“…there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered…fullest liberty of expression is required to push arguments to their logical limits, rather than the limits of social embarrassment” – John Stuart Mill

I don’t plan to get into merits and demerits of CBFC and Cinematograph Act. Or do I intend to discuss the Amendment Bill 2021. Those discussions, to me doesn’t get into the root of the problem. Question that needs to be asked is do censorship have a place in a democracy? Colonial rulers had a need to control the population and suppress free speech, so they came up with the act in 1918. Why we upgraded it to Cinematograph Act 1952 and continuing with it post our independence?

Democracy will be vibrant only if its citizens can share their ideas and discuss without fear. Medium of expression, sharing, and discussion can be anything from a tea shop bench to newspapers, magazines, books, cinema, documentary, play, music, art, or social media platforms. It could be body art too. What anyone decide to put out there is up to them, and the content may not be to the liking of everyone. It doesn’t have to be. Rather it can’t be. Anything that is exhibited in public is up for discussion and criticism. Consumers have the freedom to criticize, call it good or bad or say they don’t like it. While the creators have the freedom to express their work, consumers have the freedom to accept, reject, or ignore their work. Our constitution gives this fundamental right. More than that, constitution also gives protection to its citizens to express their thoughts without fear, fear of physical violence and retribution.

Now the question comes, how far you take the Freedom of Expression (FoE)? Here I would get the help of harm principle by John Stuart Mill, which suggests that “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. But as few scholars have pointed out, even harm principle doesn’t provide a narrow scope of which actions count as harmful towards oneself or the population and it can’t be used to determine whether people can be punished for their actions by the state. For example, things like Obscenity, pornography, incitement, food labeling, right to privacy, dignity, perjury, sedition, libel fall under harm principle. But as one can see, these are broad in scope and leaves room for interpretation and ambiguity. For example, a speech can be seen as inciting or not depending on which side of the fence you are.

How about FoE Vs hurt sentiments? Getting offended? Current trend in our country is hurt religious or cultural sentiments. Unlike physical harm, how do you measure the intensity of hurt? Application of offence and limitations to FoE are culturally and politically relative across countries. Blasphemy is a crime in Austria while it is not in France. In US, even hate speech is protected by their constitution.

While FoE is a fundamental right, it is not Right to Speech. Unlike Right to Education or Right to Protection, government or no one is obliged to provide you or me with a platform to publish our views and no one is required to listen to, agree or disagree with our views. This is key to our understanding of FoE. The way I interpret this, is that it is between the citizens and government doesn’t have a role – no need to act against the speaker based on his/her views – unless the harm comes in to picture. From my limited exposure, we do have laws that protect the individuals.

Movies like books and performance arts is a medium for expression. While so many movies come out, none of us are obliged to watch any of those movies. No one is forced to agree or disagree with the movie’s message. If you like the movie, write a review, criticize, put a tweet, a FB post, share with your friends and move on. If you hated the movie, again you have all the freedom to write a negative review, call out the flaws, put a tweet, a FB post, share with your friends and move on. If you found the movie offensive to your beliefs, call it out. If it is really bothering, hold a protest with placards in front of theaters where they run. But let’s remember, none of us have right to force someone either to watch or not watch the movie. Movies that glorify stalking – don’t’ watch them. Mannan insulting to women? Call it out, spread the message. Feel The Family Man portrays Tamils in a bad light? Highlight it. A clockwork Orange or Man Bites Dog too much to watch – get up and walk out. We have the freedom to vote with our ticket. Buying or not buying the ticket is the powerful signal we send to the producers and actors. If it is an OTT platform, cancel the subscription or switch to different series or movie. They know what we watch, don’t watch, or stopped halfway through😄

Now the underlying question. Do state sponsored censorship has a place in a democracy? CBFC is supposed to be Certification board, but it goes beyond that forcing cuts in the movies on various grounds, cultural, and political. Do we want them to play a moral policing role, taking away our choice? Do we need a big brother sitting there deciding what we read, what we watch? Unfortunately, the control was given to state after independence, and see where it has taken us? Now the big brother also tells us what to eat (no, what we can’t eat)? Previously, decisions of CBFC can be appealed to tribunal and relief can be sought. Once the certification is done, it is final. With the tribunal abolished, with the new bill, the state will get powers to reconsider the certification if it receives its complaints (as vague as it can get). So, there is nothing like a final certification. Only relief is in the court with no clue as to how long it will take to resolve the matter.

The question that bothers me is that why citizens would lay their fundamental right of FoE at the feet of a state? State here refers to the ruling government. It doesn’t matter which party is at the helm. With any party, any government across the world, given this kind of power and control, it is a sure path to degradation and eventual dictatorship. Not just filmmakers, writers, columnists, cartoonists, and cartoonists, I don’t know when our citizens will realize that the very existence of state censorship is an insult to our intelligence and conscience.

As it stands now, any group, mostly fringe groups, can call for a ban of a movie or a book based on hurt sentiments. This behavior cuts across majority and minority communities. Most of the time ruling governments use that to their advantage – from distraction techniques to appeasing vote banks to suppressing the voices. Remember Padmavat, Vishwaroopam, Aandhi, Fire, Water, Ore oru Gramathile, Indiana Jones and Temple of Doom? Of course, this ban culture has a long history – both union and state governments have banned many movies and books.  With the current Bill, all we are doing is giving the power to the state to behave like fringe groups. Great tool to suppress any form of criticism that is not palatable to the ruling elite. When you have a state which doesn’t hesitate to use law of sedition against a 280-character tweet or jail people under draconian laws (MISA à TADA à POTA à UAPA) without evidence and trial for years, rather than collectively working together to repeal those, isn’t kind of stupid to give more powers to the state? Once a government decides to suppress the voices of dissent, it has only one way to go, more repressive measures, more draconian policies, and rule by fear.

Our constitution is meant to protect the freedom of expression and not supposed to strangle it. With the new bill, we are giving the power to the state to do exactly that, choke the voice. Now few may say, new bill addresses piracy concerns. I am not an expert on that, will go with what the film fraternity thinks: their take is that proposed amendments do not address the concern effectively.

All we need is a categorization process, age relevance and statutory warning on the theme, and content. This could be done by an independent body. Watching a movie, reading a book, or listening to a speech is a consensual act and up to the citizens to decide what they do with their time and money. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and entitled to express them in any medium. We may or may not like it. We may hate what they say from the bottom of our heart. But the solution is not to harass or silence them or put them in jail. All we need to do is leave them alone, walk away, and go about our life.

Since we are talking about Cinema, can’t resist to link my favorite scene on FoE from The American President (writer: Aaron Sarkin):

“Censorship is telling a man he can’t have a steak just because a baby can’t chew it.” – Mark Twain