There have been a great many hurtful and ugly comments that have been made in the wake of the controversy over the film Padmavati. Some of these, particularly the threats to the actors, are completely unacceptable and there is a strong argument for initiating criminal action against those responsible for issuing such vile threats. No sensible discussion of any subject, however contentious, can even begin if it is preceded by threats of violence and even murder. The ground rules of discourse must be firmly stated, reiterated and not be compromised by short-term political expediency.
The law and order aspect apart, the controversy over Padmavati can be viewed in three ways.
First, there is the aesthetic and artistic dimension of the film. Alas, not having been privileged to preview the film, I can’t say whether the fuss was really worth it or whether it would have been added to the list of truly unmemorable celluloid ventures.
Secondly, there is a larger question centred on the approach of the Central Board of Film Certification and the State Governments who have the right to veto public exhibitions of a film. This is an issue that deserves to be debated in both Parliament and civil society. An open society like India should, ideally, have the capacity to digest the comfortable and the uncomfortable. Unfortunately, the bar on tolerance is rather low in India. India is a very vibrant democracy but it is also a society that is rather prickly and takes offence too easily. This is not necessarily the doing of any Government or political party — though they may have swum with the tide — but a collective failure to imbibe diversity in some departments. India otherwise is committed to diversity in social conduct, political preferences and so much else. Yet occasionally a controversy erupts unexpectedly that disturbs the equilibrium, particularly when a group feels that the offence has crossed a lakshman Rekha. It is impossible to define where the boundaries are located and a general idea of ‘common decencies’ doesn’t seem to suffice. Governments can’t always afford to impose enlightenment, if the tide of public opinion is strongly in favour of a momentary expression of intolerance. Consequently, by default, the courts have intervened to ensure that unpopular or contrarian expressions are not forced underground.
The CBFC operates within these constraints. The Shyam Benegal Committee recommended a system whereby discretionary powers are reduced to a bare minimum and limited only to whether a film should be for Universal release or limited to Adults only. However, it is easy to see why such a system will inevitably encounter obstacles. Padmavati, for example, appears to have offended the Rajputs and some other groups. These sections have taken their opposition to dizzying heights and pressured Governments into peremptorily banning the film in various States. Tinkering with the CBFC may reduce other irritations to film-makers but the real problem of artistic freedom will not go away until the very idea of someone having an exclusive monopoly of the truth is broken.
Finally, there is the troubling issue of history. In the case of India, history is also intimately linked to mythology with no defined wall of separation. As things go, Indian film-makers are not very good at historical films. Accuracy and subtlety are invariably sacrificed at the altar of melodrama and populism. But far more than that, there are other facets of the popular perception of history that completely disfigure the past. There is, first, a strong inclination to view the past through the prism of the present. Secondly, there is often a tendency to right the wrongs of the past by tailoring the story of the past to reach a desired conclusion. Thirdly, bizarre conspiracy theories exercise a bizarre hold over the popular imagination. What seems incredulous or even funny to some is seen as the gospel truth by others. Finally, while it is true that there cannot be just one history, there has been little attempt to create anything resembling a national history that broadly takes into account most concerns, without succumbing to inaccuracy. It is a challenging task but one that is worth persevering with.
Maybe it is impossible to arrive at any honourable settlement of conflicts that doesn’t leave any one group totally dissatisfied. That is the rather depressing view I have come to. However, it is always worth persevering for the sake of the small victories that may still be won. India, after all, is still a remarkably free place for everyone.