[Reader-list] Awkward Scissorhands
Harsh Kapoor
aiindex at mnet.fr
Thu Aug 14 02:31:50 IST 2003
The Hindustan Times
Thursday, August 14, 2003
Awkward Scissorhands
Ruchir Joshi
Imagine if every item in this newspaper, whether report, opinion,
photograph or cartoon, were to be preceded by a stamp, 'This piece of
writing/image has been approved for publication by the Board of
Newspaper Censors'. Imagine if these censors thought they had the
right to excise actual quotes from public figures, say, something the
prime minister has said publicly because they didn't like the way the
quotes were used in a story.
Assume, also, that this 'Board' had several unwritten, internal
guidelines such as: no item shall discuss defence issues, religious
bigotry or damage to the environment; no item shall identify any
politician by name; corruption and other misdemeanours by public
figures and important businessmen are not fit subjects for printed
journalism. Extremely fanciful? In the case of the print media,
perhaps, but in the case of documentary film-making in this country,
this happens to be the absurd reality.
Sometimes the shifting of a small pebble can trigger off a huge
landslide. In this case, the pebble comes in the shape of a tiny
change in the application form for the Mumbai International Film
Festival 2004. Unlike the previous MIFF festivals, the government
organisers have now asked that all Indian entries be accompanied by a
censor's certificate. Unsurprisingly, this is not required of the
foreign entries. Where, someone could ask, is the problem? If Mera
Dil Dhak Dhak Dhadke from Bombay and Assassinator 16 from Hollywood
need censor certificates before public showings then why should an
Indian documentary be exempt?
The problem occurs on two levels. First, there is the question of
whether film festivals should exclude any film on the grounds that it
hasn't received a censor certificate. Second, there is the larger
issue of film censorship in general. Taking the first one first,
traditionally, film festivals in this country have been pretty
flexible about Indian entries not having censor certificates,
especially in the case of documentaries. The idea having been that
clear access to a director's ideas was more important than
bureaucratic procedure. Where the certificate has mattered is in
competitive fiction festivals, as proof of a feature film's
completion date. But in non-competition screenings, (besides the
classic, uncensored, foreign sex sequences that cause riots outside
theatres), there are many examples of the latest offering by some
maestro or other being finished and the first OK print being rushed
straight from the lab to the projection room in time to open or star
at a festival.
So why has the MIFF suddenly changed its rules? One obvious answer is
that the number of 'political' documentaries being made has grown
exponentially over the last decade. Each new atrocity has spurred
documentary work, as should happen. Now, after the Babri masjid,
Narmada, Pokhran II and the Gujarat killings, there is a whole body
of fresh films which directly expose and challenge the powers that
be. These range from Sanjay Kak's film on the Narmada Andolan, Words
on Water, Amar Kanwar's searing Night of Prophecy and Anand
Patwardhan's War and Peace on the issue of India's nuclearisation.
Patwardhan is from Mumbai and he has recently won an epic battle with
the Censor Board against the cuts the board demanded for War and
Peace (at least one cut being a clip of Vajpayee speaking, taken from
a television broadcast!). The judgment of the Bombay High Court
handed down is potentially a landmark one, one that means that
film-makers now have a robust precedent to back them against
government-appointed censors eager to carry out the muzzling on
behalf of their masters.
Does this defeat mean that the censorwallas give up their project?
Not in the least. They know that not every film-maker will have
Patwardhan's tenacity or international stature. The more obstacles
they put up the harder it gets for a film-maker, especially someone
less established, to show their work. Wherefore, one suspects, this
new rule in the MIFF form - before an informed international audience
is allowed to see an Indian film, it will have to pass through the
small-eyed filter of a censor committee growing like a fungus out of
the legislative cesspool of the last century.
Why bring up the last century? Because the whole censorship apparatus
is based on the Indian Cinematograph Act of 1952 which is about as
relevant today as the law that forced a man with a red flag to walk
in front of the first motor cars. While this cannot be the place to
discuss the offensively obsolete film certification system as a
whole, it certainly seems to be the moment to state the glaringly
obvious: it is time to remove the yolk of censorship from non-fiction
films. Just as print and TV have the leeway to exercise self-control,
so should documentary film have the right to self-govern.
If there are fears that people will 'misuse' (that favourite word of
conservatives on both the Right and the Left) this 'freedom', then
laws pertaining to incitement to violence can be strengthened. If
this is done and enforced, you will soon find the many communalist
rags - the ones that spout their hatred unfettered by any legislation
- in trouble far quicker than any documentary.
In any case, the pebble loosened by the organisers at MIFF suddenly
threatens a full-scale rockfall. Within the last few days, I have
witnessed a massive proliferation of e-mails from independent
film-makers from all over India. Different kinds of documentarists,
with diverse styles and differing politics, including some who could
previously barely bring themselves to speak to each other, are all
suddenly, vociferously, united in opposition to the censor
certificate clause. Discussion of boycotts and other action has now
moved from mere talk to a far more serious level.
The replying sneer sits up in large neon: what would happen if all
321 (just a random number here) independent documentary film-makers
in India go on strike? Well, it wouldn't have anywhere near the
effect of, say, certain 11 cricketers downing tools, nor, say, the
top 30 film-stars from Mumbai and Madras walking off the sets at the
same time, nor that of a strike by hospital nurses or postal workers.
But, on the other hand, we have here a government with its
hench-committees trying to police moving pictures in a time of
video-downstreaming, in a time where there are VCRs in every nook and
cranny of the country, where broadcast-quality filming can be done
with a palm-sized camera, editing take place on a laptop, and where
copying VHS tapes and DVDs is easier than contracting malaria. While
not wanting to see any unseemly confrontation, there is a part of me
that says: just you try it. Go ahead. It will only sharpen people's
resolve, their energies and their resourcefulness.
Given the dreadful challenges that we face today, it may sound
hopelessly marginal to be talking about documentary film-making and
censorship certificates. But the fact is the issue is tightly
entwined with the main problems that confront us: competing versions
of 'truth' and of 'history'; different notions of justice, human
rights and the right to free expression; how this society digests new
technology, including, centrally, technology that has to do with news
and moving images that carry information and opinion.
In order to reach a truly free currency of ideas and images we need
to throw out a lot of the old rubbish that entraps us. I come from a
childhood where films began with a dirty, endlessly unmoving,
censor's certificate and ended with the national anthem playing over
a tricolour fluttering as if it was on speed. We've got rid of the
flag. Now it's time to divest ourselves of that nonsense in front.
More information about the reader-list
mailing list