No Sex Please, We’re Indian

This is an extension of a previous entry, Entertaining Morality, at the time I hadn’t take the CBFC’s threat to ban ‘A’ rated movies on TV seriously, now unfortunately, it seems I underestimated their resolve. Over the last few days after the police began shutting down cable TV operators, TV channels have responded by slashing movies and Indianising their content, in short; toeing the CBFC’s line. A stunning victory for Indian morality and a defeat for Indian art and society. In their defence the CBFC stated that the laws that were being enforced had been around for a long time and were being blatantly ignored by the various movie channels. Yes, the rules have been around for a long time, since the time of British rule actually. Censorship was introduced to aid the British in their colonial policy, among their cited reasons was the essential need to preserve the ‘prestige of the white woman’ 1. Sixty years on, the censor board continues in its pursuit of morality, imposing restrictions on the depiction of adult sexuality in the cinema.

"Film censorship becomes necessary because a film motivates thought and action and assures a high degree of attention and retention as compared to the printed word… Therefore, it has as much potential for evil as it has for good and has an equal potential to instil or cultivate violent or good behaviour. “
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

“A film is judged in its entirety from the point of view of its overall impact and is examined in the light of the period depicted in the film and the contemporary standards of the country and the people to whom the film relates, provided that the film does not deprave the morality of the audience. Guidelines are applied to the titles of the films also. “
5B(2) Central Government detailed guidelines

Both these quotes are from the Censor Board’s website. The Supreme Court has judged correctly the significance of the cinema in influencing the general public and also I agree that such influence can be both positive and negative. What they have omitted to mention is what exactly constitutes a positive or negative influence. The guidelines too do not go into specific detail; they refer to contemporary standards as the basis for judging a movie and mention that the film should not ‘deprave the morality of the audience’. My point being that all of this is extremely vague in nature and allows much interpretation on the part of those actually involved in reviewing a film.
The CBFC does have a detailed list of rules, however again I find that most of these rules are vague, unnecessary or inadequate.

Rule III
Scenes
a. Showing involvement of children in violence as victims or perpetrators or as forced witnesses to violence, or showing children as being subjected to any form of child abuse;
b. Showing abuse or ridicule of physically and mentally handicapped persons; and
c. Showing cruelty to, or abuse of animals, are not presented needlessly

Here part B is clearly not enforced, there have been innumerable movies that blatantly utilize, physically and mentally handicapped characters as comic relief additionally eunuchs (though not technically handicapped) are very often openly ridiculed.
There are a number of other rules pertaining to violence and portrayal of foreign countries that are clearly being ignored but I concerning myself only with those dealing with the portrayal of sex.

(vii) Human sensibilities are not offended by vulgarity, obscenity or depravity;

(viii) Such dual meaning words as obviously cater to baser instincts are not allowed;

(ix) Scenes degrading or denigrating women in any manner are not presented;
(x) Scenes involving sexual violence against women like attempt to rape, rape or any form of molestation or scenes of a similar nature are avoided, and if any such incidence is germane to the theme, they shall be reduced to the minimum and no details are shown

(xi) Scenes showing sexual perversions shall be avoided and if such matters are germane to the theme they shall be reduced to the minimum and no details are shown

Vulgarity, obscenity and depravity (as referred to as in vii) are again highly subjective terms, which leave much room for personal interpretation. In the case of ‘dual meaning words’, they have been exploited (or sexploited if you will) in many risqué so called comedies, the plot lines of which consist only of successive sexually suggestive situations and innuendos. In rule ix I find the biggest flaw or loophole. It mentions only scenes that denigrate women and does not mention movies in which the female cast is used only to sex up the movie. Take the movie Dhoom, the only reason Rimi Sen and Esha Deol were cast and their characters written into the script was to attract men to the movie. The characters barely had lines and for a majority of their time on screen, they were in various stages of undress. So apparently individual scenes that degrade women are not allowed but a movie whose female cast exists solely for the purpose of commodifying their sexuality is okay. This is where the fundamental flaw with the CBFC lies, their arbitrary censorship and failure to differentiate between the portrayal of sex to serve a purpose and gratuitous sexual imagery.
Since expressing sexuality openly on film is frowned upon, the film industry uses sexually suggestive imagery instead. Often this is a far worse alternative as is evident from the vast number of rain-drenched-saree, heaving-bosom sequences and other obscene alternatives adopted by filmmakers. The rules insure that the mindset of most filmmakers when dealing with sex is positively adolescent. I can imagine them leaning over their cameras giggling, like schoolboys reading an issue of Debonair. As a consequence of a prudish certification board, sex in Indian films remains a taboo issue, subject to misconceptions, myth and prone to being depicted as an obscenity.
The Honourable Supreme Court notes that films heavily influence society and currently all they achieve is reinforcing our ignorance of all things sexual. Sex is portrayed as a commodity and sexuality as some mysterious force. What you see is what you get and literally millions of us young Indians are being taught that sex is either taboo or a commodity. The lack of understanding of sex, its implications and responsibilities that come with it, manifests itself in the many sex related crimes that occur everyday. As our country opens up to premarital and casual sex, there is a crying need for sex-education. Schools and parents don’t seem to keen to impart this basic knowledge and movies too aren’t allowed to deal sensitively with sex, this can only lead to future generations of dysfunctional adolescents who don’t understand and are incapable of dealing with their sexuality.
Deepa Mehta’s ‘Fire’ was condemned for trying to deal sensitively with the lesbianism, while ‘Girlfriend’ a crass, misguided film, dealing with the same issue was allowed. While Fire tried to understand the topic, Girlfriend used it to sell tickets. On the subject of male homosexuality, we have Bobby Darling, used exclusively for comic relief, otherwise gays are alternately portrayed as rapists or paedophiles.
What the CBFC hopes to achieve with its ban on adult movies on TV is to protect audiences from the evil corrupt ways of the western world. They however seem to be the only ones who know how to deal with sexuality and till we learn we need their movies.
Many protest that sex and violence shown on TV influence children and hence such a ban is fully justified. I agree that children need protection from exposure to gratuitous sex and violence but an outright ban is not an efficient solution. Children who can watch adult themed films on TV also tend to have unrestricted access to similar content on the Internet. Banning ‘A’ rated movies from being aired on TV is not going to achieve anything. The responsibility for regulating what children have access to lies not with the Censor Board but rather with parents. Don’t blame your dysfunctional children on TV, the fault lies with you for not playing an active role in their upbringing.
Another commonly used argument is that all this sex being imported from the west is corrupting our magnificent Indian culture and degrading our fine sense of morality. The government issued guidelines which include; “...deprave the morality of the audience...” adheres to this view. I believe that anyone who is influenced to depravity was probably leaning towards it in the first place. You can’t be influenced unless you actually want to be influenced, therein lies my point, my belief in the freedom of choice. If you want to watch something, you should be free to watch it, if you feel some particular film offends your sensibilities, don’t go to watch it. If you don’t like the idea of sex or violence, you can choose not to watch it, don’t protest because others want to watch it. Don’t blame the ills of society on films, crimes like those against women are a result of our social structure and the apathy of out legal system for the victims. Films can only influence people, it is society in the end that sanctions their actions.