Are filmmakers being silenced by Arbitrary Censorship?

Recent actions by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) have ignited a debate regarding censorship and artistic freedom within the Indian film industry.

Recent CBFC actions spark debate on censorship in Indian cinema. The board demanded changes to 'Janaki V/S State of Kerala' due to the protagonist's name. 'Sitaare Zameen Par' faced alterations, including political messaging. These incidents raise concerns about artistic freedom. Upcoming films on sensitive topics may face similar scrutiny. The CBFC's role in creative decisions is under question.

In a democratic nation, where freedom of speech and artistic expression are considered essential rights, a series of recent events involving the CBFC has sparked renewed discussion about censorship and creative freedom in Indian cinema. Two notable cases, Janaki V/S State of Kerala and Sitaare Zameen Par, highlight a concerning trend: creators are being compelled to make politically and religiously driven alterations to secure clearance for their films, often with minimal formal communication.

Controversy Over a Name

The Malayalam courtroom drama Janaki V/S State of Kerala, featuring Anupama Parameswaran and Union Minister Suresh Gopi, faced censor clearance denial at the last moment, despite a scheduled release on June 27. The reason cited was the protagonist's name, Janaki. The CBFC deemed the name, a widely recognized form of Goddess Sita, inappropriate for a female character portrayed as an assault victim.

This sudden decision, lacking formal written notice or explanation, immediately drew criticism. B Unnikrishnan, the general secretary of FEFKA (Film Employees Federation of Kerala), questioned whether Hindu names derived from deities would all face censorship, noting that his own telefilm with a character named Janaki had previously received CBFC approval.

Similar incidents involving character names have occurred before. Director M B Padmakumar faced resistance for a character named Janaki in his film Token Number. The CBFC suggested replacing the name with "Jayanti" or "Krishnan," names without the supposed divine connection. The film was only approved for screening after the name change.

CBFC's Intervention in Creative Decisions

While Janaki V/S State of Kerala highlights concerns about religious sensitivity, the CBFC's handling of Sitaare Zameen Par, starring Aamir Khan and Genelia Deshmukh, reveals a broader issue: the intrusion of political influence into creative choices.

According to a Bollywood Hungama report, the film was reviewed by the Revising Committee, headed by Vaman Kendre, after the Examining Committee's suggested cuts were deemed unsatisfactory. The suggested changes included:

• Replacing "Businesswoman" with the gender-neutral "Businessperson."
• Replacing "Michael Jackson" with the generic term "Lovebirds."
• Removing a visual element tied to the word "Kamal" (interpreted as a reference to the lotus, the BJP party symbol).
• Including a quote by Prime Minister Narendra Modi after the opening disclaimer.

These demands raise serious questions about the CBFC's expanding role, particularly regarding prescribing political messages in fictional narratives. The inclusion of a quote from a sitting prime minister appears to be an ideological imposition.

Despite these interventions, Sitaare Zameen Par eventually received a U/A 13+ certificate and was released on June 20. However, this occurred at the expense of artistic autonomy.

Silencing Narratives?

Growing examples of interference raise concerns about the future of films exploring sensitive mythological or historical subjects.

Nitesh Tiwari’s Ramayana, starring Ranbir Kapoor and Sai Pallavi, serves as a prime example. The Ramayana is inherently complex, filled with emotionally charged sequences, including Sita's abduction, her trial by fire, and her abandonment by Ram. These events are central to the plot and deeply ingrained in Indian cultural memory.

Will the CBFC object to depictions of Sita's trials? Will they argue that portraying her as a victim undermines her divinity? If using a name like Janaki is contentious, what about a film retelling her entire journey, including the injustices she faced?

These concerns are very real in today's climate, where identity, religion, and ideology are increasingly intertwined.

As the late Satyajit Ray stated, “Cinema’s job is not to provide answers, but to ask the right questions.” It is crucial for the CBFC to remember this principle.