02 December,2020 07:47 AM IST | | Mayank Shekhar
God knows Indian cinema since has suffered enough over all this, depending on who gets to censor: Pahlaj or Prasoon, Sharmila or Asha. Pic/Getty Images
While a series of hilarities followed, what became clear to me is elementary. If you appoint a bunch of people to travel from far corners of a city, just to sit inside a dark hall and condescend/judge, whether a movie is fit enough for the rest of India to watch, as is - the fact that they've spent half a working day doing just that, with a notepad, pen and torch in hand, they'll think of something. At least something to mess with.
For, what's the point of this whole drill (in their head, anyway)? And what good is power, if exercised in its omission alone? That so many of these "independent" members were listed as "social activists" on the CBFC roster tells you they were essentially ruling party's workers, masquerading as neutral/cultural commissars.
As for merely checking on established guidelines being followed, the then Bombay CBFC boss told me - given how vague/subjective these things naturally are, you can apply the same set of rules and "ban Tom & Jerry, if you like"! God knows Indian cinema since has suffered enough over all this, depending on who gets to censor: Pahlaj or Prasoon, Sharmila or Asha.
Never mind that we've also been the global laughing stock, on occasion, as a result - say, when David Fincher (Girl With The Dragon Tattoo), or Woody Allen (Blue Jasmine), simply refused to release their film in India - rather than accept the Indian almighty CBFC's absurd cuts.
What's the equivalent of a theatrical release online? Although technically untrue, you could argue OTT platforms or streaming giants - the likes of Netflix, Prime Video, Hotstar, etc. They've been around in India only since 2016. Within just four years, you can see original content with Indians in it competing at the International Emmy's, no less - Delhi Crime (Netflix) won the Best Drama series in 2020, making Indians justly proud.
Unsure what "independent" commissars would've made of stuff inside Sacred Games, Four More Shots, Inside Edge - they're all Emmy nominees. Would chunks of it have gone to the deleted folder instead? More unsure what scripts will get greenlit, as we speak, with the looming fear of a government asking for 'regulating' OTT content altogether.
Basically, you hear regulation in India, you know it's censorship. And it isn't that streaming services aren't regulated anyway. Besides the choice in your hand to view something, subscribe, or not, with an existing, efficient child/family lock, which is foremost the regulation that adults - mature enough to vote the very government in - ought to be entrusted with.
Left to themselves, outside of a strong QC (Quality Control) in place, top OTT platforms in India have often already erred to the side of desi caution - from blurring map in Borat 2 (Amazon), blocking John Oliver (Hotstar), to censoring Mission Impossible: Fallout (Netflix). Furthermore, 15 major OTT platforms unanimously agreed to adopt a detailed self-regulation code in September 2020. The government rejected their draft. All OTT-related cases were reportedly instructed to be placed directly under the Supreme Court. It seems the state would prefer "independent" overseers.
Which could be similar to the Broadcasting Content Complaints Council (BCCC) for Indian television. How does that 'self-regulation' work? Proof is in the picture. Watch Indian TV, you'll know. Would the same top-down approach applied to government-licensed network television, from the analogue world - tame only OTT platforms in the unfettered Internet?
Censorship on the web is like Prohibition of the street. Only bootleggers are reborn. Unless everything is potentially clamped down on, since we're in China/Iran. Last checked, we weren't. You and I make a film/video. It organically spreads online, through WhatsApp, text messages, FB, etc.
Egalitarian Internet makes no distinction between OTT and KRK. Neither does the law, that you can be booked for transgression, regardless of the platform. Why does the government make an exception then? Proper democracies worldwide are concerned chiefly with protecting minors, countering piracy and disinformation, through regulation online.
And that's not an entertainment/industry issue. It's to do with us, the citizens. Always. As is the condescending idea of a top-down censorship itself - even as folk in media have the most to lose. It is still as much about artistes' right to create, as the audience's freedom to consume - or not.
On certain Indian news stations, I only hear discussions centred on "sex", "expletives" and "violence" on streaming services - as if creating a mahaul/climate, as it were. That's certainly the garb; smokescreen, if you may. Surely this state-led assault on adult audiences' intelligence/capacity to decide for itself isn't new.
Let me tell you what is. On each of these TV debates (and these are business channels, by the way), I've been up against handpicked actors/artistes, sometimes the news-anchor himself, making a strong case for censorship - on themselves! When was the last time you saw a society actively ask the government to clamp down on it? Never? Good. Welcome.
Mayank Shekhar attempts to make sense of mass culture. He tweets @mayankw14
Send your feedback to mailbag@mid-day.com
Catch up on all the latest Crime, National, International and Hatke news here. Also download the new mid-day Android and iOS apps to get latest updates.
Mid-Day is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@middayinfomedialtd) and stay updated with the latest news
