Amit Khanna: No censorship, please we're Indians

FREEZE FRAME/ Freedom of expression and creativity should not be limited by thought policing

Censorship is a subject that keeps surfacing every now and then. Except for an aberration during the Emergency, the press in independent India has been free from such encumbrances.

It is with patronage like subsidised land or housing or even a Rajya Sabha ticket and freebies like foreign trips that the government tries to influence journalists and newspaper barons. Radio (except a handful of FM music channels) has been state controlled in spite of Prasar Bharati's claim to autonomy.

Its lack of credibility is the reason nobody has seriously objected to its kowtowing to the powers-that-be. Till the advent of satellite TV, Doordarshan too was in the same boat, although being an audio-visual medium it raised far more hackles with its bland programming.

The only real target of censorship over the years has been films. Arbitrary and obsequious implementation of antiquated guidelines has been the bane of almost every film maker at some point or another.

It is indeed ironic that as we move in a seamless digital world disparate voices are actually clamouring for a kind of censorship. Recently a public interest petition was filed in the Bombay High Court seeking mandatory censorship of all TV channels beamed into India. With over 200 channels reaching close to 100 million TV sets, this is almost an impossible task.

To hear Anupam Kher, till recently the chairman of the Central Board of Film Certification, say that his department neither had the means nor the ability to do such censoring even as he calls music videos vulgar is confusing.

In the same context, a recent pronouncement by minister of information and broadcasting Jaipal Reddy that he favours self-regulation rather than state censorship is welcome. On the other hand, several social activists and non-governmental organisations love taking on the role of a moral police.

While many of them are vocal critics of political censorship, they have no qualms about asking for limiting 'vulgarity' and 'violence' on the big and small screen.

The fundamental point in all this debate of what is obscene, violent or offensive is that any judgment is always subjective. In any case, the very notion of censorship (in the case of films it actually amounts to pre-censorship) is repugnant to freedom and democracy.

What is right for one is absolutely wrong for many others. Given the pluralistic nature of a country like India, there are bound to be issues, factual and fictional, which may offend a section's sensibility or beliefs.

However, mutual tolerance is the cornerstone of a civilised world . To add to this are the many holier-than-thou individuals or groups that use all kinds of platforms to stifle any dissenting view.

Whether it is a raunchy music video or a documentary on Godhra, it is equally reprehensible to apply a uniform code of morality. If a society is mature enough to vote and elect the government it deserves, I am sure it is mature enough to determine what is fit for it to watch and listen.

Changing social mores, education, economic development and, more significantly, technology are transforming the way people access and use media.

The advent of satellite TV and, in the past decade, of the internet has created a new digital world where traditional geo-political and socio-economic boundaries are getting blurred.

As we move towards newer and cheaper technologies, consumers will get and demand more choice. Addressability is not about conditional access, it is about addressing the right audience with the right programming. Similarly, one does not preserve social values by checking hemlines or sniping cleavage. More dangerous to my mind is the rampant depiction of superstition and other so called traditional myths on films and TV or the sundry evangelist and 'spiritual' TV channels spreading mumbo-jumbo than obvious pornography which is generally abhorred.

The internet world it is even more difficult to police .The rise of chat rooms and blogs is creating new paradigms of not only communication but also of entertainment.

Soon wireless delivery of content through multiple devices will be ubiquitous. How much of policing can really be done in a digital world?

There are ethical issues involved no doubt, whether it intellectual property theft, libel, privacy or even security and sovereignty. What is important is the way we go about tackling this 21st century problem.

One has been disturbed by all the talk of content regulation. By all means we need a framework but we do not need another censor board. As we move towards more intrusive entertainment like multi-user gaming, Reality TV or even mere news reportage, there is bound to be some social fervent. This needs a more studied response than a simple clamp down.

This is not to say that media anarchy should prevail. But yes, the freedom of expression and creativity should not be constrained by thought policing .The best censor lives within all of us. It is important that a group or interest, political or otherwise, does not usurp this right.

Education and examination and a healthy debate will ultimately be the best safeguard against any cultural subversion.l

Amit Khanna is chairman of Reliance Entertainment. The views expressed here are his own