Once-bitten Biggies of Hindi Film Industry Remain Politically Correct

The Me-Too movement has gained momentum across India, yet in the Hindi film industry, despite legally-orchestrated and guarded comments from a few, there is a general hush. The hush has an on-the-face-of-it ‘legal’ yet a more real ‘commercial’ basis to it. The Tanushree Dutta episode has exposed the underbelly of self-righteous sections of the film industry.

Actor Tanushree Dutta’s tirade against actor Nana Patekar for having allegedly “sexually harassed” her on the sets of a song sequence for the 2008 film 'Horn OK Pleassss' culminated into a FIR filed by Tanushree against Nana Patekar, choreographer Ganesh Acharya, producer Samee Siddiqui and director Rakesh Sarang on October 10th. Now, while the legal process has been initiated and will meet its logical conclusion, it’s the guarded silence and orchestrated statements made by a selective few, known to be belligerent across media, that exposes them.

With a statement released on Twitter on 10 October 2018 reading “We are not an investigative agency, nor are in any position to pass judgement on anyone – that is for the police and judiciary to do. So, without casting any aspersions on anyone in this case, and without coming to any conclusions about these specific allegations, we have decided to step away from this film,” by Aamir Khan with Kiran Rao, the superstar ended his awkward silence on the #MeToo movement while referring to another issue in question. Why he even said, “For far too long, women have faced the brunt of sexual exploitation,” and, “We condemn any act of sexual harassment, and equally we condemn any and all false accusations in such cases.”

He made things clear, at least on the face of it, and without offending anyone too. Why, he did not even make any reference to the director in question, against whom a sexual harassment case is pending in court or to the movie in question too. One tight-rope walk successfully completed. The Tanushree issue, on its part, remained unaddressed by Mr Khan.

When asked to opine on the Tanushree incident a little earlier, Mr Khan had said, “Without knowing the veracity of something or details of something, I don’t think I can comment on it. It’s not right for me.”

The last time Aamir Khan publicly commented fetching public outrage was on the issue of ‘Intolerance’ when he said, “I feel a sense of insecurity and a growing sense of despondency…For the first time, Kiran asked me if ‘we should move out of India.’ She fears for her child and the atmosphere of India…feels scared to open newspapers.”

He had also said, “Innocent Indians were killed by a leader who is responsible, with his party, for the killings of thousands of Indians. In my opinion, the person and the people who do this are most unpatriotic, completely anti-Indian,” on Godhra and the-then Gujarat CM Narendra Modi in a 2014 interview with Shekhar Gupta. On the US refusing a visa to Narendra Modi, he had added, “Hey, we didn’t do this earlier. If US is doing it, we have missed the point and should take cognisance of it now.” Then, Mr Khan was either oblivious to the fact that the Godhra issue had been examined by a Supreme Court Appointed SIT which had not found any evidence against Mr Modi back in 2012 itself or chose to overlook it.

That said, Amitabh Bachchan’s baritone “No means No” fizzled out into a seemingly-lame “My name is not Tanushree nor is it Nana Patekar”, fetching harsh criticism from across industries. His guarded silence on the issue seems odd considering he doesn’t usually pull punches while dishing out opinions on issue pertaining to India, women and the Hindi film industry.

There are two sides to a coin and nobody knows that better than the thespian who was banned by the media for a good 15 years following insinuations of his “hand in the censorship of films” and “role in the clamping of Emergency on the Press” owing to his affinity to the Gandhi family. This, till ‘Coolie’ happened, and the anger dissipated into well-meant concern before all turned well.

It’s pertinent here to make note of an earlier interview with Arnab Goswami when Mr Bachchan was asked about the Hindi film industry’s rallying after Salman Khan after the Hit-and-Run episode and silence towards the victims of the incident. When the interviewer drew parallels to the industry’s silence to Sanjay Dutt’s sentencing in the ‘90s, the icon maintained it was easier for the film industry to identify with people they “know on a personal level”.

On identical lines, of late, on the Tanushree issue, Salman Khan when asked about the issue at the endorsement of a sports event, maintained a stoic silence and said, “I am not aware of this. Let me know and understand what is happening. We will see what is going on. I am not aware of it.”

The price for eloquence among the Hindi film industry’s players is compounded by the frail travesties, political leanings and commercials exposed by one’s silence or guarded comments on the other end of the spectrum.

New Censorship Dimensions

Films have always been closely associated with Freedom. But, Freedom comes with riders. One's freedom cannot hurt another. Also, the issue of curbs being ‘unequally distributed,” across media and hence violative of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution that guarantees Equality is of topical importance. Actor-filmmaker Amol Palekar’s Public Interest Litigation challenged the ‘pre-censorship’ of films and, in particular, the provisions of the law in question.
The PIL challenged the provisions of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983 which, in turn, impose pre-censorship on the freedom of speech and expression of the artistes as well as the audience. The issue isn’t a new one.

In the petition, that earned populist accolades from across the nation, Palekar touches upon a brand new area and one that needs urgent attention. The petitioner contended,in the age of internet and social media, the existing set of rules providing for pre-censorship of films have to undergo change. Also, filmmakers across the nation with the media close on its heels have been screaming out that the Central Board of Film Certification(CBFC) is “not a Censor Board but a Certifying Board” and allege they have been misusing their powers.

Seeking a revamp of the Cinematography Act, 1952 and the Censor Board, Palekar said the contents uploaded on social media are free from pre-censorship but those very things attract alternation, deletion or cuts when it comes to films. “When content on television and internet is free of censorship, the same content being altered, cut or deleted before being shown in a cinema hall is an attack on our right to equality,” read the petition calling for a change in rules in the present day.

“Today modern technology makes dissemination of information available in real time through a variety of media, many of which are either not regulated or if regulated, not subjected to pre-censorship,” Palekar said.

The Supreme Court has, in response, issued notices to the Centre and CBFC asking them both to file replies to the plea. That is being perceived, in itself, as a win of sorts as the moot issues will now come to fore and be examined legally, once again.

There are, primarily, two issues in question being examined here. One, being the role, extent and jurisdiction of CBFC in certifying films and second being filmmakers’ Right to Equality being flouted owing to lack of censorship in screening and airing of content across online fora.

Firstly, it’s vital to understand the role of CBFC, which is a body constituted under the Cinematograph Act, 1952. Section 3 of the same, titled ‘Board of Film Censors’ provides details of the constitution of the Board, which shall consist of a Chairman and not less than twelve and not more than twenty five other members appointed by the Central Government. That it’s a Censor Board is a given through the very Act from which it derives legitimacy.

The Cinematograph Act, 1952 prescribed all movies aimed at “public exhibition” will be first examined by the CBFC. The Board can ask for parts of the movie to be cut or removed before showcasing it in public in case it is “against the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India the security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, or involves defamation or contempt of court or is likely to incite the commission of any offence”.

CBFC’s power to censor was justified by the Supreme Court when it said the CBFC had the right to ask for cuts while certifying a film. It was decided by the Supreme Court, in K.A. Abbas versus Union of India, in September 1970. The CBFC had asked for certain scenes to be cut in Abbas’ documentary ‘A Tale of Four Cities’. The award-winning filmmaker moved the Supreme Court saying the cuts amounted to a violation of his “freedom of expression.”

The court had then approved of censorship and noted in its judgement, “Our standards must be so framed that we are not reduced to a level where the protection of the least capable and the most depraved amongst us determines what the morally healthy cannot view or read. The standards that we set for our censors must make a substantial allowance in favour of freedom thus leaving a vast area for creative art to interpret life and society with some of its foibles along with what is good.”

It said films were a powerful media and had greater impact than books. It ruled that censorship, including cutting parts of movies before public release, was valid under the Constitution.It also ruled that in the absence of any self-regulatory organization that could suggest or ask for cuts in films, it was up to the government-appointed CBFC to do so. So, the issue of the authority of CBFC to censor and ask for cuts in films too has been tackled in a precedent.

Television, which Amol Palekar moots is beyond the reach of CBFC and censorship, was separated from radio only later in 1976. In fact, national telecasts were introduced in 1982 and in the same year, colour TV was introduced in the Indian market. Indian small screen programming started off in the early 1980s: A good decade after the Supreme Court judgement on censorship.

Now, consider the inception of the second player – who went on to become the largest and the most dynamic in the media industry – the Internet. The history of the Internet in India began with the launch of the Educational Research Network (ERNET) in 1986. And, the first publicly available internet service in India was launched by state-owned Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited (VSNL) on August 14 1995.YouTube, in particular, which operates beyond the reach of CBFC and censorship in India is an American video-sharing website created by three former PayPal employees – Chad Hurley, Steve Chen, and Jawed Karim – only in February 2005. YouTube was launched in India in 2008.

It was an Enquiry Committee on Film Censorship headed by G.D. Khosla, a former Chief Justice of the Punjab High Court appointed on March 28, 1968 which submitted its report on July 26, 1969 and analysed very many provisions of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, the Cinematograph (Censorship) Rules, 1983 (in supersession of the Rules of 1958), and the censorship guidelines, framed by the Government of India on December 6, 1991.

Fundamentally, the Khosla report envisaged an “independent and autonomous Board of Film Censors”. It urged repeatedly that the censorship code be drawn up by the Board itself and not by the government. The code, it then suggested,was a diktat by the government, which also acted as the supreme authority for its enforcement.

In the absence of an alternative authority to censor, which, in itself, is not being questioned or refuted,the Supreme Court judgement of 1970 in the K.A. Abbas case, ruled that the government-appointed CBFC was the only available option. But, that was then.

More recently are the recommendations of the committee led by Shyam Benegal set up by the Information and Broadcasting Ministry to look into revamping the Censor Board.

The need for law to be in sync with social transformation is felt by the film industry more now than ever. Amol Palekar’s PIL provides the perfect platform to the Supreme Court to re-examine the legislation and provide directions to the Centre and authorities to tweak the law, once again, to match the need of the moment. But, it remains to be seen if the Centre and its subjects are content with the directives passed.

In its display of judicial activism, while upholding reasonable restrictions and the need for censorship to maintain public order, decency and morality, the Supreme Court could well pass an order to expand the Censor Board or any other independent authority/body’s reach and bring Television and the Internet also within its ambit and not nip or trim censorship as may be expected, sending everyone in a tizzy. The Supreme Court’s recent order on Bars along Highways, a case in point, sent states across the nation and its people scurrying for cover and ‘de-notifying’ highways only to evade the reach of law. Time will tell!