The Central Board of Film Certification, usually called the Censor Board, is that ever vigilant body that has kept a sharp eye on anything that might be offensive, vulgar and generally against Indian culture and mores from creeping into our movies. For long, kissing was taboo as was bad language and many other infractions deemed unacceptable. Now of course every other film has a hot kissing scene and even gaalis of every size, shape and provenance are routinely bandied about — Delhi Belly comes to mind. There is no evidence that Indian morals have been corrupted or indeed that salacious content has led to box-office success.
The censors have come to accept that society is changing and with it some of the older norms must be discarded. But every now and then, the wise men and women come up with a decision that shows that they are concerned about protecting the hapless Indian citizen from evil filmmakers. The latest is a new directive that film ratings will now have to be explained in ads. What it means is that if a film has been classified as A (Adults Only), the ads will probably have details like “contains a lot of sex scenes, gratuitous violence and a few choice cuss words.” Of course the final language is yet to be decided, but you get the general idea. In case of say, PG (Parental Guidance advised), it could helpfully explain that the film has scenes of young adults making out.
This is a tricky area the censors are getting into. For one thing, any explanation in words about why something merits an Adults Only restriction can look ridiculous. Pornography, violence or anything salacious is often in the eyes of the beholder; at the moment we take the word of our high-minded censors that a film has breached some regulations and happily accept the classification. Now, the censors will have to justify each and every rating and, perhaps, lay down clear-cut and quantifiable parameters — the number of kisses, bomb explosions and swear words will make all the difference between a U, UA and A.
Also, the outcome could be the opposite of what the censors intend. The punters could get more interested in seeing the film because they would now know what is in it. Saying “This film has many violent and sexual scenes” is like opening up a bee farm to rampaging bears.
It is bad enough that films have to be censored by the government, but the element of arbitrariness makes it worse. Why, for instance, should a “Free Tibet” flag be cut out from a film? Similarly, why ban scenes of smoking? There was even an idea mooted to scroll an anti-smoking message at the bottom of the screen anytime an actor lit up a cigarette.
The intention behind all these proposals is to protect the citizen’s sensibilities from being hurt and morals from being corrupted. It is a manifestation of a nanny mindset that claims to know what is good and not good for society as a whole and a citizen as an individual.
This tendency is not limited to the Censor Board or even to the government. Special interest groups, community organisations, even NGOs — they all like to prevent citizens from seeing, hearing, eating, drinking or thinking something or the other, all in the name of protecting their mind, health or sensibilities.
Do-gooder organisations can often be the worse offenders in this regard. The Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) recently came out with a study on the misleading labelling on junk food. It showed that many companies give incorrect information about salt and trans-fat content in their products, which can be harmful to consumers. This is good public service indeed. But then, instead of limiting themselves to releasing the study and insisting that the companies stop such labelling, the CSE demanded that junk foods be banned from schools.
That is carrying activism too far. We all want to protect our children from the ill-effects of junk food, but surely we as parents and teachers ought to be able to take that decision. Indeed, despite knowing that a combo meal of burgers, chips and colas could be unhealthy, I may not mind my child enjoying it once in a while (even I may join in). The choice of eating or not eating junk food should vest with me, just as warning my children about its dangers and ensuring they don’t overdo it is also my responsibility. I commend the CSE for ringing this warning bell; but after that it should step back.
This kind of lips-pursed finger wagging has the opposite effect; it puts off people and in the end the message is lost. Also, no one wants to be treated like a moron who cannot be trusted to act responsibly and needs nannies to keep him/her on the straight and narrow all the time.
We live in a free society which is in constant danger of being undermined. Today, governments have the capability of reading our mail and listening into our telephone conversations. We are constantly told what we can read or not read — West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee has banned some newspapers from public libraries in Paschimbanga. Our liberties are shrinking by the day. We have to fight back and tell all the nannies in the world to get out of our lives. We are capable of taking our decisions and yes, making our own mistakes.