Dinesh Kamath's Editorial 'Was FCAT’s decision a political one?' that was published in Newsband

Was FCAT’s decision a political one?

Leela Samson resigned as the chairperson of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), along with several other members of the body. Samson spoke of corruption, and interference by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting in the Board’s functioning. Their decision to deny a certificate to Messenger of God, featuring Dera Sacha Sauda sect leader Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh, was overturned by the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal with some riders.

According to Samson, Messenger of God promotes blind faith and encourages superstition and Ram Rahim Singh is a controversial figure and faces some charges, and the film makes claims about his godly stature and miracle-making abilities. Thus Samson strongly feels that she and her colleagues had been “made a mockery of by the powers of the Ministry of I&B over the film”.

Film certification in the country is indeed subject to “interference, coercion and corruption”. The problem here is the fact that other members of the Board also resigned which points to a larger Government interference.

If indeed the Board changes with the Government, then it is a political position. To make it apolitical, one would have to keep the same Board through different Governments but that doesn't happen.

It is not only censor board but many a times it is seen that political parties do interfere in functioning of different organisations and they never admit that they have tried to influence the members in taking decisions .

Arun Jaitley called Leela Samson and her nine colleagues as “rebels without a cause”. The near hysterical reaction of Arun Jaitely, the Information and Broadcasting Minister, smacks of the arrogance shown usually by authoritarian Governments. It clearly shows the low tolerance levels of this Government to criticism.

Why Leela Samson is so aggrieved over the decision of Film Certification Appellate Tribunal? Why does she think FCAT lowers down her stature as the chairperson of CBFC? Perhaps she is aggrieved because she thinks she is absolutely right when it comes to censure of film. Had she taken it in other way, would it have reminded her of the need to overlook, analyse and reform the methodology adopted for censuring a film? Was resigning the right thing for her to do?

For the country to grow what we need is decentralisation of power. The interference of political parties in the day to day functioning of government departments is nothing but a malaise. Funds required for electioneering from corporate houses and individuals make people in power vulnerable to the demands of the former. In retrospect it becomes very difficult to be fair and square. Whether it is the judiciary or executive, decisions are always made under pressure, justice trampled upon.

There is always a divided opinion when it comes to 'Freedom of Expression'. What you may say your right to express may annoy someone else.

A long back, in a story in the Caravan, it was detailed how Sudarshan, the then RSS chief, during the Vajpeyee government, had called Deepa Mehta to censure her for her allegedly controversial film Water. He said that every script, before it reaches to I&B ministry, reaches him. This incident explains the menace of the politics of censorship.

It would be great if the censor board included veteran of the film industry who have rational outlook and are capable of taking decision with courage to convince the groups who support and oppose any film that speaks about religion, politics scam etc.