Abstract
Indian cinema is the epitome of expression; it’s not just movies and songs but a vast variety of art forms. The art is as diverse as the country, with the passage of time and trends, there have been significant changes and adoption of regulations as to what is “suitable” for the audience to watch on a larger scale. Let’s understand, the process of approving or disapproving of the content is called “censoring.” This is taken care of by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), a board established under the Cinematograph Act of 1952. The primary task of this authority is to provide certifications for any movie that will be screened for public viewing and to suggest changes that they deem necessary or inappropriate for public screening. But with time, the censorship has been repeatedly questioned for its selective nature, which raises a significant question under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution as to whether such selective censorship is hindering the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression.
The paper critically examines how the selective censorship by the CBFC not only hinders freedom of speech but also robs us of creative freedom. Further, the paper discusses the gender stereotyping and promotion of sexism in the film industry with a nuanced comparison of Indian and Western cinema.
Keywords
- FILM CENSORSHIP
- CENTRAL BOARD OF FILM CERTIFICATION (CBFC)
- FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION
- GENDER STEREOTYPING
- SEXISM
- POLITICAL INDULGENCE
Introduction
Cinema or any form of art is one of the most powerful influences on society. From ancient times, there has been an undeniable appreciation of different forms of art, from dance performances in courts of Great Kings to Sufi nights, skit performances before television was invented, to now having access to cross-border content. The evolution of art itself has been magnificent. Discussing particularly the cinema, from being played on a projector on a white sheet to now playing movies in an ultra-luxurious setting that one can even imagine, the growth is commendable. But does that mean the quality of content has also improved?. Especially in Indian cinema, a much bigger issue seems to be arising with every passing year.
A very famous saying, “Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty, without freedom of speech.” By Benjamin Franklin. Still holds one down to think that, are filmmakers liberated enough to put up the real and raw state, for the public at large to witness? Or we are all being forced to see what they want us to see. Censorship, which was supposed to be a boon/ a safety net to protect the audience from unwanted content, is now turning into a political tool, only portraying what they think is required, at the cost of freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. But the issue runs deep with a constant dilemma between Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution, where 19(2) imposes a reasonable restriction on the freedom of speech available under 19(1)(a), being a major issue, other issues like sexism, gender stereotyping, political indulgence are the issues which goes unnoticed.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This paper uses a doctrinal research approach, relying on laws, constitutional provisions, court judgments, and academic writings. It takes a qualitative and comparative angle by looking at how film censorship works in India and how it is dealt with in Western countries. The study also uses a socio-legal perspective to understand how censorship influences gender portrayal in films and affects the freedom of expression guaranteed under the Constitution
LITERATURE REVIEW
Most of the existing work on film censorship in India talks about how much power the CBFC has and how courts try to balance free speech under Article 19(1)(a) with the restrictions allowed under Article 19(2). Earlier studies usually defended censorship as a way to protect morality and public order, but more recent writings see it as paternalistic and not in tune with democratic principles. Scholars who look at gender in cinema point out that censorship often ends up reinforcing stereotypes, especially by blocking films that show women stepping outside traditional roles—Lipstick Under My Burkha being a well-known example. When compared with Western countries, where rating systems mainly guide audiences by age, Indian censorship looks more like moral policing. What is still missing in the literature is a direct link between constitutional debates on free speech and the gender bias that censorship creates, which is the gap this paper seeks to fill.
History and making of CBFC
CBFC originated in 1918, under British rule, originally named, Censorship Board main purpose of the Britishers was to censor or cut the movies that invoked anti-national emotions in Indians. Typically, films that depicted nationalists like Mahatma Gandhi, Nehru, and violence against the British were censored. The British used cinema as a political tool rather than an expression of art.
After independence, the censorship board was replaced by the Central Board of Film Censors, which had to censor films to invoke patriotism while maintaining decency and morality.
Later in 1983, the name of the board was officially changed to ‘Central Board of Film Certification’, which was a symbolic shift to move the focus from censoring to certifying and classifying the movies into different categories. The practical motive behind this shift was to provide Freedom of Speech and Expression.
Role of the CBFC
Objective of the CBFC is to review the film and provide certification for it to be eligible for public screening. This special authority is regulated under the Cinematograph Act 1952. The certification is granted under section 5A of the Cinematograph Act 1952. The board ensures that the movie/ film complies with the guidelines framed under section 5B, and maintains public order, decency, and sovereignty. Movies should be a source of entertainment, not a center for chaos.
Type of content A/ U/ UA
Under the CBFC, certain categories are bifurcated for movies, which are as follows;
‘A’ (Adults Only); Movies that are A-rated are only for the audience of age 18 years and above, suggesting that the movie might contain graphic visuals, sexual content, nudity, violence, or strong themes.
‘U’ (Universal); Movies that are U-rated are available for all age groups and considered family safe.
‘UA’ (Parental Guidance); Movies that are UA-rated are available for children below 12 years only with parental guidance.
Constitutional dilemma
Although CBFC was set to certify the films and minimize the censorship role to allow creative freedom, yet time and again, there have been many incidents where CBFC has gone beyond the parameters, rather to suggest but to imply arbitrary cuts, which not only challenges the freedom denoted under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution but also results in loss of art.
With times changing and growing creativity and openness, there appears to be a constant battle between filmmakers and CBFC over the issue of censorship. Where Article 19(1)(a) allows the Freedom of Speech and Expression, Article 19(2) puts reasonable restrictions on the same. Filmmakers question the scope of Article 19(1)(a) and demand creative freedom to put up quality work for the audience. CBFC uses the vague and large scope of Article 19(2) to deny their appeal.
The dilemma between Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(2) is a major issue today. Why? Films made today are more powerful and influential; they contain political criticism, social taboos, gender issues, or strong themes. While filmmakers argue release of the movies with zero to minimal cuts, CBFC seems to be the moral police and implements arbitrary cuts that often take away the essence of the film.
In the case of (Phantom Films Pvt. Ltd. v. Cent. Bd. of Film Certification, 2016), the movie UDTA PUNJAB was set to release and was awaiting certification by CBFC, the authority implemented approximately 89 cuts, stating that the film encourages substance abuse, and portrays Punjab in a bad light, further questioning India’s sovereignty, later the matter was taken up by Hon’ble Bombay High Court; after through consideration the court quoted that the movie was not portraying any state(Punjab) in bad light and neither encouraged substance abuse, the movie was released with only one cut and additional disclaimer as ordered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court.
This case was one of the many examples where not only the vague ambiguity of Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution was taken advantage of by the CBFC board, but also made us question the whole concept of democracy.
As quoted, ‘The public is the biggest censor.’
Certain cases compel us to wonder whether the act constitutes genuine censorship or deliberate concealment. In the case of the movie, ‘LIPSTICK UNDER MY BURKHA’, the movie itself portrays the lives of 4 women, their desires and sufferings, the film was set to portray a part in lives of women that often went overlooked; however, the CBFC denied certification, stating that the movie was ‘lady-oriented’ with sexual references and abusive language in addition with touch of a sensitive part of the society(Muslim religion), it was denied certification. This was protested by the writers and the directors with the argument that the reason for denying certification should be well elaborated, rather than just a statement.
This case exemplifies the dilemma of whether censorship is a requirement or an attempt to conceal the uncomfortable realities of society.
As quoted, “Cinema can serve as the mirror of society, but it often distorts women into stereotypes rather than reflecting their realities.”
To the other side of the same coin, movies that promote sexism, gender stereotyping, and portray women in a derogatory manner pass the certification easily; likewise, songs in the Indian film industry are often termed as ‘Item songs’ with lyrics blatantly objectifying women, and yet are never subjected to censorship or changes.
Political indulgence is also a major reason behind how some regulatory authorities work in India. Movies like ‘THE KASHMIRI FILES’ passed the certification easily with an A-rated pass. The film was strongly promoted by the ruling government with additional concessions on ticket prices. The main focus remains the smooth certification process of such a sensitive and highly politically charged movie, suggesting the influence of the ruling party. This not only makes the CBFC a political tool but also prone to selective censorship, as like so movies mentioned above are constantly subjected to bans, and face scrutiny, while movies promoting a political agenda are easily certified.
Contrast of Indian cinema with Western cinema
There is no doubt on the significance of the influence Western cinema has had on the Indian film industry, but the real question here is whether our industry depicts the right agenda to be inspired by?
Here is a comparative study of various aspects of Western and Indian cinema, which concludes that mere influence does not improve the quality of the content depiction of the right narrative and values do, although Indian filmmakers are frequently seen borrowing themes and techniques from the Western world to create a similar experience for the Indian audience, however are pulled back because of uptight censorship guidelines which hinder the main storyline, on the other hand western cinema seems to have been achieving different heights of creativity due to lesser restrictions and more creative freedom, while India remains deeply rooted in moral and cultural aspects.
| Aspects | Western cinema | Indian cinema |
Regulatory authority | In western countries like the UK and, USA, there are certification boards and films are categorised as per age limit, but not censored unless very sensitive topic. | In India, the censorship or certification is regulated by CBFC, which functions more as a censor board than a certifying body |
| Constitutional Basis | All Western countries practise and implement their freedom of speech very freely and up front, which minimises censorship. | The Indian constitution provides freedom of speech under Art.. 19(1)(a), but imposes reasonable restrictions under Art.. 19(2), which often results in a dilemma and chaos. |
| Censorship power | Self-regulating, audience choice emphasized. Even controversial films are released with an age restriction. | Authority-driven, state censor board decides suitability. Audiences are often denied the choice. |
Gender stereotyping | Western cinema was often seen promoting all the taboos in earlier times (women suppressing roles, racism, and promotion of patriarchal society), but with time, a significant change in the quality of content can be noticed; Promotion of feminism, acceptance of LGBTQ+, and lesser to no racism. | Indian cinema, to date, heavily features typical stereotypes(item songs demeaning and objectifying women, submissive roles paired with toxic masculinity). Films that promote or depict feminism are censored. Inclusivity of other communities, like LGBTQ+, is super slow and faces demeaning depictions. |
| Violence and Sexual Content | Nudity, any kind of sexual content, and violence are openly shown with age restrictions. | Nudity and sexual content are censored under the sheet of ‘decency’ and ‘morality’, and violence is approved to some extent with an A-rating. |
| Judicial approach | Western courts uphold strong freedom of speech, and bans are only implemented in rare cases. | Indian courts tend to balance the approach, however, incline towards censorship to avoid unnecessary drama. |
In the overall analysis, Western cinema appears to be driven by the audience and not regulatory authorities or the state, unlike Indian cinema, which appears heavily intoxicated with censorship, ethics, morality, and political indulgence.
Suggestion
- Shift from censorship to certification with lesser moral policing by CBFC
- A narrow interpretation of Article 19(2) to avoid misinterpretations and loopholes
- Audience empowerment; move toward more firmer age rating system like the Western model
- Framework that discourages sexist portrayal and objectification.
- Board members to include more youth, to help incorporate new trends, ideas and broaden the mindset.
Conclusion
Cinema, as a powerful medium of art and expression, continues to play a pivotal role in shaping social conscience and public disclosure in India. However, we do understand that India is deeply rooted in its ethical values and morals. The change doesn’t have to be rapid, but a constant and consistent change can help Indian cinema to grow beyond its limits.
In conclusion, there needs to be a narrow interpretation of Article 19(2) to avoid misinterpretation and loopholes, and the Central Board of Film Certification shall be ordered to function as a certified body and not act as a censoring body. Cinema is also a form of art and shall be bifurcated from all kinds of political indulgence. It shall not serve as a political tool or election campaign for the parties. in today’s world, where we learn what we see, cinema should be a tool to promote and uplift vulnerable segments of society.
A country that is the largest democracy in the world shall not allow an authority to censor and decide what the public shall view or not. It should be the audience, choice and their consent to watch a movie. Because. “A democracy, cinema silences its conscience, true freedom lies not in control, but in trust. Cinema must not be confined by the scissors of censorship. “
REFRENCES
- Cinematograph Act 1952
- https://blog.ipleaders.in/introduction-cbfc-cinematograph-act-1952/
- https://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/movies/censor-board-refuses-certificate-to-lady-oriented-lipstick-under-my-burkha/article17353939.ece
- https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-36518288
AAKANSHA KAUSHIKK
GITARATTAN INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS SCHOOL.