A censor was a Roman magistrate who oversaw public morals. Film censoring, too, has its origins in efforts to safeguard, what the witty Alfred Doolittle would call in Pygmalion , “middle class morality”. In the US, as early as 1896, Thomas Edison’s otherwise harmless, 18 second — and totally free of evil by today’s standards — film, The Kiss , was treated as a threat to morality, paving the way for a long history of societal intervention in works of art.

Censoring should have no place in a mature society. That’s why, when Information and Broadcasting Minister Arun Jaitley says film certification guidelines should be non-discretionary and ensure that artistic creativity and freedom of expression are uncurtailed, one really wishes he would walk the talk.

Echoing Jaitley was Rajyavardhan Rathore, minister of state, I&B, who said the government does not want to decide what people should watch. Given the way elements in his own government have been functioning in the streets, Rathore’s statement carries a strong message.

A few months ago, India cut a sorry figure as the Censor Board headed by Pahlaj Nihalani banned a list of cuss-words and nicked off scenes from the James Bond movie, Spectre .

India does not need a censor board. The Centre must abolish it and set up a flexible rating agency manned by artists and members of the industry. The body should rate films and not suggest cuts. Theatres can decide what they want to show.

Above all, let the public choose. In this age of digital dissemination where all kinds of objectionable content spreads across the web, censoring does not make sense.

The remedy is to create a progressive community that can evaluate what’s good, what’s not. That’s a harder task than setting a body filled with babus. Bernard Shaw, who created Doolittle, said the first condition of progress was the removal of censorship.

Are our policymakers listening?

Jinoy Jose P Senior Assistant Editor

Related Topics