Maha Bharat: Episode 38

Who is the CBFC and why are film makers afraid of it?

← See all episodes

India produces the most feature films in a single year, and yet, each time the ‘censor board’ stalls the release of a film, it leads to major chaos all over the country. In fact, a tussle with the censor board is part of the publicity plan for some new films. After all, there is no such thing as bad publicity!

But did you know that the Central Board of Film Certification or the CBFC was never meant to be a ‘censor’, and was created for entirely different reasons, to ensure that films did not catch fire!

Learn about this century old institution that seems to often find itself in the news for the wrong reasons, and understand what its actual role is, in this episode.

Show Notes

All clips and voices used in this podcast are owned by the original creators

Links to clips used in this episode —

Full Transcript of Episode 38 –

[We hear the voice of a news reporting reporting on the film rating for ‘Jungle Book’]

Doston, when films get banned, censored, get an unexpected rating or create some controversy, it’s always all over the news. And over the last few years, you must have seen this happen quite a lot. You might remember the case of last year’s Disney children’s movie “Jungle Book”, which got a ‘U/A’ certificate because it was “scary”. This caused a lot of commotion (halla macha diya) in the Bollywood film industry.

But do you know who gives out these certificates and why are their decisions so controversial sometimes?

That’s right, the Censor Board, which is actually the more popular name for the Central Board of Film Certification or CBFC. 

What is this board? And why are filmmakers sometimes unhappy with censor board certificates?   

Let’s find out in today’s episode.

It is the CBFC’s job to watch a film and give it a certificate, before it hits the theatres. Sometimes, they suggest certain cuts in the film, which the filmmakers have to deal with before they can release the film.

But this was not always the case. Film certification started for very different reasons. And it had nothing to do with what the film was about! 

The world’s first cinematograph (सिनेमाटोग्राफ) ya cinema legislation was passed in Britain in 1909. The idea of film certification (नियन्त्रण) or regulation started out due to the fear of fire. Yes, you heard it right.

Back in those days, movies were recorded with video cameras that used  celluloid films. These are rolls of thin strips of film, loaded into the camera. This was before digital cameras were even invented! 

These film rolls were made by mixing a chemical called nitrocellulose (नैट्रो सेलुलोस) with camphor (कॉमफॉर या कपूर), and used to catch fire very easily. In 1897, a massive fire broke out at the Bazar de la Charité (चारीटे) in Paris as the film caught fire. Such fire incidents became common over the next few years.

To prevent these accidents, the British government passed the Cinematograph Act in 1909—the world’s first legislation related to films.

This was used to regulate the conditions in which the film would be screened. As you can see, there was no intention to censor the contents of the film. 

But slowly, local authorities, like the London County Council, started making up their own rules–which clearly did not come under the Cinematograph Act. They started controlling the screening of films and sometimes even banned films of an ‘objectionable character.’ So, even though the lawmakers never meant to censor films, it just happened.

And after a few confusing years, members from the film industry stepped up and decided that they’ll censor films on their own. They didn’t want the government or local bodies to do it. So finally, the British Board of Film Censors was set up in 1912.

But when did laws related to film censorship first come to India?

Well, that was also brought to us by the colonial British government. The Cinematograph Act was passed in India in 1918. This was aimed at protecting the public from what the British government called ‘indecent or otherwise objectionable representations’. Seedhe shabdon mein kahe toh, ashleel pradarshan. 

Two years later, censor boards were set up in the states of Rangoon or Yangon (यांगोन), now part of Myanmar (म्यानमार), Bombay, Madras and Calcutta.

And after independence, the different regional boards were  absorbed into the Bombay Board of Film Censors (BBFC se जुङ गए). In 1952, a new Cinematograph Act came into effect and the Bombay board became the Central Board of Film Censors, as the CBFC was initially called. 

Under this Act, a film could be screened in theatres only after getting a certificate from the Censor Board. And the members of this board would be appointed by the government. This is the law we’re following even today in India.

Much later, in 1983, the CBFC was renamed to the Central Board of Film Certification. Pay attention to this change in name. The word ‘censors’ was changed to ‘certification’.

What is the difference between these two terms, really? If someone has the power to censor films, it means they can control the content of the film, or the way it’s presented. But film certification is different–it just means rating or grading of the film without changing the content, and that is an important difference. You are going to hear these words a lot in this episode.    

So, coming back to the Cinematograph Act, even though there have been some minor amendments to this Act over the years, the core of it remains pretty much the same.

Enough history, let’s move on to the structure of the CBFC now.

The CBFC headquarters is in Mumbai. Other than that, it has nine regional offices. The person who currently heads the CBFC, also called its chairperson, is Prasoon Joshi. The CBFC also has 12 board members now, and an advisory panel. The board has only film professionals, but the advisory panel has members from outside the film industry too. And let me remind you that all these people have one thing in common–they’re all appointed by the ministry of information & broadcasting.

And if you were wondering, not every country has film certification boards that are run by the government.  For example, in the US and the UK, films are rated by independent bodies.

In the US, a body called the Motion Picture Association of America or the MPAA reviews films, and gives it a suitable rating. The MPAA consists of five major film studios of the US, as well as the video streaming service Netflix. Similarly, the UK has the British Board of Film Classification or BBFC, which classifies and rates films.

Now, let’s come back to India. Suppose you’re the producer of a film. It’s your job to get the film certified. So, you submit the film, along with the script and some other documents, to the CBFC. With this, you also have to pay a fee, depending on the duration of your film. 

So now your film has reached the CBFC. An Examining Committee will then watch your film. This committee is headed by a regional officer. If most of the committee members are happy with the film,  you can screen your film anywhere. But sometimes, the committee may also suggest cuts and edits in your film. And you’ll get your certificate only after you make those cuts.   

But what if the members of the committee don’t agree with each other? Then, the chairperson decides what certificate your film will get.  

Now, what are the different certificates your film can get and what do they really mean? 

If the film gets a ‘U’ or unrestricted public exhibition certificate, then it means that anyone can watch the film–even children.

But if the CBFC thinks the contents of the film are unsuitable for children below 12, it suggests some cuts and deletions. And depending on this, the film can be either a U or a U/A. If the film is clearly adult-themed (can be said in English?), like if there is graphic violence, obscene language or nudity, then it gets an ‘A’ certificate.

The final category is ‘S’, jiske bare mein zyada taur pe sunne nahi milta. Films with ‘S’ certificate can only be viewed by specialised groups, such as doctors or scientists. These films are not for the general public.

Now are you wondering how the CBFC decides what certificate it should issue?

In the case of Jungle Book, they felt the content was too ‘scary’ for children below 12 years to watch. 

But there are a bunch of other guidelines that the Cinematograph Act, 1952 puts forward. This includes pointless (फालतू) scenes of violence, scenes denigrating (neecha dikhana) women or minority social groups, scenes showing sexual perversions (per-version ya विकृति) and glorifying drinking and usage of drugs.

Another section in the Act says that no part of the film must be against the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State and friendly relations with foreign States.

But of course, these guidelines are not a strict set of do’s and don’ts. 

All of us interpret a film in different ways. And the same goes with the members of the CBFC, who come from different walks of life. So, a film’s certification often depends on an individual member’s opinions and choices.      

Maybe now you’re beginning to get an idea as to why filmmakers are so afraid of the CBFC: This government body has the power to decide who will get to watch their films! And of course, filmmakers would naturally want their films to reach a wider audience, right?

Now, put yourself in the producer’s shoes again. So the CBFC has asked for a lot of edits in your film. You look at those cuts and you feel like those scenes are really important to the story and they shouldn’t be cut out.

Now, what is the way out?

You can then go to a CBFC Revising Committee. This committee is made of the Chairperson and up to nine members from both the board and the advisory panel. Here, the final decision lies with the chairperson.  

But what if this committee, too, doesn’t rule in your favour? This happens a lot!

Now that’s where the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal or the FCAT comes in. Within the CBFC, this is your last point of appeal.

Okay, if this sounds too complicated to you, think about the Oscar-winning film ‘Joker’. If you remember, the film hit big screens in India in October last year. The CBFC thought the film was too violent, so it got an ‘Adult’ certificate.   

The production company Turner International India, of course, wanted the film to be premiered on TV, so that more people could watch the film. But ‘A’ films can’t be shown on TV, according to our laws. 

So, what did they do?

Turner International India appealed to the Revising Committee for recertification, of course. They also offered 58 cuts and mutes in the film! But the committee refused recertification for the film, and said that it has an ‘extremely violent theme and narrative.’ And finally, they went to the FCAT. But here too, the film was denied recertification.

That’s how the story ended. The film could not be aired on TV. 

But of course, the producers can always go to court if they’re not satisfied with the FCAT’s decision.

If you’re looking for an example, the makers of the 2016 film Udta Punjab did exactly that. The censor board had initially ordered 89 cuts in the film! They argued that the film encouraged drug addiction and defamed the state of Punjab.

Later, the CBFC revised it to just 13 cuts and ‘A’ certificate. But the producers were still not happy with these edits. 

So, they approached the Bombay High Court to resolve the case. 

[We hear about Anurag Kashyap’s decision to go to Court]

And the court ruled in their favour. They said that the film was good to go with just one cut!   

With this, the high court justice also said that “the CBFC should only certify, not censor. The public is the biggest censor. CBFC doesn’t need to censor.”

Now, this is an interesting debate that has been going on for a while now.

There is a fine line between certification and censorship. (Certification aur censorship ke beech ka fark bahut bareek hai.) As we know, every member of the CBFC is appointed by the government. There have been instances where the government has used this in their favour.

During the Emergency in the 1970s, films like Gulzar’s Aandhi, Amrit Nahata’s Kissa Kursi Ka and Shyam Benegal’s Nishant, which criticised the Congress government, found it very hard to get the censor board’s certificate.      

This issue of censorship is not a new thing. It has been around since the very beginning. The 1921 film Bhakta Vidur was the first film to be banned in India. The reason might sound bizarre to you now: the film’s hero wore Khadi clothes and had a spinning wheel. What comes to mind when you hear these words? Mahatma Gandhi, right? Bas itna hi kaafi tha British government ki naa ke liye. 

The censor board banned the film, saying that “it is likely to excite dissatisfaction against the government and incite people to non-cooperation.”

Clearly, the British knew very well that films have the power to influence people’s sentiments. Speaking of sentiments, yahi bhavnaye aaj bhi censorship ka hissa hai. There have been times when governments had to take action because the film hurt the sentiments of a group of people.

Remember the 2018 film Padmavat? 

[We hear the voice of a news reporter on protestors on the set of Padmavat]

The governments of Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Haryana and Rajasthan banned the film in their states because of violent protests by a certain group. They claimed that the film was historically inaccurate. And this ban was after the CBFC cleared the film for release!

Then, the producers of the film approached the Supreme Court, challenging the ban. And the court ruled in their favour, and lifted the ban.

[We hear a news report about Supreme Court’s verdict on the movie]

“Creative freedom, freedom of speech and expression can’t be guillotined… artistic freedom has to be protected,” the Supreme Court bench said in their order.

Now, think about what triggered the ban. It was not the CBFC, but a certain section of people. If you think about it, this is also censorship, in a way.

And in times like that, the fate of the film is in the hands of the governments and courts, like we saw with Padmavat.

But let’s come back to the CBFC. Like I told you earlier, film certification in India is based on a law that was made in 1952. Over the years, many people have challenged this law.

[We hear a news reporter telling us about Amol Palekar challenging the censorship law]

Like you just heard, veteran actor Amol Palekar approached the Supreme Court in 2017, questioning the CBFC’s certification norms. In his petition, he also challenged the pre-censorship of films. Matlab?

Okay, suppose you decide to publish a book, you don’t need anyone’s permission to do so. But if you make a film and you want to screen it in the theatres, you need CBFC’s certificate first. In simple words, this is pre-censorship.

Palekar argued that pre-censorship is irrelevant in this age of social media and the internet.

To understand this better, let’s go back to our ‘Joker’ example. Sure, it can’t be shown on TVs in India because of its ‘A’ certificate. But it’s still available on streaming platforms. So, anyone who has access to the internet in India can easily watch it online.

You can even get films that were banned by the CBFC online. Like Deepa Mehta’s 1996 film Fire, Anurag Kashyap’s 2004 film Black Friday, and many more.

In this kind of a situation, is the ‘A’ certificate really relevant? That’s something for you to think about.

Also, remember that this is because we have no laws to regulate streaming platforms as of now.

[We hear a news report about the decision to regulate content on online platforms]

But you must have heard this in the news recently. So yes, things may change after new laws come in.

Anyway, let’s come back to Amol Palekar’s petition.

Another thing he suggested in the petition is to implement the changes suggested in the Shyam Benegal Committee report. Now, who is Shyam Benegal and what is the report all about?

Shyam Benegal is a veteran director and screenwriter. If you remember, I had told you earlier in the episode that he had trouble releasing his film Nishant, during the emergency. 

Anyway, in 2016, the I&B ministry invited him to lead a committee to analyse the 1952 Cinematograph Act and suggest changes to it. 

The Shyam Benegal Committee suggested many changes. The committee said that the size of the Board should be compact, with just one member representing each Regional Office. They also said that the chairperson should mostly have an advisory role.

The committee’s report also gave suggestions about the categories of film certification: the UA category of films should be broken down into UA+12 and UA+15; and the A category should be subdivided into A and AC (adults with caution).

Haan, ek aur baat. The report says that while applying, the filmmaker must specify the category of certification being sought and the target audience.

It’s been close to five years since the report, but the government is yet to implement the changes it has suggested.

This is not all. Many other people from the film industry, too, have suggested changes to the process of film certification in India.

[We hear the voice of Shabana Azmi talking about film certification]

That was actress Shabana Azmi, talking about a new model to certify films.

She says that members from the film industry can get together, and create some guidelines on their own. They can regulate themselves, very similar to what a group of OTT platforms did this September.

They got together and signed a self-regulation code, to govern their curated streaming content. 15 OTT platforms including Netflix, Disney Plus Hotstar, Amazon Prime Video, Zee5, Voot and Jio Cinema, signed this agreement.

But a few weeks later, the government said that they were not happy with this new self-regulation model for OTT platforms.

So, this is how things stand today. 

And as we have seen, film certification and the CBFC have a long and complicated history in India. Let’s not forget that the CBFC’s workings are based on a law that’s more than 50 years old.

That’s it from me for this week! I hope we learnt something new and interesting, as always. See you next week, for a brand new episode of MahaBharat.

Credits

Narrated by – Dhruv Rathee
Producer – Gaurav Vaz
Written by – Medha V and Gaurav Vaz
Title Track Design – Abhijith Nath
Audio Production – Madhav Ayachit