'What Is The Relevance Of The Censor Board?'

The full transcript of the BBC Hindi Special programme Aapki BaatBBC Ke Saath with Naseerudin Shah. The subject of the programme was: Are artistsgetting involved in poltical games in the name of fighting for freedom ofexpression?

Naseerudin Shah :The artists and actors who become a part of the bureaucratic or diplomatic circles or those who enterpolitics should be wellaware of the fact that there is a reason behind every power that is given tothem. If -- and sooner --  they accept this it would be good, so that  thissort of naivety is not demonstrated when such posts are given and then takenback from them.

BBC listener from Karachi : Naseer sahib, the parallel cinema of70s had great personalities who had their own political views, whether Left orRight, but what has been seen is that majority of them including yourself, despitebeing politically aware, have stayed away from the political mainstream, leavingit to novices in the film world. Why ?

Naseerudin Shah : My son had also asked me one day as to why I don't joinpolitics. I told him that I think I won’t be able to survive in it. He had posed acounter question: if not people like you, then who? Despite such questions, I have not changed my stance, because Istrongly feel that an artist does not get a chance to show his political beliefsin his work. He is a mouthpiece of others, of others convictions and beliefs.The political belief of any artist lies in what type of work he does.

BBC listener from Delhi : Sir, you have been associated with thetheatre and big screen both for decades now. How do you feel when you see a bigsection of the film world playing into the hands of politicians?  From being ashow piece in election rallies to contesting elections themselves -- from BhupenHazarika to Gopi Chand Narang in Sahtiya Akademi, all such cases areshocking. The latest l'affaire Anupam Kher shows artists are ready to do anythingfor a post. He blocked the film on Gujarat riots, and now says he helped thefilm to be passed. Why can’t sane voices in the film world fight for realissues such as artistic freedom?

Naseerudin Shah : When any artist is chosen for such a post, one thingis clear that there is definitely a thought of political convenience behind it. And if the artist chosen does not understand this then I term it as clearimmaturity and naivety on the part of that artist. Having said this, I do notmean that the allegations which were levelled against Anupam are true, simplybecause he was chosen by a particular government. I was awarded Padma Bhushan bythat same government, but it does not mean that I have any association with anysuch organisation. So far as the artistic freedom is concerned, I feel that thecensorship code in our country is very old, and it is a really difficult choicebecause one fails to understand what can be done in such a situation, as you cannotgive total freedom also.        

Nagendar Sharma : But why can’t there be total freedom in a country likeIndia?

Naseerudin Shah : Because majority of the film makers in Mumbai areirresponsible, and not because that there would be a danger to the government orthose in power, or some sort of a movement would be built because of the films-- I do not believe this and it is not possible as well.  If this malaise has to be checked from spreading, which is nothappening presently despite the Censor Board, then the question today is: what isthe relevance of the Censor Board?

Nagendar Sharma : But Naseer sahib, why has the film world been unable todraw up a consensus that such important bodies as the Censor Board be free ofpolitical interference?

Naseerudin Shah : Well, the film world has never been able to be unanimouson any issue, howsoever important or sensitive it might have been. The reasonbeing that people here have chosen a path of convenience -- what ever suits themto get their work done. There was a time when there was a strict ban on the kissingand nudity scenes, but then there was a great film maker who exploited theloopholes in the existing system to get such things in the films, and see todaynobody, including the censors is bothered about that anymore. But then certain otherthings are found to be objectionable today.. Some films with such scenes arepassed, while others are not. So there is this whole inconsistency in the entireprocess. It is the convenience of the film makers who want to get their filmspassed, so how can there be unanimity on issues of principles?

BBC listener : Bollywood stars are known throughout the worldtoday -- they have money, name and everything under the sun, then why do they runafter the politicians? Why can’t the Censor Board chief be electedunanimously? And if you are offered this post, would you accept it ?

Naseerudin Shah : Well, I have been offered one or two posts in the past, butI have not accepted them. I feel that I would not be able to make any impact insuch organisations. I would be appointed only for name sake and I am sorry Ican’t agree with this.  If you look at the track record of actors entering politics,majority of them were at the fag end of their film careers or had hit a low. Itis because of the media glamour, and the habit of keeping themselves in thelimelight, that they think they could shine in the political world for sometime. I am not criticising any individual, but this is what I feel..

Nagendar Sharma : Indian films have depicted society in itstrue colours, they havealso played a role in fighting social evils, but of late there is a trend toavoid controversial issues. Is it due to lack of courage nowadays?

Naseerudin Shah : The answer to your question is an absolute yes.Unqualified, yes. It is only courage that the film world here lacks. Thecourage is confined merely to investing more and more money in films so thattwice or three times could come back as return.  The courage in Indian filmindustry ended with great names like Talat sahib and Mehboob Khan. 

Nagendar Sharma : How did that happen? Has the globalisation spree in the worldswept Bollywood?

Naseerudin Shah : Well, the era of mediocrity which started in the70s begandominating slowly and became the order of the day. This was the time when filmsbecame from black and white to colour, and it made film making a much easier job, as you had no longerto think about the stage, the lighting nor the other sensitivities involved. Youwere merely to dress the hero and heroine in gaudy coloured clothes and shoot thefilm is Kashmir -- that was it!

If you look carefully, it was the time which was a high point forHindi films. But what was required at the time were quality films based on goodstories and acting. Unfortunately, that did not happen and a new word viz. ‘proposal’ entered the Hindi film world, which is continuing till today. Ifyou have a "good proposal" only then can a film be made, without that a film can’teven be made. Isn’t it bizarre? Instead of acting, songs and other essentialthings for a film, a new strange word calls the shots.

BBC listener : Sir, the death of expression in Hindi films was dueto the shrinking of parallel cinema, and even artists like you are preferringcommercial films, and today film stars quote exorbitant price for working in afilm, how can there be creativity in such circumstances?

Naseerudin Shah : Well, it is wrong to say that the actors have increasedtheir rates. Today the overall cost of film making has gone up -- cost of rawstock, making of a set costs at least three times more than it used to ten yearsago, property cost, dance masters and so forth all have trebled, or even,  insome cases,hiked their rates more than four times.

It is easy to say that actors charge unbelievable costs, but pleasedo not forget that actors do not get their payments upfront, they only receivesthe major part of the payment when the profits are distributed. So if some actors are getting unbelievable payments despite thefilms being a flop, then there is some system which operates. And, well, there aremany myths about actors payments, and many factors perpetuate it --  to saythat someactors could be sold better than others is a racket infact.

So far as I amconcerned, I have been doing commercial films since the beginning of my career.My third film was Sunaina, in which I had sung songs and had danced also, thoughpretty badly, and needless to say the film was a flop. Apart from that, duringthat time I worked in many films such as Aakrosh, Manthan and ArthSatya. I havenever said no to good films. I had a grouse against some film makers earlierthat good films were not being made.

BBC listener : I feel that there is a certain intellect in the filmworld, but I fail to understand why do the film artists run after politicians.Now Sharmila Tagore has accepted a post from which Anupam Kher has been sacked. Kher had also been appointed when Vijay Anandwas sacked. So why indulge in thishumiliation game?

Naseerudin Shah : Well, it is not the film actors alone who are running afterthe politicians -- the only thing is that media attention on them is a lothigher -- people want to see their photographs in the newspapers. For example, if some MPwere to be appointed the chief of the Censor Board, it would not make news andsimilarly his sacking would probably go unreported in the newspapers. It is themisfortune or good fortune, whatever you might call it, that people discuss filmactors a lot more than anyone else.

Nagendar Sharma : But then aren’t the film stars playing with the emotionsof the people by behaving in this manner?

Naseerudin Shah : What is new in it ? Players of the Indian film world havebeen playing with the emotions of the people since the decade of 70s when itwas decided to make the same films over and over again -- just copy and cheat --to the extent that even the names are not being changed. Bloody pure repetitionagain and again!

Film makers do not even bother to give an original title for theirfilm, leave alone an original film! Who would take all the trouble for that?Whatever rubbish you offer to the public they would watch it, and this iskeeping the business of some going, they are playing with the emotions, yes, butwhat isnew in it?

They do not care about the emotions of the public. Had they beeneven a little bit bothered, there would have been at least a little bit improvement in our cinema. And look at the worst part, the excuse offered for thischeating and mediocrity is that the public wants to watch it -- which means the blameis also on the public! What can be done?

BBC listener : But why does a film star look for a future inpolitics? Why do film stars aspire to be leaders?

Naseerudin Shah : The entire game my friend is about power. The power that afilm star tastes in this world, it intoxicates him, and this then becomes ahabit, which cannot be got rid off. Then there is also this belief that actinglife is confined to a certain youthful period and not forever. Therefore toremain in the spotlight, what better place could be there other than politics --where they are welcome, there is power and in some cases more than even films!

BBC listener : How do you define the freedom of expression ?

Naseerudin Shah :   This definition should be in words in which it couldbe explained, provided it is within the limits of my capabilities, and if it iswell known then I should be provided this freedom. There was a time in historywhen the writings of Ismat Chugtai and Saadat Hasan Manto were consideredvulgar, and talking in those trems was a taboo. Today you have channels whichyou could be ashamed of while watching them. Now I would say this in words,provided my credibility is not doubted.  Pertinent modern example is of Veerappan, who wanted to tell abouthis life in a film, but could not do so and since he is dead, that is over now.I feel that if he wanted, he should have been allowed, and disallowing that alsoamounts to a type of censorship, and was a handcuff on the freedom ofexpression. Since he is no more now, there would have been a tremendous interestin knowing about his life, but it has been throttled by censorship.