Swami Gulagulaananda said:
“(this quote has been censored)”
A couple of days back, the chairman of Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), Pahlaj Nihalani, was sacked and replaced by another person. It seems that a section of Indian film industry and media celebrated this fact. It turns out that Nihalani was branded ‘Sanskaari’, an of late derogatory word, often used to represent a person with a 'regressive mindset'. The reason? The official reason for his sacking was that he was muzzling the creative and artistic freedoms of cinema. Basically, he denied U/A certifications to movies that had scenes and language that was deemed inappropriate.
The official reason mattered because the incumbent government formed by the BJP has been accused by leftist liberals and the so called intelligentia (I have lost respect for that word now because leftist liberals and intelligentia are associated together) of imposing Hindutva on ‘minorities’. While there is a lack of a shred of evidence of this, any indications in this direction will be pounced upon by this group. So, sanskaari Nihalani had to go from the official standpoint. He also claimed that an influential lobby was behind it.
Of course, the above paragraph seems to acquit Nihalani of all wrong doing. Is he truly a victim of circumstances? For some time, let’s forget if he actually watches movies before requesting for edits (he claimed he doesn’t). On Arnab Goswami’s Republic, there was an interview with Nihalani where Arnab said that we were going into a regressive world and bullied Nihalani to say the word ‘intercourse' on live TV. Nihalani was visibly embarrassed and refused. Arnab went on to say the word ‘intercourse' repeatedly and insisted that Nihalani say it, and if not, justify it - "Do you feel you will get polluted? Why wouldn’t you say it?"
And this brings me to the central question, a question that I have asked previously as well - Where do you draw the line? Today, not allowing kissing scenes on screen is considered regressive. "All the western movies allow it. Therefore we should also allow it because it is a global standard." First of all, who made the West, the paragon of freedom? Why can’t we think of things by ourselves? Why can’t we set standards? Second, TV shows like Game of Thrones, Rome, Spartacus etc. have a lot of nudity and simulated sex scenes. So, should we let that happen as well? If yes, then why not go to the full length and show ‘tasteful’ porn on TV as well? Or why tasteful? Why not brutal porn that depicts rape? This seems like a slippery slope. Where do you draw the line and on what basis do we conclude that something is allowable and something is not?
Interestingly, there is another TV show doing rounds on social media at the moment. Pehredar Piya Ki, is a series about a 10 year old boy who gets married to a 19 year old girl (woman?) Apparently, someone in the show tells the bride “I don’t know when he will be able to satisfy you” (nudge nudge wink wink, I hope you can wait...) Now, while child marriage is illegal, it still happens in some places and this is a story of one fella, a fella in love. However, there is a petition requesting a ban of this show on change.org. Should we allow this show to run or should we ban it? Funnily, there is another petition to not ban the show on change.org. Some people who are requesting the ban are calling the show regressive - So according to cinematic freedom, should we allow to run a regressive show or should we be regressive and censor it? Either way, someone is being regressive.
In yesterday’s news, I read about a girl who is a prostitute by choice. She chose to become a prostitute because she desired expensive things and her regular job couldn’t provide it. She claims to be a high class escort, someone who is well read and speaks fluent English. She was recently taken on an all expenses paid foreign trip by a client who introduced her as his girlfriend. “We live in an intolerant society where people are killed for food habits. That’s why I can’t tell others that I am a prostitute”, she said. “You sell your brains, we sell our bodies. There’s nothing wrong with that”, she added. Buddha, the enlightened one, asked us to curb our desires because ‘Desire is the root cause of all evil’. Then there is this enlightened prostitute who said - ‘Meh! Why curb desires when you can whore around and make more money’ After all, the ends justify the means, doesn’t it?
Recently, a Google engineer wrote an essay with his opinion on why there are more men than women in the tech industry. Now, factually, there are more men than women in the tech industry. This Google engineer got fired for his reasons - They said that his essay propagates gender stereotypes. Is this muzzling of free speech? If his reasons were not true, Google can prove it otherwise, with data. But rather than that, they fired him. Is this censorship?
In the end, it comes down to these questions - What is morality? Who decides what is moral and what’s not? Is morality an antiquated topic? What comes under morality? And what should we censor?
The Censorship Board’s job is to censor things that it doesn’t think is appropriate. If you oppose every decision that it takes, then do we even need a censorship body? If you think no, then read the paragraph about Pehredar Piya Ki where there is another set of people screaming for censorship.
My primary request to people is to drop using words like regressive, intolerant, etc. and to think of more constructive ways of solving issues. Rather than hollering from the rooftops, create campaigns and polls and show it with data. Opinion based problems are very hard to solve. One approach could be to use technology to block specific channels at specific times with control lying in the hands of adults of the house to prevent impressionable children from finding it. Of course, this means that the adult should be aware of what ‘objectionable’ shows play at what times. A simpler solution is to make it rule based so that objectionable shows get blocked by default unless allowed explicitly by the end user - Ah, but who tags shows as objectionable or otherwise? A central board like the censorship board? Let’s start all over again... :)