Do we need a censor board at all?

The Information and Broadcasting ministry has finally zeroed in on dancer and writer Leela Samson to head the film censor board. She will succeed actor Sharmila Tagore who term is ending this month. The surprise choice of Bharatnatyam exponent Samson who, though a brilliant dancer, has no experience or background of movies comes after reports that a string of film industry veterans had declined to accept the post. While most of them politely cited other commitments, clearly they wanted to avoid the controversies that usually go with the job.

The might be a good time to ask if we really need a censor board at all, especially one that functions-directly or indirectly-under the government. It has been some years that the body has been renamed from the almost Soviet-sounding Central Board of Film Censors to more benign Central Board of Film Certification. Yet, its functions have remained almost the same. Despite recent refinement of attitudes, it has largely functioned as a government watchdog over movies. Its façade of autonomy wears thin at every test.

Its brief is not very clear, nor its history encouraging. Over the years, it has faulted some of the finest works of Indian filmmakers just because it found the subject too sensitive or its treatment too provocative. On the other hand, it has okayed crassest works for universal exhibition. In its thinking and approach, it has remained at least a generation behind times. Not just that, clearance from the board does not guarantee any protection to filmmaker. Any individual who finds something wrong with the movie is still able to drag the director and producer to court over it.

Basically, I find the idea of a censor board itself an anathema. It is an insult to Indian democracy to have a handful of government-appointed gatekeepers decide what people should or should not see. Films are one of the several media now available to people. They have every right to be as free as printed word. The argument that just because something is audio-visual it has to be strictly regulated has no rational basis. The censor board has continued as relic from our past where a nanny government took on several jobs it had no business to be in. Time has come to junk it.

Films, like content being hawked through any other medium, have to follow basic laws of the land. The filmmakers and distributors could be sued and would be open to judicial injunctions if they incited violence, defamed someone, or showed something obscene. Why is it that they are subject to pre-censorship when other media like TV, newspapers, and websites are not? There is no evidence to suggest that films affect viewer's psyche and behaviour more than the other media. It makes no sense to make moviemakers go through exhaustive and expensive review and appeals processes before bureaucrats when painters and writers can exhibit and publish what they want.

Moreover, in the age of Internet when rawest videos, most provocative political and religious commentary, and even hardcore pornography are available virtually on every computer and mobile device something like a censor board is an anachronism. Just whom are we protecting and from what?  If we trust even our 18-year-olds, regardless of their education, to vote and elect a government, why can't we trust the same people to make a good choice of what movies to watch?

These are not new arguments it is just that now it is more necessary than ever to accept their validity. The fact that no respectable person from film industry is ready to accept what is still a powerful position indicates what people in industry think of the organization. The view among viewers, for whose protection and benefit ostensibly the censor board exists, is likely to be no different.

Of course, I realize it may not be politically acceptable to abolish the censor board overnight and move to a totally liberal regime. Could we, in the interim, have a body purely for certification of films? It would have powers only to categorize the movies in certain well defined niches (For eg universal, parental guidance, 15+ years, and adult) and not to stop its exhibition or demand cuts in certain scenes. Some restrictions on stuff that is purely pornographic may remain but certainly nothing should be stopped because it makes a controversial or provocative political or social point.

Also, this body ought to be managed and run largely by film industry itself, pretty much like chartered accountants run their own affairs through Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. It should also provide a complaint mechanism should somebody find something particularly objectionable in a movie. It would have power to advise or even censure but not to ban. The filmmakers, like any other citizens, would be legally responsible for what they put out. The viewers, as always, would be free to decide what they would spend money to watch.