If 48.5 per cent of India’s population comprises women, why can a movie not be ‘lady-oriented’ so as to treat the nuances of this themeIJ

In the United States, cinema censorship can not be directly equated with censorship of the press or other modes of free expression. A 1915 Supreme Court decision that established the legal status of cinema in the United States, declared the exhibition of motion pictures to be a business pure and simple, originated and conducted for profit, and not to be regarded as part of the press of the country or as an organ of public opinion. Films in the US are thus not protected by the US constitutional guarantee free speech and liable to prior censorship by state and municipal authorities.

In India, on the contrary, both films and the press enjoy the same status and rights so far as constitutional freedom relating to expression of ideas and spreading of ideas and messages are concerned. Yet indeed Indian films need to go through prior checks for appropriateness for public viewing.

However, this difference in constitutional status of films in the United States and India is the first difference between the operationalising of film censorship in the two countries.

There is a second major difference between censorship in the United States and in India. The United States has a system of self-regulation — a form of market censorship, in which those engaged in the production process determine what may or may not be produced. This means that movies are provided classifications that advise if the movie is appropriate for various age groups, and in this way restrict or expand the market for a movie depending on its content.

In a few cases, it can also be demanded of the movie maker to snip off parts of the movie that are considered inappropriate for viewing, or even demand that the story be changed! For example, in the movie Casablanca (1942) censors in the United States demanded changes in the story of the affair between Rick and Ilsa, requiring that Ilsa’s husband Victor be dead, instead of away on business, to remove from the film any suggestion of impropriety. More recently, some scenes of A Serbian (2010), a movie on the pornographic industry, was snipped off both in the United States as well as in the UK, amongst other countries.

In India, The Cinematograph Act, 1952, provides for the establishment of a regulatory body to issue a certificate to the makers of a film for public exhibition if it deems that the film is suitable for viewing. India, however, stands out because of its overindulgence in the use of its censorship scissors. As an example, in Udta Punjab (2016), a movie on rampant drug abuse in the State of Punjab, 94 scenes were censored. In the recent documentary on nobel laureate Amartya Sen, a few words were bleeped out. The reasons for censorship in India — ranging from prudish to obtusely ideological — can be like no other place on earth.    

However, my point here is that anywhere in the world, cinematic freedoms are not absolute and are indeed subject to constitutional restrictions. We often forget that even in ‘the land of the free’, the United States, movies are, in fact, not given the status of constitutional freedom of expression, as it is constitutionally granted in India. There too movies are cut up, even if done so rarely, while in India this is far too frequent sadly. Most of the countries of Europe, South America, and the French and British colonies had enacted censorship legislations between 1911 and 1920, which have stayed to this day.

These legislations evolved over time, and varied in different eras. For example, Government control was extended on movies in some parts of Europe on the grounds of national security during the World War I. The preoccupation of censors too have varied: The Dutch and Scandinavian boards have been more concerned by violence than by sexual themes, while Australian and South African censors tended to be more puritanical.

Censorship of movies is, therefore, nothing new or odd anywhere in the world. It is a practice of power, a form of surveillance over the ideas, images, and representations circulating in a particular culture. No matter what the constitutional status is of films in the country, movies worldwide are perceived by its regulating authorities as a business — not art — where movie producers make an investment to reap returns. Clearly, the reasoning and legitimate plea for freedom of speech does not apply to movies. We usually speak up not to make money, but no film is made without the intention of at least recovering its costs. And businesses need to be regulated.

It is here that the challenge of biases steps in. What is ‘inappropriate’IJ How much is ‘too much’IJ What values are ‘detrimental’ to society’IJ These are difficult issues to judge in a movie for any society. The Indian audience is extremely diverse. Propriety has several meanings that will depend whether we are referring to the urban or non-urban, the metropolitan or non-metropolitan audience in India, for instance. The problem is then exacerbated when the personal biases and prejudices of the authorities come in the way of evaluating films for such a diverse Indian audience. As an example, the recent movie lipstick Under My Burkha, was found inappropriate because it was considered “too lady oriented” in its theme. Why was a ‘lady-oriented’ film considered bad for viewers in IndiaIJ And how was the ‘lady-orientedness’ measured to be concluded such that it was deemed ‘too’ muchIJ

In my opinion, it is therefore the third difference between film censorship in the United States and India that is at the crux of how the American and Indian censorship systems operate. In the United States and also in the UK, an independent film classification body comprising industry committees with little official Government status decides on movie ratings. In countries such as Australia and Singapore, the movie rating agency is also a Government body, but rarely do they take out the scissors. Whereas in India, the Censor Board is a Government body, and that too with a hyperactive pair of scissors that increases the chances of personal biases seeping into an industry they are not a part of.

If more than 25 years ago we moved from being a Government controlled closed economy to privatising our industries, then why did we not do so for regulating our filmsIJ If 70 years ago, we decided that we are capable of changing Governments on the basis of our votes, then why can’t we decide what is good for us to watch in a filmIJ And if 48.5 per cent of our population are women, who evidently are sexually active to produce the world’s second largest population, then why can a movie not be ‘lady-oriented’ so as to treat the nuances of this themeIJ

The writer is Chief Sustainability Officer for the group of companies, Jindal Steel and Power ltd. She is a Global leadership Alumna of the World Economic Forum. miniya.chatterji@jindalsteel.com