to exist because the laws regarding sexual harassment in the workplace have never applied here.

The casting couch refers to a mentality in which directors and filmmakers take undue advantage and favor from aspiring film actors or actresses. The youngsters are provided with the filmy option in exchanged of sexual favors.

#metoo campaign

2018 saw the rise of the #MeToo movement in India. Inspired by a global campaign against sexual harassment and assault, women across the spectrum opened up and shared their stories about abuse by men in positions of power.

And it began in October with actress Tanushree Dutta accusing actor Nana Patekar of sexual harassment while shooting for the 2008 film ‘Horn Ok Please’.

What followed was a series of posts by other women who shared their experiences with the world. From actors, film directors, artists and writers and politicians, women professionals called out obnoxious behaviour at the workplace.

From unwanted attention in the office to sexual innuendos on the film set, there were many kinds of allegations that surfaced.

But, the #metoo challenge does not exile the accused people as they continue to work in the Indian film industry.

People who were called out are back at work; they have neither been proven guilty nor acquitted. On the other hand, women who came out have had to face a pushback from the industry…

Kerala Way of Fighting Patriarchy in Indian Film Industry…

Casting couch was visible all over in the Film Industry. The risk for a woman to enter into a profession that she like is tough in a patriarchal society and in film it is far too risky.

As the time moves, the role and power of women in the society also increased. Now she has the support of her family and friends to enter in Film, She hard work for her passion to be an actress and they know how to speak and stand for them.

But is that enough?  But what about the large mass of women… the extras, the group dancers, the aspiring starlets, the production assistants and many others, for whom the job means survival? To whom do they appeal when things go wrong? What do they do when they get pregnant or have small babies to nurse? Do they get proper changing rooms and toilet facilities on site? Do they get properly paid?

These were the questions which were asked before, but does not get answered and yes it get an answer now…in Kerala…

Women In Cinema Collective (WCC)

Vision

Equal spaces and equal opportunities for women in cinema.

  from the left: Rima Kallingal, Manju Warrier, Deedi Damodaran and Anjali Menon

  It was formed after the horrific abduction and assault of a leading film star in Kerala for the right and welfare of women in Film Industry.

On November 1, 2017 Women in Cinema Collective was registered as a society in Kerala.

Mission

WCC works towards building a safe, non-discriminatory and professional workspace for women in cinema through advocacy and policy change.

WCC encourages more women to be a part of the industry through outreach initiatives for career advancement opportunities, industry support, and mentorship opportunities for its members.

WCC showcases the creative acumen of women by curating films and bodies of work by women.

WCC seeks to create awareness about gender bias and exploitation faced by women in the film industry,  both onscreen and off-screen.

WCC promotes responsible filmmaking practices accelerating the work culture transformations required for a gender-just film industry and cinema.

Activities 

Punavarna a major activity done by WWC which focused to bring awareness in the society on issues such as exclusionary workspaces, workplace exploitation and gender discrimination. The initiation of the programme has brought together several successful women from various fields to address these problems.

On May 18, 2017, WCC submitted a petition to the Chief Minister Kerala, requesting an inquiry and prompt action on the sexual assault case, against a prominent film actress in the Malayalam Cinema. Later WCC also publicly condemned and revolted against the decision of AMMA to reinstate actor Dileep back into the association. 

  WWC members with Chief Minister of Kerala

  WCC members have requested the intervention of the government to formalise wage structure and welfare schemes for women working in the film industry such as maternity pay and tax subsidies for production crews that have at least 30% women representation, among many others.

WCC requested the Kerala government to start more movie production-related technical courses that provide direct employment opportunities for more women and provide for more women’s reservations in government-owned studios.

  WWC’s announcement on launching a film society, named after PK Rosy

    A statement that you my friend..are making in a million unheard voices!And to those voices I apologise..for at an age and time when I wasn’t wise enough..I have been part of films that celebrated misogyny..I have mouthed lines that vilified regard for your self respect and I have taken a bow to the claps that ensued. NEVER AGAIN..never again will I let disrespect for women be celebrated in my movies! Yes..I’m an actor and this is my craft! I will whole heartedly trudge the grey and black with characters that possess unhinged moral compasses      ~Prithviraj Sukumaran

Even after decades, Indians love to see the big screen and are tirelessly watching movies. Due to this reason, the Indian Film Industry is one of the leading industry in the world. Even being in heights, by bringing high-quality movies, but fails in the aspect of gender equality. The remaining curse of patriarchy, gender discrimination, caste systems and highly stereotyping thoughts in the modern nation hinders the growth of Indian Cinema. Being in a land with existing patriarchy, it is tough to have a feminist perspective for both orthodox males and females. In the book titled Feminist Social Work, Lena Domicellie have written about her perspective towards feminism. Feminism is not against men’s well-being, but it is firmly against sexism and privileging men’s welfare over women’s. This includes privileges emanating from practices that: endorse the preferential treatment of men over women on sexist grounds in any arena. 

If the ideologies and philosophies raised by socialists( in such situation, for gender rights) may feel like piercing an arrow to your thoughts, contradicting your beliefs and value system; Its high time to initiate a journey for the unanswered questions and certainly you may end up in logical interpretations which may support or oppose the dealing scenario.

#Challenge 2

Now, how many of you have watched these movies??

(These are few best movies which fight patriarchy in Indian Film Industry. They may not be box – office hits but they have told stories about the dream of millions.)

What do you think???

  Patriarchy in Indian Cinema. In a letter denying permission to screen the award-winning film Lipstick Under My Burkha in India earlier this year, the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) wrote that the film was a “lady-oriented film...

WATCH | Shiv Sena's Firebrand Leader Abuses, Threatens Sr Doctor Of Mumbai's Hiranandani Hospital Over Release Of Dead Body Of Covid Victim

WATCH | Shiv Sena’s Firebrand Leader Abuses, Threatens Sr Doctor Of Mumbai’s Hiranandani Hospital Over Release Of Dead Body Of Covid Victim

[ad_1]

Mumbai: Shiv Sena’s firebrand leader Nitin Nandgaonkar is once again in news and of course for wrong reasons! In a recent video that went viral on social media, Nandgaonkar can be seen abusing, threatening and almost hitting a senior doctor who is also the Chief Executive Office (CEO) of Mumbai’s famous L.H Hiranandani Hospital located in upscale Powai area. ALSO READ | India To…

View On WordPress

From The Cinematograph Act of 1918 to the present Central Bureau of Film Certification: The only visible mouthpiece of a moralistic society.

In 1895, for the first time a film was publicly screened. A nitrate fire at the Bazar de la Charité, Paris in 1897 killed 126, one caused due to the violently flammable nitrate films. Fast forward to 1909, after several similar cases of fires caused due to the films, world’s first Cinematograph legislation was passed in Britain. It was hoped that the legislation would ensure safety by curbing the issue of cinema licensing (without any expectations). Licenses were made mandatory for public screenings. Eventually, the authorities began to control not only the conditions in which the films would be screened but also the content of the screenings. The first full-length Indian feature, D.G. Phalke’s Raja Harishchandra, released in 1913. The Cinematograph Act was born in 1918 and with it film censorship in India. The 1918 Act gave the district magistrate or the commissioner of police the power to issue licences to exhibitors, and the government to appoint inspectors to examine and certify films as “suitable for public exhibition”. It wasn’t until 1920 that multiple Censor Boards were set up and rules were put into place to judge the appropriateness of films, both local and foreign, for release. “No generally and rigidly applicable rules of censorship can be laid down.” were the positive words that the general principles of the Bombay Board of Film Censors began with and then proceeded to lay out 43 objectionable subjects. Most of these objectionable subjects comprised of politically incorrect depictions from the perspective of the British authorities. The Indian cinematograph committee (ICC) of 1927-28, chaired by a former Madras high court judge, T. Rangachariar, was the first comprehensive inquiry into movie viewing, censoring and exhibiting habits in the country, and an acknowledgment by the British of cinema’s increasing popularity in India. It made several pragmatic suggestions regarding censorship and the Indian cinema but in vain like most of the painstakingly written reports that have followed since. Despite the earlier mentioned long list of objectionable subjects, Indian cinema wasn’t exactly prurient in the 1920s and 1930s. Hamarun Hindustan (1930) had an intimate scene with Sulochana and Jal Merchant. Film-maker J.B.H. Wadia recalled, years after the fact, Lalita Pawar kissing her co-star “without inhibition” in a film, and Jal Merchant and Zubeida “kissing each other quite often” in 1932’s Zarina (depending on which account you read, Zarina had a total of 34, 48 or 82 kisses). Actors kiss in the Franz Osten-directed Shiraz (1928) and A Throw Of Dice (1929). And there’s the famous kiss in Karma (1933), which has gone down in legend as being 4 minutes long, though it lasts only a minute and involves a snake and a tearful Devika Rani trying to bring a comatose Himanshu Rai to life. (July 14 2018, Livemint) Suresh Chabria writes in Light Of Asia: Indian Silent Cinema, 1912-1934, “Even mentioning British excesses, the Indian National Congress, self-governance, or even revolution in other countries was enough to earn your film a cut or a ban.” “It’s a strange phenomenon which we find in this country to see the Government-sponsored Indian News Parade claiming to give all the news to the Indian people while the Censors black-out the Nation’s beloved leaders who make the most news,” cine-journal Filmindia complained in 1945, noting that even framed photographs of national leaders were cut from films. Through the Film Inquiry Committee report submitted to the government in 1951, we get a picture of what censorship was like in the years leading up to, and just after, independence. Things were, to put it mildly, chaotic. The five censor boards examined films separately, and each had their own set of rules and local pressures. Often, a title passed by one would be rejected by another. In addition, the government—of India, or of a particular state—might deny a certificate to a film passed by the censors, a fate which could befall a noir or a war film as easily as it could a propaganda newsreel. In the same decade, it was made evident that film censorship in free India would depend not only on official sanction but on societal approval. It was then that the kiss disappeared from Indian cinema—a curtailment so long and stifling that it hasn’t fully returned yet. In film critic and historian B.D. Garga’s words, “Kissing disappeared from the Indian screen not because of a fiat of the censor but because of pressures brought on by social and religious groups.” Over the next few years, a Central Board of Film Censors (CBFC, renamed as Central Board of Film Certification in 1983) was set up, regional boards were abolished, and U and A were adopted as certification categories. “The Act of 1918 was repealed, but it was later replaced with a law not dissimilar in scope,” Arpan Banerjee notes in his essay Political Censorship And Indian Cinematographic Laws: A Functionalist-liberal Analysis. This was the Cinematograph Act of 1952, the cornerstone—and, in many ways, the millstone—of film censorship in India. The 1952 Cinematograph Act sets out the structure of censorship as it stands today: the chairperson at the top, then the board members, then the advisory panels (members of the initial examining committee and the revising committee, which do much of the actual examination of films, are drawn from these). Everyone, from the chairperson down to the advisory panel members, is a government appointee. And every government at the Centre has taken advantage of this, staffing the CBFC with party loyalists eager to make cuts and deny certificates to films critical of the establishment. The Emergency saw the most blatant use of this power, with Gulzar’s Aandhi (1975) and Amrit Nahata’s Kissa Kursi Ka (1977) banned, and Shyam Benegal’s Nishant (1975) stuck in a bureaucratic tangle, because they were perceived as critical of the Congress government. (July 14 2018, Livemint) What makes the Cinematograph Act such a problematic piece of legislation is the Section 5B of the Act, which states that any film that is against the “interests of [the sovereignty and integrity of India] the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or involves defamation or contempt of court or is likely to incite the commission of any offence” can be denied a certificate. Censors are tasked with ensuring that films provide “clean and healthy entertainment”; do not “deprave the morality of the audience”, endanger public order or “depict the modus operandi of criminals”, and so on. All these rules are not only vague but also convenient since no film can be released without a certificate from the CBFC, a government appointed body. In 1968, Abbas—already well-known as the screenwriter of Awara and Shree 420—made a 16-minute documentary, Char Shahar Ek Kahani, which had scenes showing prostitution in Mumbai. The CBFC’s examining committee handed the film an “A” certificate; after Abbas protested, the revising committee reached the same conclusion. After a fruitless appeal to the Central government, Abbas petitioned the Supreme Court, arguing that pre-censorship was antithetical to freedom of speech and expression. The court ruled against Abbas. “The censorship imposed on the making and exhibition of films is in the interests of society,” said the judgement, though it also asked Parliament and the government to do more to separate the objectionable from the socially valuable. Though Abbas’ suit was probably doomed from the start, it did have one useful fallout: the formation, in 1981, of the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT), a quasi-judicial body headed by a retired high court judge, which one could approach if unhappy with the decision of the CBFC’s examining and revising committees. (July 14 2018, Livemint) There have only been some minor developments in the years since—films must now carry no-smoking advisories, and (thankfully) it’s almost impossible to shoot a scene with a live animal. In addition to the ever-arbitrary demands of the board—a blurred brassiere here, a bleeped “virgin” there—censorship by mob has emerged as a disturbing issue. Starting with Bal Thackeray demanding his own cuts in Mani Ratnam’s Bombay in 1995, the Shiv Sena’s protests against Deepa Mehta’s Fire in 1998, religious organizations and fanatics demanding cuts in movies like Ae Dil Hai Mushkil and Padmaavat in the present times to delaying releases if the demands aren’t met, censorship by mob has been normalised. Though everyone in the industry is affected by it, they refuse to unite and speak against it. “Bollywood does not care,” director Dibakar Banerjee says, “because it knows it will somehow navigate through the bureaucratic red tape to survive. It’s a vestige of the licence raj.” In an interview to The Hindu in January 2002, Vijay Anand, director of Guide and Jewel Thief and the CBFC chief at the time, was asked whether the media was right to pick on the board’s decisions. “Why not?”, he replied “We are the visible mouthpiece of a moralistic society.” This is an uncomfortably honest self-assessment, but there’s some truth to the idea that the board isn’t entirely to blame. Film censorship in India can only be fixed if the rules governing it are overhauled and if there’s a change in attitude that has persisted since the days of the British: the tendency to treat the viewer as incapable. Movie-watchers should finally be allowed to decide for themselves whether a particular film will offend their sensibilities or not.