There is a perceptual conflict between film makers and film censors over what should or should not be shown in cinema. A chairman of the film censor board in the UK, Lord Trevelyan made a mockery of his censorship by publishing a book called, “What the Censor saw” by printing the scenes cut by him. But Indian censors refuse to see light. A film called “Udta Punjab” had been mauled by 13 cuts but the Bombay High Court had made an enlightened move by striking down all but one of them. The court has also made some pertinent observations. The mandate of the Central Bureau is to certify not to censor. Because of the confusion in the minds of Delhi’s mandarins, it is also called the Censor Board. The High Court also regretted that its time was wasted with such a trivial issue which could have been settled by those involved in the film or by public debate. The court has left censorship of creative arts open. The film in question had some scenes showing drug abuse and having use of expletives. Showing drug abuse does not mean defending it. A film like “Dum Maaro Dum” is a serious condemnation of drug abuse though it showed the stupor of drug addicts. Expletives have been part of the language of modern literature and deleting them does not cleanse the prevailing spoken idiom. What is all the more regrettable is the intervention of political elements as happened in the case of a film called, “”Aarakshan” which had absolutely nothing objectionable in it.
The main question is whether the Central Bureau of Film Certification has been reasonable in imposing cuts in films. It is of course arguable if the need for freedom of speech and visuals can apply to rank obscenity or bad mouthing in films. Films need not be educative and they should not be under greater restraint than fiction. Cinema is literature on celluloid. The corollary is that such cuts may go to any extreme bringing fascist tendencies into play.