Feedback

By now, it has become an accepted pattern on the lines of gubernatorial offices, that whenever the government changes at the Centre, there are certain positions, foolishly considered to be critical for the government’s image or rather convenience, are also vulnerable to arbitrary changes. No doubt, whatever the shade of the government, the first target has always been the Raj Bhavan. Every party, front or coalition that was in power was guilty of treating Governors as errand boys. Then comes Prasar Bharati, followed by academic institutions. There is an addition to this list. That is “Censor Board” in common parlance.

Members of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) and the Chairman who are appointed by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting for a three-year term and hold office during the pleasure of the government, are sent packing even within six months or one year if there is a change of guard at the Centre. Preceding government’s pleasure leads to the displeasure of the succeeding government. This only exposes the Central government’s enormous ignorance bordering idiocy over the functioning of the CBFC and the role its Board members play. At one point of time, they were not permitted to have even a visiting card!

The Cinematograph Act, 1952 relates to the constitution and functioning of the CBFC and also lays down the guidelines to be followed for certifying films. The Act provides for nomination of not more than 25 members to the Board from different walks of public life. But what do these worthy members of the Board do to ensure that the laudable objectives of film certification are followed in letter and spirit?

What are the objectives?

1. The medium of film remains responsible and sensitive to the values and standards of society.
2. Artistic expression and creative freedom are not unduly curbed.
3. Certification is responsive to social changes.
4. The medium of film provides clean and healthy entertainment.

The only job of the glorified members of the CBFC is attend a general body meeting, may be once a year, notwithstanding the Act which stipulates quarterly meetings and not taken seriously for shortage of funds. The Chairman, mostly a busy Bollywooder, hardly gets time for such ‘silly jobs’ and is always asked to sign on the dotted lines by the Regional officer at Mumbai, who is an Indian Information Service (IIS) cadre officer accountable to the ministry. Then, who does the job of certification? The ministry of I & B appoints an advisory panel from a cross section of the society, mostly political activists, as was done in the case of Tamil Nadu where DMK sympathizers dominate the panel much to the chagrin of the local Congressmen. One should never mind their inclusion as there is nothing they are capable of doing not because of the presence or otherwise of their gray matter, but everything is controlled by the Regional officers in all the nine regional offices of the CBFC.

The Advisory Panel members play a very curious role while watching the film as members of the Examining Committee (EC). EC also includes the Regional Officer who is the convener of the Committee and it is his word that is final which goes as the unanimous view of the EC. He dictates the comments to be entered in the relevant form and the EC members write down as obedient students, for their concern is more on the sitting fee. There is no individual application of mind. A strange phenomenon is that there is a belief that there has to be a contrived unanimity of views. Does it not militate against freedom to hold independent opinion especially on a creative work like films? The reason for this is quite silly. If there is a difference among the EC members, the decision has to be referred to the Chairman and it may take weeks or months which a producer cannot put up with.

Here is an example as to how EC members write down their comments as dictated by the RO. There was a film that was to be given “A” certificate for reasons of objectionable scenes including incest. He dictated that “x” and “y” (in their incestual relationship) were found in an “uncompromising” position. Hold your breath. All the members copied the same. As the file came to me, as delegatd board member, for a blind signature, I asked the RO why should there be any objection for an “uncompromising position”. It does not end here. Most of the EC members cannot even spell the commonly occurring words like “scenes”. Innocuous expressions which are germane to the theme of the film like “encounter”, “Poojari”, “Peedathipathi” “Nirodh””Loop” etc, are ordered to be deleted.

What is the great contribution of the hallowed members of the CBFC to the quality of cinema? Besides attending the general body meeting once a year, they are supposed to be members of the Review Committee (RC) whenever a film is rejected by the EC. The question is how often the RC meets to review a rejected film. Hardly once a year though there will be one feature film, on an average, every working day for examination. Is the CBFC so liberal when the public image is to the contrary as if the Board members wait with a pair of scissors to go for indiscriminate chopping? No. Far from it. The officialdom, in other words, the Regional officers do not want the CBFC members anywhere near the office for obvious reasons. Every attempt is made to keep them out. There are ingenious ways to do that. If a film is rejected, don’t send it to RC. Instead, ask the producers to come out with a “revised” film, so that it can be treated as a “fresh” film without sending it to the RC. Does the Cinematograph Act talk about this provision for “revised” film? No. An office order issued in seventies comes to the rescue of Regional Officers to bypass the CBFC members.

Look at this typical case of a Telugu film which was rejected by the EC, but did not go to RC. Instead, the producer submitted a “revised” version which only carried deletions of “sound” (meaning, deletion of sound bytes), and a fresh EC accepted the film with cuts. Let us look at the reasons given for rejection by the original EC: “The theme of the story and dialogues, sequences require rejection of the film. The picture is not suitable for public exhibition”. Without any change in the theme, sequences, not even a slight change in the duration of the film, the film was passed as a fresh film. Everybody is happy. Producers, Directors, Panel members and the public who want sleazy stuff are all happy!

Fun apart, this loop-line makes a mockery of the Act itself thus enabling the producer to circumvent the Act without going before the RC or the Film Appellate Tribunal for which our I & B Minister has nominated his buddy’s life partner as the Chairperson. It is a different matter that she will have no work to do, as her predecessor used to complain.

When this is the state of affairs at the CBFC where it is the IIS officials who rule the roost, why should the government bother about who constitutes the board of the CBFC and why should there be a purge whenever the government changes. It makes no sense. Let them belong to any party. They have precious little to do with the functioning of the Board. The logical question that follows is whether this ornamental board necessary at all.

Note: The author of this article was a member of the CBFC for a short period.

S R Ramanujan

       Send your views to author

---

Do you wish to reach our readers?
How to submit your Guest Column?

Copyright and Disclaimer:
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and not of this website. The author is solely responsible for the contents of this article. This website does not represent or endorse the accuracy, completeness or reliability of any opinion, statement, appeal, advice or any other information in the article. Our readers are free to forward this page URL to anyone. This column may NOT be transmitted or distributed by others in any manner whatsoever (other than forwarding or weblisting page URL) without the prior permission from us and the author.

Why Somnathada gets angry so often? March 16, 2005

BJP protests too much July 11, 2004

All roads lead to villages July 03, 2004

Power centers and Power brokers June 24, 2004