[Reader-list] India: Censorship and Misplaced Priorities (Pankaj Butalia)
Harsh Kapoor
aiindex at mnet.fr
Sat Aug 23 05:53:43 IST 2003
The Times of India
AUGUST 23, 2003
Op.Ed.
Hocus Focus: Censorship and Misplaced Priorities
PANKAJ BUTALIA
This may be an imaginary sequence or it may be true but a rather
strange thing supposedly happened last year. A review committee of
the Mumbai documentary festival met to discuss routine affairs.
During the course of this, a senior bureaucrat revealed that some
women's groups had complained of the increasing trend towards
obscenity in the media and the urgent need to do something about it.
It was thus decided that, in future, documentaries submitted for the
festival would have to possess censor certificates.
Much like the famed sleight of hand, one hand did the distracting
while the other did the trick. Nobody bothered to ask whether the
so-called complaint made any reference to any film screened at the
Mumbai festival or what censoring a documentary could do to remove
obscenity in the media or in people's minds. A problem was pointed
out and some action had to be taken. End of matter.
For almost a century, there has been a phobia about what is loosely
termed the mass media. It is almost as if cinema, and by extension
television, video and now the Internet, are objects of fear and
hatred, which are experienced as dangerous and malevolent and,
there-fore, necessary to put away. Society's inability to understand
why violence takes place or what underlies the bestiality in man
makes it imperative to have a scapegoat. What better scapegoat than
the mirror, the medium?
Ironically, even the most scissor-happy activist is completely
ignorant about the way in which cinema works or impacts the human
psyche. Is the content the medium or the message? Is there a
seditious possibility in cinema (et al) and if so, does it lie in the
overt text or in some subliminal space? In the absence of any clarity
on this, who can possibly know what to censor and what to let be?
Does the evidence of censorship over the last century make us any
wiser? How many examples are there of films and videos which have
inflamed passions or led to outbreaks of anarchic violence? What
possible harm could films like The Last Temptation of Christ, Hair,
The Tin Drum, Gone With the Wind, Birth of a Nation, Clockwork
Orange, Pink Flamingos, Midnight Cowboy, The Exorcist or Woodstock do
to society?
In any case, if one looks over time, one finds today's banned films
become tomorrow's mainstream ones. Violence does not originate in
cinema. Most incidents of mass violence, of oppression against weaker
sections of society, of annihilation of different tribes and
communities have either been done directly by the state (Soviet Union
in the '30s, Nazi Germany, China during the Cultural Revolution, Idi
Amin's Uganda, Chile, Argentina, Pol Pot's Cambodia, the list is
endless) or by powerful sections of society with active support or
connivance of the state. This does not include the millions of
pointless deaths that have been caused throughout the century by
legitimised violence called war. Nor are rape, moles-tation,
attitudes towards women a product of the media.
That would allow patriarchy to escape responsibility for all its
ills. Interestingly, none of those who constantly point fingers at
the media for society's ills, ever speak out strongly enough against
those very ills. No proponent of censorship openly acknowledges that
there are problems in our society which need to be addressed. There
is no criticism of the regularity with which rapes occur, no
criticism of the lynchings of couples that seek to marry against the
wishes of the village, of oppressions against Dalits, of sati, dowry
deaths or female infanticide.
Neither is there criticism of the systematic harassment of women in
schools, colleges, work places. The list is endless. Yet it is
believed that the mere screening of a film or television programme
has the potential to send society hurtling down a moral abyss. Does
that imply that a society must not have any control over the images,
ideas and messages that circulate in its midst? Ideas which could, at
some stage, interact with the violence present in our own personas
and exacerbate inherent tendencies? Not at all. Nor is it suggested
that gratuitous violence, child pornography, secessionist
provocations, terrorist ideology or certain kinds of hate speeches
need to be tolerated, though it must be pointed out that a society
which encourages violence in the form of war, oppression of women in
the form of patriarchy, child abuse and familial sexual abuse, state
terrorism and violence against its weaker sections can hardly pretend
that the mere use of a censor's scissors will promote harmonious
development.
This is not the place to detail how this can be done but there are
countless examples of other societies where such controls have been
implemented reasonably successfully. The use of a society's criminal
laws against any such act ought to be enough where there is a genuine
desire to curb anti-social activities and where there is a consensus
on what constitutes such an activity. The censor's scissors are not
necessary for this purpose. After all, censorship is strict in India
but no one could succeed in stopping the circulation of the VHP's
hate tapes.
Strangely, this has not been considered secessionist, seditious,
inflammatory or provocative. However, a documentary reporting this
could be considered secessionist and would be censored. Strange logic
this and a strange sleight of hand.
(The author is a Delhi-based film-maker)
More information about the reader-list
mailing list