)
Some members of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) recently expressed unhappiness over the functioning of the board’s chairman, Pahlaj Nihalani. The board has come under sharp criticism for decisions such as muting the word ‘lesbian’ in Dum Laga Ke Haisha and asking the makers of NH10 to cut down scenes showing violence even after awarding the film an ‘A’ certificate. Film maker Chandraprakash Dwivedi, who is among the disgruntled members, talks to Ranjita Ganesan about the recent events and his expectations from the Censor Board
There appears to be a rift within the CBFC with some members expressing discontent over the state of affairs. What is the mood like?
I would not like to use the word ‘rift’. There are some severe differences of opinion and the present board is trying to arrive at a logical conclusion over some important issues , including creative freedom to use cuss words within the framework of the CBFC guidelines. I hope that the present board will discuss the matter amongst the members , including the chairman , soon and put forward its recommendation for action and implementation. The mood is positive, progressive and [the board is] willing to experiment with diverse ideas.
How have things been since Nihalani assumed the role of chief? It is reported that you felt that collective voice is ignored.
I have only met the chairman once during the board meeting. I would not like to comment on the expression of my colleague and friend, Ashoke Pandit. To my knowledge, the collective decision regarding not going ahead with the circular issued by the office of CBFC with respect to "cuss words" was ignored by the office of CBFC. Therefore, I felt that collective voice was ignored.
Are decisions taken in consultation with other members?
We have met only once and the only decision arrived at was not to implement the circular regarding cuss words. The said circular was issued before the first meeting of new members and we were not consulted on this issue.
People have been accusing the board of having a tendency to issue bans – such as the list of prohibited cuss words. Is creative freedom at risk here?
The present board firmly believes in the creative people's right to freedom of expression and speech. Personally, I have no objection with use of word like ‘lesbian’ or ‘Bombay’ in the context of the film. I am sure "ban" has no place in any democratic society, especially India, which has been open to new ideas since time immemorial.
Is there also a tendency to make cuts? It was said the film NH10 had to suffer cuts despite an A certificate. How is that?
We, as members, are supposed to follow the guidelines as described in the Cinematograph Act of 1952 while keeping in mind the period depicted in the film. I would not like to use the words "censor", " ban" or "cut". CBFC’s responsibility is to classify a film and not censor a film. Deletion can be only recommended if there are gross violations of the guidelines , like the content of the film is anti-national or against the state or there is an apprehension that the content might cause social disharmony. However, it is not necessary for a producer to accept the recommendation of any deletion by CBFC and the producer can approach the appellate tribunal or the competent court of India to protect his right of freedom of expression and speech. The decision of the court is final in this regard. I am not aware of cuts, if any, recommended to NH10 as I was not the presiding officer during the revision of the film. I had learnt about the cuts from newspapers and some friends in the film industry.
Ashoke Pandit in his tweets said Hollywood films have suffered the most, including Fifty Shades of Grey . A year ago, we had Woody Allen deciding against releasing Blue Jasmine in India because of enforced 'no smoking' messages. Could this dissuade Hollywood directors further?
I am not aware of the tweets. As a member of the board, I am open to experimenting and implementing new ideas , including reducing the social messages to minimum so that they do not interfere with the viewing experience of the audience.
There were other criticisms from various quarters. Religious groups were said to be pressurising the board and many found the new board to be too political. What is your view on that?
I am not aware of political pressures since I am new to the board. But I have experienced that there has been a tendency to select members for the advisory panel keeping in mind the religious and political sensitivity. If the content of the film deals with any particular community, a member (or more than one member) from that community is invited for examining the film. In my opinion, this can be avoided. We must view a film as an Indian, rather than from a point of view of a particular community.
What should be the way forward?
I am hopeful that the board will meet soon and take necessary steps to protect the right of freedom of expression and speech of the creative fraternity. For me, the collective mandate of the board is above individual opinions.
