PATAWARDHAN'S LEGAL BATLES WHITH CENSORSHI

PATAWARDHAN'S LEGAL BATLES WHITH CENSORSHIP AND HIS DIRECT INVOLVEMENT IN STRUGGLES OF EMANCIPATION.

Indian documentary film-making has evidently come a long way from the time, merely a decade or two ago, when the Films Division of the Government of India monopolised the production and distribution of Indian documentaries. It is true that no Indian political documentary can expect a commercial release, and that even screenings on the state-owned Doordarshan or privately owned television channels are rare.

In this respect, whatever the censorship codes, the absence of a viable distribution network for documentaries, particularly those that are resistant to the political culture of the Indian state and the free-market agendas of India’s corporate and modernising elites, itself constitutes a form of censorship. Nevertheless, there is every reason to believe that a future awaits Indian documentary film-makers.
When, early this year, the organisers of the Mumbai International Film Festival (MIFF) sought to subject Indian documentaries to the guidelines of an archaic and repressive censorship code, 300 film-makers originated a ‘Campaign Against Censorship’ and conducted a six-day film festival that ran concurrently with MIFF. This campaign has now been reconstituted into a more permanent forum, ‘Films for Freedom’ and one can consequently indulge oneself in the belief that documentary film-makers will no longer exist at the margins of political and artistic activity in India.
The Indian independence movement, led in the 1920s and 1930s by Mohandas Gandhi, was the subject of the first concentrated phase of documentary film-making. The bulk of these films, however, never received any public screening. The Cinematograph Act of 1918 introduced censorship in India, and the Indian Cinematograph Committee of 1928, while urging the censors to curb their enthusiasm for bringing films before the cutting-board, unequivocally reaffirmed the moral necessity of censorship, especially in a country among whose natives, as many British in India believed, passions reigned supreme.
The various regional censor boards did not only certify Indian films for exhibition but also regulated the entry of foreign films into India and their public screenings. Indeed, ‘cheap American films’, which were viewed as engaging in outright sensationalism, proliferating in ‘daring murders, crimes and divorces’, and, more pointedly, as degrading white women in the eyes of Indians, were especially targeted for censorship.
By the mid-1930s, Gandhi had became a figure of worldwide veneration; moreover, the Government of India Act of 1935, which allowed some measure of autonomy to Indians, implicitly recognised that the Indian objective of full independence was no longer a mere utopian dream. Consequently, numerous documentaries that had been banned were now made available for public screenings, among them Mahatma Gandhi’s March for Freedom (Sharda Film Co), Mahatma Gandhi’s March, March 12 (Krishna Film Co), and Mahatma Gandhi Returns from the Pilgrimage of Peace (Saraswati).
Censorship remains, as will be seen, the most pressing problem for documentary film-makers; and the irony is further compounded when we consider, for example, that Gandhi is as much of a pariah figure to the modern Indian state as he was to the government of British India.
The Central Board of Film Certification ( Popularly known as Censor Board ) is a government of India regulatory body and censorship board of India controlled by Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. It reviews, rates and censors movies, television shows, television ads, and promotional material.
According to the Supreme Court of India:
“Film censorship becomes necessary because a film motivates thought and action and assures a high degree of attention and retention as compared to the printed word. The combination of act and speech, sight and sound in semi darkness of the theatre with elimination of all distracting ideas will have a strong impact on the minds of the viewers and can affect emotions. Therefore, it has as much potential for evil as it has for good and has an equal potential to instil or cultivate violent or good behaviour. It cannot be equated with other modes of communication. Censorship by prior restraint is, therefore, not only desirable but also necessary”
Anand Patwardhan is certainly India’s one of the most controversial, documentary filmmakers. Over the years, Patwardhan’s films have been subjected to censorship by the Indian state.
Patwardhan’s films, which are uncompromising in their depiction of Hindu militancy and the culture of violence generated by the political arrangements of the modern Indian state, have provoked the wrath of Hindutva advocates; and in February 2002, surrendering to pressure from militant Hindu activists, the American Museum for Natural History postponed scheduled screenings of some of Patwardhan’s films. His most recent film, Jang aur Aman ("War and Peace", 2002), celebrated at the Mumbai International Film Festival, has been refused a certificate for general screening since Patwardhan has understandably stated his unwillingness to accommodate the censor’s demands for cuts. Indian authorities engineered its removal as the inaugural film of the Kolkata Film Festival in May 2002.
Similarly almost all of his films had to face the demand for cuts by the Censor Board of India. The documentary titled 'In Memory of Friends', which was based on the Punjab situation, was granted a 'U' certificate by the Censor Board and it received number of national and international awards. It was held that it conveyed the message of tolerance and communal harmony and so it couldn't be refused screening on the television on the ground that it propagated the leftist views about the prevention of communal massacre or that it showed the interviews with the terrorist groups. Bombay High court upheld the right of the documentary maker to get film screened on the television.

Doordarshan who had decided not to telecast the documentary film made by the Patawadhan titled "Father, son and Holy War". The respondent is a filmmaker. Patawadhan in 1995 submitted his documentary film, "Father, son and Holy War", to the Doordarshan authorities for telecast on National network Doordarshan. Patawadhan was to provide a U-matic Certificate for the same to be aired by Doordarshan. The documentary film was in two parts, the film dealt with social realities and issues such as patriarchy, violence, fundamentalism, suppression of women etc. Part-I was given 'U' Certificate and Part-II was given 'A' Certificate by the Censor Board.
On 14.8.1996, Doordarshan Authorities issued a circular which stated that Doordarshan will not telecast any 'A' certified adult or U/A feature film on it. On 28.2.1997, Patawardhan handed over a copy of the U-matic Certificate of the documentary film to the appellant. However, Doordarshan still refused to telecast the documentary film. On 22.9.1998, Patawardhan filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court against the refusal of Doordarshan to telecast the documentary film, which was disposed off by the Division Bench by directing Doordarshan to take a decision on the application of Patawardhan within a period of six weeks. Here is a table which shows some of the legal battles of patawardhan.






Summary of Litigation history concerning Anand Patwardhan's documentary films
Film CBFC (EC)
Examining Committee CBFC (RC)
Revising Committee/
ApellateTribunal Doordarshan National TV Network(DD) High Court
(HC) Supreme Court (SC) Outcome
Waves of Revolution
1975 Film shown underground
during
Emergency

“U” Certificate without cuts after Emergency ends. Screens on DD in 1977-78.


In 2001 under BJP rule DD steals footage for use in a pro-BJP film on Emergency A case against theft of footage filed against DD Film screened during Emergency underground in India and abroad from 1975 to 1977.

In 1977 after Emergency ends certified “U”. Screened on DD in 1978.

A case against DD for stealing footage from this film awaits hearing in the High Court



















Film
















CBFC (EC)
Examining Committee
















CBFC (RC)
Revising Committee/
ApellateTribunal
















Doordarshan National TV Network(DD)















High Court
(HC)















Supreme Court (SC)















Outcome

Prisoners of Conscience 1978 Asks for cuts
“U” without cuts "U" certificate without cuts after letter from Satyajit Ray
A Time to Rise
1981 Asks for cuts citing friendly relations with foreign states “U” without cuts Gets “U” Certificate without cuts after it is pointed out that the National Film Board of Canada distributes the film so obviously Canada is not that “upset”.
Bombay Our City 1985

National Award for Best Non-FeatureFilm “U” without cuts Rejects as “unsuitable for telecast” Orders DD to telecast Upholds High Court verdict in 1989 DD complies with the court order but broadcasts the film at 11 PM. The film runs past midnight.
Film CBFC (EC)
Examining Committee
CBFC (RC)
Revising Committee/
ApellateTribunal
Doordarshan National TV Network(DD)


High Court
(HC)


Supreme Court (SC)

Outcome




In Memory of Friends
1990
National Award for Best Investigative Documentary Asks for cuts Grounds include:“law and order” “U” without cuts Rejects as "unsuitable for telecast" Orders DD to telecast at prime time DD complies with court order and the film is broadcast at prime time (9 PM) on DD Metro. No law and order problems reported from anywhere in the country.
In the Name of God
1992

National Award for Best Investigative Documentary Asks for cuts Grounds include:“law and order” “U” without cuts Orders DD to telecast in 1997 DD complies with the court. Film is broadcast at prime time (9 PM) on DD 1. No law and order problems result. Hindutva groups at home and abroad
continue to threaten
Film CBFC (EC)
Examining Committee
CBFC (RC)
Revising Committee/
ApellateTribunal
Doordarshan National TV Network(DD)
High Court
(HC)
Supreme Court (SC) Outcome

Father, Son and Holy War
1995

National Awards for
Best Investigative Film, and
Best Film on Social Issues Asks for cuts Grounds include:“law and order” Asks for one cut in Part 1
Gives “A”
certificate for Part 2
Appelate Tribunal issues "U" without cuts for Part 1 Rejects telecast on grounds of “law and order Orders DD to broadcast in 2001.

After SC reverses the order a new bench of the High Court in 2004 again orders DD to broadcast within 6 weeks. Overturns the HC order but asks DD to review the film in 2001

After a second order from the HC, DD again goes in appeal in the SC. As ordered by SC, DD forms a review panel which unanimously recommends telecast but Prasar Bharati , headed by the Hindutva ideologue MV Kamath rejects the film and a new round of litigation begins.

In August 2006 Supreme court rejects the appeal by DD and orders telecast within 8 weeks
DD National telecasts the film on October 8 2006 at 10 AM
Film CBFC (EC)
Examining Committee
CBFC (RC)
Revising Committee/
ApellateTribunal
Doordarshan National TV Network(DD)
High Court
(HC)
Supreme Court (SC) Outcome

War and Peace
2002

Best Film Mumbai Intl. Film Festival 2002

National Award for
Best Non-feature, 2004 Asks for 6 cuts

Grounds include “law and order RC asks for total ban.

Second RC
asks for 21 cuts citing “ law and order”

Apellate Tribunal reduces cuts to 2 but asks for 1 "addition" Submitted to DD for telecast following National Award in 2004
Orders CBFC
to grant "U" without cuts CBFC complies with the court and issues a “U” certificate in April 2003. Film is screened widely across the country without facing any “law and order” problems.

No response from DD to offer of telecast. Legal action contemplated.
Finally DD National agrees to telecast the film at 10.30 AM on Sunday Oct 15th 2006


It’s very important to note that Patawardhan and his peers are trying to ensure that censor certificates are no longer required for national awards and film festivals. It’s ironic that after a long legal battle patawardhan received national award for the film “War and Peace” from president Abdulkalam who is one of the architects of India’s nuclear policy.
Patawardhan with his peers waged another interesting legal battle in relation to national awards. In May 2006 when new eligibility criteria for the National Film Awards (NFA) were announced, documentary filmmakers (incongruously classified as “Non-Feature” filmmakers even though some make full length films) were shocked to find that films made on digital or video format could no longer compete for an NFA unless these were released on a film format.
Two years ago filmmakers under the banner of Vikalp: Films for Freedom had demanded that digital format and video films should be allowed to compete for the 51st National Film Awards without having to be converted to celluloid first. Under pressure, the government changed this rule but did not accept the other demand made by Vikalp which was to do away with a rule that makes censor certificates mandatory for all films entered for the NFA. In the year 2006 for the 53rd NFA the government mysteriously backtracked even on the format issue and once again debarred video and digital format films from the NFA. In response documentary filmmakers Gaurav Jani, Anand Patwardhan and Simantini Dhuru, supported by Vikalp, Docuwallas and others filed a case in the Bombay High Court asking that:
(a) Digital/ video films should compete for the NFA in their original format.
(b) The censor certificate requirement should be removed as a pre-condition for the NFA.
During the pendency of this case the government conceded demand (a) by allowing the digital/video format films eligibility at the 53rd NFA. On demand (b) the government refused to give in, insisting that the censor certificate requirement was a pre-requisite for the NFA.
The petitioners pointed out that film festivals like the government sponsored Mumbai International Film Festival (MIFF) had run for 14 years without a censor certificate requirement and the government had recently adopted a policy document which enabled the government to exempt more such film festivals from the purview of censorship. It was discriminatory to insist that a small government appointed jury at the NFA could not view uncensored films. After all the jury’s job was to determine the best film in the country from a technical, aesthetic and social perspective. They should be allowed to view the film as originally intended by their creators, before the censors had their say.
After listening to arguments, Justice Rebello and Justice Tahilramani of the Bombay High Court upheld the petitioners’ arguments and ordered that the Censor requirement at the NFA be struck down. Advocate P.A Sebastian appeared for the petitioners and advocates Y.R.Mishra and Mr.M.R.Prajapati for the defendants.
Film maker Rakesh Sharma follows a different method to over come the barrio of censor board. Since his film Final solution on Gujrath violence requires immediate release he ventures to circulate it without the certification of censor board. He produced ten thousand copies and circulated them on the condition that each person who receives a copy of the film should duplicate at least five copies and circulate them among others. Similarly within a month’s time around 80,000 copies were circulated through out India and abroad. Similarly different film makers show resistance to the censor of freedom differently. This area alone requires a detailed study. There is a need to give a serious thought to the Mode of resistance by political documentary film makers to the censor board in the post-colonial India.
Patawarhan has a direct involvement with many activist movements in India. The recent one being the issue of Binayak Sen a doctor who was detained by Chattisgad police for two long years on a charge of supporting naxal movements in Chattisgad. Binayak Sen had worked for tribal people for many years. He was arrested for writing an article opposing Salva Judum; a police initiative to arm tribal people against naxalites.
Patawadhan was involved in the movement to pressurize the government for release of Binayak Sen from detention. Ultimately they brought Binayak Sen out of detainment.
They also ran a successful parallel film festival to that of government’s in Bombay this year to screen the films which were rejected by the government selection committee.
In his own words which he has told in the interview for this dissertation:
“Most of my films began because I had already begun to identify and work with the movements I later went on to film because filming seemed a useful way for me to help out. At the same time my films are not made by a committee. I retain control over what is said and try not to allow political considerations to cloud the truth of any given situation”.
Patawardhan like most of committed documentary makers of India has identified himself with most of the radical movements of this century. After my return from studies abroad he worked as a volunteer in a rural education and development project in rural Madhya Pradesh. Mostly he did farming and science teaching but I made a filmstrip (slide show with soundtrack) about post-Tuberculosis care to motivate village patients who came to our rural clinic. Later I joined an anti-corruption student movement in Bihar and ended up making a film called Waves of Revolution that began in Super 8 and ended up in 16mm. The film and him self went underground in 1975 when a State of Emergency was declared and people were jailed at the slightest sign of protest. His film making was more like a side activity that could be called upon if needed. Later he realised the strength of the medium. He focused more on it to support radical movements.
His direct involvement with these social movements is a distinguishing feature of the socially committed documentary making of India. Prominent film makers of this genre have identified them selves with movements of emancipation. This gives their films a more humanistic touch. They are not mute witnesses to the social issues. They are active agencies of social change. Patwardhan’s documentaries are the fine balance between social activism and a moral responsibility towards truth. This alternative tradition asks for higher social accountability and inclusive administration from the side of Indian government and polity.
