tandav fir

Filmmakers Criticise Centre’s Plans to ‘Recensor’ Already Censored Films

The proposed amendment to the Cinematograph Act could set the industry back by three decades, to the time when ‘recalling’ a film was still an option for the government.

New Delhi: In January this year, Ali Abbas Zafar, the creator-director of the Amazon Prime web series Tandav issued an unconditional apology after multiple FIRs were filed against its makers for hurting religious sentiments. The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) informed Zafar that it had received a “large number of grievances and petitions” related to “various facets of the web series with serious concerns and apprehensions”. So, he deleted the ‘objectionabl’e scenes and thanked the MIB for its “guidance” and “support”.

Now the Central government wants to amend the Cinematograph Act, 1952 to ensure that such apologies – and expressions of gratitude – are no longer necessary. Because the proposed change, as introduced by the Cinematograph (Amendment) Bill, 2021 —will reinstate a crucial part of Section 6 of the original Act, thus allowing the Centre to order recertification of already certified films following the receipt of complaints. And there has been no dearth of them in the recent past.

Section 6 states, in essence, that the Central government has “the power to reverse the decision of the [Censor] Board”. But in 1990, Kannada filmmaker K.M. Shankarappa challenged it in court and won the case. Next year, the Supreme Court upheld the high court’s decision, effectively squashing the troubling provision in the 1952 Act. The Modi government’s decision will set the industry back by three decades.

Representative image of a movie theatre. Photo: Jake Hills on Unsplash

The past few months have been especially troubling for Indian filmmakers. The Zafar example is one of many involving complaints, on films and serials, even though online fictional dramas were still exempted from the ‘Censor Board’ orders.

The government also announced that it would bring OTT platforms under the MIB and abolished the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT).

And now this proposal to review already censored films, which will effectively keep a sword hanging on anybody who made a film that the current establishment sees as ‘controversial.’

“I’m not surprised one bit,” says Hansal Mehta. “We’ve brought this upon ourselves.” Mehta has personally experienced the wrath of such complaints. After the release of his 2000 drama Dil Pe Mat Le Yaar!!, Raj Thackeray’s men vandalised his office, thrashed him, and blackened his face. He was summoned to a village, Khar Danda, and made to apologise in front of numerous people, including several MPs, MLAs, and local leaders. If he didn’t, then the protesters threatened to burn the house of his friend and actor, Kishore Kadam. Mehta relented, touching the feet of a woman in the village to make amends. That incident left a huge impact on his psyche.

“I disappeared for 12 years,” he says, referring to the lean patch in his career, where he stayed away from anything political and made safe, forgettable movies instead. He did not get any support from the industry at the time, once again demonstrating the lack of unity in the business.

He is even more troubled by this provision because Bollywood has had a poor record of challenging the CBFC or vested political interests. “It makes you feel very, very powerless,” adds Mehta. “No one stands with you, not even the producers. It’s a lonely battle.”

Anand Patwardhan considers the proposed amendment a “dangerous” and “retrograde” move, especially because of the nature of the government in power. “With the RSS and offshoots all over the country, they’re bound to complain,” he says, “as they have a direct relationship with the current Hindutva regime.”

His own 1992 documentary, Raam Ke Naam, had angered Hindutva right-wingers and it took an enormous struggle for him to secure a certificate for its public screening.

What bothers Patwardhan is that a censor certificate will now no longer empower filmmakers. “Around two years ago, when Ram Ke Naam was shown in five different colleges across the country, extremist groups like ABVP tried to stop the screenings,” he says. “But because the film had a censor certificate, they couldn’t do anything, and it was the job of the police to stop the gundas.”

Sudhir Mishra sounds perplexed. “I don’t understand what recall means,” he says. “Who will recall [the certified films]? And if there’s already another body [like the CBFC], then why this body?”

Nation of ‘hurt sentiments’

The new provision can also feed into the historical paranoia around films in the country. “I don’t think films threaten the social fabric,” he says. “Everybody can be a censor in the age of social media. We’re living in a world of outrage – everybody is upset – that way no films can be made.”

The Cinematograph (Amendment) Bill, 2021 will then further embolden religious groups, political leaders, caste-based organisations, among others, to continue getting offended for the flimsiest of reasons and, as evidenced in the case of Tandav, hamper freedom of expression, making filmmakers even more vulnerable – especially because such discontent has had a long history in Indian cinema.

“Like they tried to do with Padmaavat,” says Patwardhan, “ironically not realising at the time that the film reflected their own values. This is not just a Hindutva government, it is also a crony capitalist, sanskari government. So, anti-minority and anti-poor values will be married to Brahminical morality.”

Karni Sena activists burn posters during a demonstration against the release of the film Padmaavat.

Mehta has similar concerns. When the government said it was abolishing FCAT – the appellate body for reviewing CBFC decisions – to increase ‘efficiency’, that move made perfect, perverse sense to him. “That is the authoritarian way,” he explains. “You won’t have freedom, but the trains will run on time.”

Patwardhan, intimately familiar with censorship troubles for decades, says, “Suppressing dissent via censorship is at an all-time peak in the country, even the Emergency pales in comparison.”

With the explosion of OTT platforms in the recent past, and the audiences’ taking umbrage at anything that offends them, censorship controversies have now become regular occurrences. Over the past 14 months, at least eight films and Web series have been vociferously attacked.

Mehta understands why. “The people in government want to control soft power,” he says, “and so, the filmmakers are the easiest targets, and they’ve always been. Whether it was Indira Gandhi or [Narendra] Modi, or Hitler or Mussolini.” Even the new three-tier ‘grievance redressal’ process for OTT platforms, he adds, ends with the government. “Cinema has been an easy whipping boy for everyone,” Mishra says. “[Movies are] the least problematic thing, as it’s a voluntary act. If you don’t want to see it, don’t see it.” The Cinematograph (Amendment) Bill, 2021 also contains a coded message about institutions in the country. “We’re all subject to the laws of the land,” says Mishra. “So, why is there a need for anything else? Which means you don’t trust the Supreme Court.”

As the OTT guidelines soon become law, Indian filmmakers will risk losing another crucial platform — something they relied on to tackle thorny themes, such as religious fundamentalism, casteism, institutional apathy, which were typically not a part of mainstream cinema. “As it is, they’ve terrorised all the international players in India – both OTT platforms and social media websites,” says Patwardhan. “For instance, something like Netflix won’t touch my films. They’re scared that they’ll be thrown out of the country.”

The Cinematograph (Amendment) Bill, 2021, seems both needless and intimidating, as Section 5B (1) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, already contains draconian provisions to virtually ‘ban’ any film.:

“A film shall not be certified for public exhibition if, in the opinion of the authority competent to grant the certificate, the film or any part of it is against the interests of [the sovereignty and integrity of India] the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or involves defamation or contempt of court or is likely to incite the commission of any offence.”

These ground are so subjective that they can result in banning any film ever made in any part of the country. The CBFC process was not perfect but allowing the political executive to directly countermand its decisions means the bar for what is permissible is likely to be set quite low.

Patwardhan believes the “checks and balances” in Article 19 of the Constitution are broadly intended to deal with speech or expression advocates an armed uprising to overthrow the state. Anything less than that, he says, should not be a reason to stifle the filmmakers’ right to freedom of expression.

“So, if you respect the Constitution, keep Article 19 in mind,” he adds. “This government is clearly trying to undermine the Constitution.”

Mishra asks a more fundamental question: “What is the I&B Ministry? It is the Stalinist model – there is a government agency that needs to control films.” He’d rather prefer a certification process as opposed to censorship, a view echoed by many in the industry, though few publicly voice it, complemented by a cinema-literate committee that probes exceptional cases, such as films “inciting hatred or disrupting the social fabric”.

“In an ideal scenario, especially with respect to documentaries, there should be no censorship because what we see on news is not censored,” says Patwardhan. “Documentaries are not that different – except that the filmmakers put more thought into them and collect evidence over a long period.”

Anand Patwardhan. Image: YouTube/UrbanLens

The narrative of film censorship in the country, over the last seven years, can be divided into three escalating phases, each more blatant and stifling than the previous.

The first was led by the CBFC chief Pahlaj Nihalani, where the Censor Board made frequent ludicrous objections against many Indian and international films; the second phase revolved around film festivals, where several ‘subversive’ movies – such as Sexy Durga, The Unbearable Being of Lightness, March March March, and In the Shade of Fallen Chinar – were denied censor exemption certificates prohibiting their screenings; and the third phase is the current one – arguably the most dangerous – which includes FCAT abolition, new restrictive laws for OTT releases, and the proposed provision of the Centre directing the CBFC chairman to reexamine an already certified film.

Even though the MIB has always dictated the contours of filmic freedom of expression in the country, Patwardhan feels a few major differences set this regime apart. “Under various previous governments, I successfully fought censorship rulings seven times in the high court and Supreme Court. Courts were often a check on the executive,” he says. “Things were bad, but you could fight for your freedom of expression. Today you can’t.”

Bollywood Is a Major Target for Right Wing Groups Looking for Signs of ‘Hinduphobia’

Tandav’s case is a recent addition to a long history of Hindu audiences’ anxieties with the depiction of divinity in visual culture.

In the recent Amazon series Tandav, a college student named Shiva is introduced as the eponymous Hindu deity in a mock-mythological play. With the celestial sage Narada, he devises social media strategies to counter the increasing popularity of Lord Rama in contemporary India, while the on-screen audience of the play bursts into roars of laughter.

Real-life Hindu nationalists in India, on the other hand, were enraged by this satirical sequence. Soon this video clip was made viral on Twitter by Hindutva groups, influencers and their followers as evidence of the show’s ‘Hinduphobia’. The ‘profane’ prospect of a Muslim actor-activist, Mohammed Zeeshan Ayyub, caricaturing the deity intensified the social media agitation. In the following days, the show’s director issued a public apology, and the scene was removed from the series.

Despite that, multiple FIRs have been registered in different states against the makers of Tandav. The Supreme Court has declined the show’s creators any interim protection from arrest. When Mohammed Zeeshan Ayyub’s lawyer explained to the SC bench that he was only playing a character, Justice M. R. Shah reminded him, “You cannot play the role of a character which hurts the religious sentiments of others”.

Figure 1: Mohammed Zeeshan Ayyub as Lord Shiva in Tandav

From ‘love jihad’ to ‘Urban Naxal’, a vicious vocabulary of hate against minorities and dissenters has powered the Hindu right-wing ecosystem in India. ‘Hinduphobia’ is a new American import into the Indian right-wing lexicon. The term has been coined by Rajiv Malhotra, an Indian-American Hindutva ideologue, and popularised by US Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard. Hindutva groups in India and overseas have identified ‘Hinduphobia’ in four major sites – Muslim-majority countries in South Asia, anti-caste and Left politics in India, Western academia and Bollywood. These four sites reflect geopolitical, ideological, academic and cultural anxieties within the Hindu right.

Bollywood is presently undergoing a structural shift with the dawn of the digital. Over the top (OTT) streaming giants like Netflix and Amazon, as well as local platforms such as Hotstar and SonyLIV are reconfiguring Bollywood’s production, exhibition and distribution models. The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated this transition by keeping Indian audiences away from theatres and largely restricting them to their phones, computers and smart televisions. The rise of religious nationalism in India under Narendra Modi has coincided with a boom in Internet consumption. However, OTT platforms have mostly promoted secular entertainment à la Bollywood and often pushed anti-establishment content.

Lakshmi by Raja Ravi Varma (1894), Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons

Tandav’s case is a recent addition to a long history of Hindu audience anxieties with the depiction of divinity in visual culture. From its earliest years, Indian cinema relied on audiences’ familiarity with puranic (Hindu mythological) tales and their devotional fervour for Hindu deities. The darshan (sight) of Hindu gods outside exclusive religious spaces was enabled by Raja Ravi Varma and Dadasaheb Phalke’s pioneering endeavours in mass culture. Late 19th century chromolithography and early 20th century cinema made Hindu gods more visually accessible and undermined rigid caste hierarchies.

Despite its emancipatory potential, the ubiquitous visual representation of Hindu divinity in the colonial era raised alarm among staunch devotees. In 1921, a letter to the editor of the Times of India titled ‘Who Insults Hindu Gods?’, complained how “people of all races” could not only see Hindu deities on clothes, matchboxes, cinemas and sweetmeat shop boards, but also perform as Hindu gods and goddesses on stage.

Letter in TOI (November 5, 1921, p. 14)

While Hindu mythology paid great dividends at the box office, films with Muslim actors playing Hindu gods faced incessant agitation. During a screening of Bilwa Mangal in 1932 in Lahore, a group of Hindu men protested against the casting of a Muslim actor for the role of Lord Krishna and “tore the screen with a knife during the interval”. Some years later, a Bombay-based film magazine raised concerns about how the North Indian film press had interpreted Sardar Akhtar’s portrayal of Lord Krishna in the film Bharosa as “an insult to Hindu religion”.

With the post-Independence rise of ‘social’ films, the mythological genre largely faded into the background. Calls for stricter censorship for films based on Hindu deities were met favourably by the Congress government under Jawaharlal Nehru. There was an ulterior motive at play, especially in Madras, where a complete ban on the portrayal of Hindu divinity was seen as an opportunity to elevate the status of local ministers. The cantankerous Baburao Patel of Filmindia declared that “the Indian screen has mostly murdered our gods” and feared that “once the Hindu gods of mythology are destroyed, secular deities of the Congress can be installed on the vacant altars”.

Illustration from Filmindia (July 1, 1956)

‘Hinduphobia’ is a modern repackaging of anti-Muslim prejudices and anti-Congress sentiments that originated in the late colonial period and has taken root in the current Modi regime. The old cultural politics of hurt has resurfaced, only this time ironically ensconced in the liberal language of ‘phobia’.

Due to a few theatrical releases, the OTT platforms are bearing the brunt of this onslaught. Like Amazon’s Tandav, Mira Nair’s A Suitable Boy on Netflix recently came under fire for an inter-faith kissing scene inside a temple’s precincts. Last year, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting brought all OTT platforms under its ambit. The increasing mob censorship of web content is likely to translate to more official forms of regulation as ‘Hinduphobia’ rears its ugly head.

Despite Bollywood’s liaisons with the BJP, the film industry’s privilege and popularity make it a soft target for rank political opportunists masquerading as warriors of the Hindu faith. Bollywood professionals, especially its Muslim stars, have been targeted by far-right Hindu groups like Shiv Sena and Karni Sena from time to time. However, with an unprecedented rise of media-manufactured hate, the film industry’s popularity has perhaps never been this vulnerable. Last year, the Indian news media’s crusade against Bollywood, in the wake of actor Sushant Singh Rajput’s death, became an underhanded tactic to divert people’s attention from the Modi government’s poor handling of COVID-19 pandemic. Online portals of unbridled disinformation and hate speech catered to similar political opportunism.

Bollywood is India’s biggest creative industry and recognised as a major influence on South Asian public culture. It remains immensely popular among Indian diasporas and has also been acknowledged widely as a soft power for India. Mining Bollywood films for ‘Hinduphobic’ content is therefore a strategic move intended to reorient both national and international Hindu audiences in the era of global streaming.

A right-wing leaning Twitter account, Gems of Bollywood, has decided to undertake this mission. It excerpts and annotates ‘Hinduphobic’ sequences from yesteryear Bollywood films as well as contemporary web content “to comprehensively bring out truth of Urduwood”, unmistakably a jibe at the secular workings of Bollywood, the unparalleled stardom of the three Khans, and the historical influence of Urdu writers in the film industry.

Gems of Bollywood’s tweet on Tandav

Gems of Bollywood’s painstaking curation could seem convincing to the converted but a Bollywood buff would find it laughingly embarrassing. Hindi films from the 1980s and 90s are retro reservoirs of cringeworthy content. Gems of Bollywood exploits films from this period in particular to mischaracterise Bollywood as an ahistorical and homogeneous underworld of ‘Hinduphobia’, rape culture, casteism and so on.

While the Twitter account with over 80,000 followers has dodged media attention so far, a fact-checking website has revealed significant bot activity on its posts, which may indicate a high count of fake followers. Gems of Bollywood repeatedly shared ‘anti-Hindu’ clips from A Suitable Boy and Tandav and its followers used the hashtags #BoycottNetflix and #BoycottAmazon respectively. Right-wing politicians in power pick up these cues and have bullied these streaming platforms with legal action for ‘insulting’ the Hindu faith.

The oft-heard phrase “Hindu khatre mein hai” (Hindus are in danger) has long indicated the minority complex of Hindus who constitute around 80% of India’s population. Allegations of ‘Hinduphobia’ weaponise such unfounded fears to attack influential institutions and industries that do not always toe the government line. Under a Hindu nationalist regime, the film industry’s long history of secularism from the Nehruvian to neoliberal era has become a threat to itself.

But charges of ‘Hinduphobia’ have not been levelled against Bollywood stars alone. Stand-up comedian Munawar Faruqui has been incarcerated and denied bail for jokes on Hindu deities that he was “going to” say in his act. The legal sway of such allegations is significantly greater against vulnerable artistes with less financial and legal muscle. As the term ‘Hinduphobia’ gains wider currency outside far-right networks, Bollywood and other cultural bodies that provide secular entertainment remain increasingly susceptible to the dangerous fictions of Hindutva.

Rakesh Sengupta is a film scholar pursuing his doctoral research on early Indian cinema in SOAS.

Note: This article was updated at 2 pm on February 4 to show that @GemsOfBollywood did not use the hashtags #BoycottNetflix or #BoycottAmazon, but its followers/supporters did.

SC Declines Interim Protection From Arrest To Makers and Actors of ‘Tandav’

The court sought the responses of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Bihar and Delhi on the pleas.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court Wednesday declined to grant interim protection from arrest to Ali Abbas Zafar, director of the web series Tandav, and others seeking quashing of FIRs against them for allegedly hurting religious sentiments of Hindus and issued notices to Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and other states on their pleas.

A bench comprising justices Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and M.R. Shah was hearing as many as three separate petitions filed by Zafar, Amazon Prime India head Aparna Purohit, producer Himanshu Mehra, the show’s writer Gaurav Solanki and actor Mohammed Zeeshan Ayyub.

Besides seeking quashing of the FIRs, the pleas sought clubbing of the FIRs.

The nine-episode political thriller is facing a host of cases, accusing it of hurting religious sentiments, “inappropriate” depiction of the UP Police and adverse portrayal of a character who is the prime minister. While three cases have been filed in Uttar Pradesh, another was filed in Maharashtra.

The show was forced to drop the scenes which have allegedly hurt religious sentiments, but continues to be probed.

According to news agency PTI, the bench sought the responses of state governments in UP, MP, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Bihar and Delhi on the pleas.

Tandav stars Bollywood A-listers Saif Ali Khan, Dimple Kapadia and Mohd Zeeshan Ayyub.

UP: Another FIR Against Makers and Artists of Web Series ‘Tandav’

The complainant in the fresh case alleges inappropriate depiction of the UP Police, Hindu deities and adverse portrayal of a character playing the prime minister in the political drama.

Noida: An FIR has been lodged against makers and artists of Amazon Prime’s web series Tandav in Uttar Pradesh’s Greater Noida, police said on Tuesday.

This is at least the third FIR to be filed in Uttar Pradesh against the makers of the web series.

The complainant in the fresh case, lodged around 10 pm on Monday, alleges inappropriate depiction of UP Police personnel, Hindu deities, and adverse portrayal of a character playing the prime minister in the political drama, according to the FIR.

In the latest FIR at Rabupura in Greater Noida, the accused have been booked, among others, under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, according to the FIR accessed by PTI.

The FIR names as accused the series’ director Ali Abbas Zafar, Amazon Prime’s India head Aparna Purohit, producer Himanshu Kishan Mehra, writer Gaurav Solanki and actors Saif Ali Khan, Dimple Kapadia and Sunil Grover.

Greater Noida deputy commissioner of police Rajesh Kumar Singh said, “A local resident has made a complaint at the Rabupura police station in Greater Noida over depiction of Dalit insult, casteism and content inflammatory to religious sentiments in the web series Tandav besides showing people on high-positions engaging in inappropriate talks.”

An FIR has been lodged against the director of the web series, Amazon Prime’s India head, the actors and writer. Since the SC/ST Act has also been invoked in the FIR, a gazetted officer will probe the case, Singh added.

Also Read: FIR Against Amazon Prime’s ‘Mirzapur’ for Depicting UP District in ‘Bad Light’

The FIR has been lodged under Indian Penal Code sections 153A (promoting enmity between different groups and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony), 295A (deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs), 505(1)-1B (making any statement, rumour or report with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, fear or alarm to the public), 505(2) (statements conducing to public mischief).

Charges under the Information Technology Act have also been invoked in the case, according to the FIR.

The cast and crew of Tandav, faced with FIRs in Uttar Pradesh and social media clamour by a section demanding the series’ ban, had on Monday issued an unconditional apology if their fictional show had unintentionally hurt sentiments.

On Monday, an FIR was lodged at Hazratganj police station in Lucknow against Amazon’s India head of original content, Aparna Purohit, series director Ali Abbas, producer Himanshu Krishna Mehra, writer Gaurav Solanki, and an unknown person on Sunday night.

Another FIR was lodged in Shahjahanpur against Abbas and actors Saif Ali Khan and Zeeshan Ayyub on a complaint by BJP MLA Vikram Veer Singh from Katra constituency at Katra police station.