Central Board of Film Certification. The name itself suggests that its job is to issue certificates to films to guide viewers on the content and leave it to them to make informed decisions. CBFC chairperson Pahlaj Nihalani, apparently, has a different interpretation. His view is “ my way or the highway. And the result is that he finds himself in the hot seat with the film fraternity ganging up against his latest edict “ 94 cuts to Anurag Kashyap’s ‘Udta Punjab’, a film which depicts the drug menace that is gradually eating the vitals of Punjab.
Nihalani has a limited view of the world and seems to believe that if a problem is swept under the carpet, it will stay there undiscovered for eternity. He also seems to have got it into his head that ‘Udta Punjab’ is anti-Punjab, when in fact it takes a serious look at a very serious problem that Nihalani, perhaps with the blessings of his bosses in Delhi, would like to keep under wraps. Hence, the CBFC chairman wants all references to Punjab to be removed from the film. The sign board of Punjab at the beginning of the film is to be deleted. The names of all cities, towns or villages in Punjab mentioned in the film are also to be deleted. The name of a dog “ Jackie Chain “ was also nipped. The words ‘election’, ‘MLA’, ‘party’ from political party, ‘Punjab’, ‘parliament’ are also to be deleted. All cuss words are to be muted. In addition to the cuts, the film has been given an ‘A’ certificate.
This extra effort to protect Punjab does not make sense. Why is the CBFC going out of its way to dilute or diffuse the message of the film, which seeks to highlight a genuine problem? Part of the problem lies with Pahlaj Nihalani, who runs the board with an iron hand. If he decides something is bad, it goes. And his standards seem to vary with every film. There is a certain level of danger to freedom when one man is allowed to dictate the terms under which the rest of the country can watch films. Are Indians a bunch of morons who have to be told what to watch? The Mumbai high court, currently hearing a petition challenging the 94 cuts, observed, “Whether it is TV or cinema, let the people see it. Everybody has a choice”.
The second part of the problem is politics. Punjab has been ruled by the SAD, an NDA constituent for the last nine years, and the film highlights a burning problem that the government overlooked for nearly a decade. While the Congress fancies its chances of winning the election, it is the Aam Aadmi Party that seems to be making the most gains. The Centre probably assumes that the film will benefit AAP more than anyone else. And Nihalani has ensured that this does not happen by stripping the film of any reference to Punjab.
Censorship is not desirable in a democracy and the high court was right in pointing out that the power of the CBFC is to certify films not censor them. If this ideal is upheld it will greatly diminish the power of the CBFC to interfere in our lives and protect the creative expression of artistes.
