Censor: Sense or…?

I am often bemused by the way we are - we procreate like rabbits but shy away from sex education in schools, we gave the world the Kamasutra but a kiss longer than an ‘acceptable’  duration is, well, not acceptable. 

With two movies having recently been rejected certification, the role of the Central Board of Film Certification has become a topic for debate, yet again. In 1983, the guidelines for certification were revised and, ever since, the then Central Board of Film Censorship changed into being the Central Board of Film Certification. 

Censorship of any kind becomes a subjective proposition - a lot would depend on the education and creative and intellectual sensibilities of the viewer, the socio-political climate of the country and the times that a society lives in - whether Victorian or otherwise. This, therefore, takes the task of censorship into the realms of controversy, sometimes questioned by the people and sometimes criticised by the film makers. 

Freedom of speech and expression is never absolute; it comes with its riders of reasonable restrictions. The guidelines for certification take into consideration whether a work of art is blasphemous and offensive, hurting religious, linguistic or regional sentiments, inciting violence and disturbing public order and tranquility. But some of these criteria become irrelevant in this day and age when the internet has a lot to offer an audience. 

The audience must be treated with the maturity and faith that it will exercise its choice of viewing with discretion. I do not enjoy movies on the subjects of ghosts and the genre of horror movies; but I have never demanded that they be banned because I, and, maybe, many others like I, find it scary and distasteful. I simply do not watch them. (It's a different matter that both my dogs have been named after ghosts - Casper and Spooky!). Likewise, people who think the sculptures of Khajuraho are inappropriate do not waste their time and money going there. They exercise their judgement. The government does not cover them with a shroud; it is, after all, a part of our cultural pride and heritage!

It would, probably, be wise for the CBFC to redefine its role as being a certification body, rather than a judge of creative tastes and freedom, and, societal acceptability of it. As, Potter Stewart, a former Justice of a US Supreme Court has said, “Censorship reflects a society’s lack of confidence in itself”. The CFBC must refrain from acting like a nanny, regulating what the people should, or not, be watching.

Creative freedom and its censorship is like a double edged sword and this must be handled with great caution. Such a sword in the hands of a child can be dangerous! May be that should be banned?