The Chairperson of the Central Board of Film Certification, Sharmila Tagore, speaks her mind on issues like showing adult content on TV, film censorship in India and Censor Board's stand vis-à-vis issues like kissing scenes and satire on film in an exclusive interview to Karan Thapar on Devil's Advocate.
Karan Thapar: Hello and welcome to Devil's Advocate. Should adults be allowed to see what they want on television or should they accept restrictions in the interests of protecting children? That's the key issue that I shall raise today with the Chairperson of the Central Board of Film Certification, Sharmila Tagore.
Ms Tagore, let’s start with the recent decision to prevent television channels from showing any A-certificate film. Do you believe it’s justified? Do you believe it trespasses on the rights of adults or worse, does it treat adults like children?
Sharmila Tagore: First let me tell you that this is not a very recent thing. In 1995, there was this Cable Network Act, which very clearly spelt out that on television, only ‘Universal’ content would be shown.
Karan Thapar: Quite right. But that Act is actually ignored in the end. It was not enforced. Now, this new decision to enforce it. Do you think it’s justified?
Sharmila Tagore: Well. Obviously adult material should not be shown to children. That’s the main thing. I don’t think children should be exposed to say, Omkara for instance. We have given it an ‘A’ certificate and it’s going to be exhibited in halls where we can restrict the audience. Whereas if a film like this is shown on television, maybe the children will be able to see it and we don’t want that
Karan Thapar: But if the intention is to protect children from seeing films they should not see, who does the onus devolve upon? Does it devolve upon channels or upon parents and guardians? Because this decision puts the responsibility on channels and it seems to absolve parents and guardians of the responsibility of regulating what their children see?
Sharmila Tagore: I think it is a combined and collective responsibility of the government, channel owners, civil society and the parents, obviously. But nowhere in the world, does this happen. There is a time for adult films to be shown.
Karan Thapar: Absolutely. In England, for example, there is something called Watershed Hour. After 9 pm, adult footage, adult films, films with certain percentage of violence cannot be shown. Would that not have been a more sensible thing to do in India? To permit the showing of A-certificate films after say 9 pm or 10 pm or even 11 pm. But to ban them all together is to reduce television viewing to what a young 18-year-old or 14-year-old or 16-year-old can take, which is perhaps unfair on adults.
Sharmila Tagore: Absolutely, and I think a debate like that can happen. But you know, you and I don’t make the law. It is the Parliamentarians, who have the right to change it.
Karan Thapar: But they listen to your advice, much more than mine.
Sharmila Tagore: We’ve had many conferences and discussions before with all the stake holders when the previous minister was there and we were coming to that kind of a conclusion, that a specified time is necessary for adult viewing, for screening of adult films.
Karan Thapar: In which case, the absolute ban probably took you by surprise.
Sharmila Tagore: It’s not a ban. I don’t call it a ban. It was the rule of the land.
Karan Thapar: Absolutely. But it wasn’t enforced and now it is, so it effectively a ban.
Sharmila Tagore: That is not an excuse. The ban should have been enforced. Everybody has responsibility. You cannot trash the law of the land or you cannot trash court orders.
Karan Thapar: So you are saying, given that this is a law, it should be enforced. But you are also saying that a better way of protecting children will be a time threshold rather than an outright ban.
Sharmila Tagore: That would be a practical and a reasonable solution because after all, there are many adult films, which are relevant and adults would like to see it in the comfort of their own home.
Karan Thapar: At a time when they can ensure that children aren’t watching.
Sharmila Tagore: Absolutely. There is another opinion, which says that children might get up at 11 or 12 pm and will see it. For example, Pratibha Nathani is against it..
Karan Thapar: But you seem to disagree with that opinion. Aren’t you?
Sharmila Tagore: I think the film industry has a huge economic machine. It is doing a lot of good, earning revenue and winning awards abroad. Like for instance, Anand Patwardhan’s film. It’s an A-certified film. But then, they are relevant.
Karan Thapar: So, what you are saying, at the end of the day parents should assume responsibility that their children aren’t watching after the Watershed Hour, and therefore, a watershed is better than a ban.
Sharmila Tagore: I think yes, that a reasonable compromise. And I’m in favour of it.
Karan Thapar: Can I put something to you? As Chairperson of the CBFC, you carry a lot of weight in the country; you would take lot of weight for the courts. Would you consider petitioning the courts to ask them revise their decision so that instead they impose a watershed, and adults after that watershed, be it 10 or 11 at the night, can actually watch films as adults and, thereafter, it’s their responsibility to ensure that the children are asleep.
Sharmila Tagore: I think there is a better way of doing it. We can, of course, go to court. But in view of the Cable Network Act, officially we are saying that only ‘Universal’ films should be shown on television.
Karan Thapar: But you could go to the court now and ask them to revise it. Would you consider that?
Sharmila Tagore: I don’t think the court is the pertinent or relevant body here. We need to go back to Information and Broadcasting Ministry and tell them to come back with a change.
Karan Thapar: Would you consider that?
Sharmila Tagore: Yes, of course. In fact, I&B is considering something like this.
Karan Thapar: So, I&B is considering a revision of what is, at the moment, an effective ban?
Sharmila Tagore: Well, they are discussing it that maybe there should be a time for adult films on television
Karan Thapar: And you are encouraging them down this road.
Sharmila Tagore: I think so, yes.
Karan Thapar: You support this thing?
Sharmila Tagore: Sure.
Karan Thapar: All right. Let’s turn to the functioning of the CBFC. As you are perhaps be aware, there are certain criticism, particularly of the fact that people say you have not always defended the autonomy and the authority of the CBFC to take its own decision. They say you permitted Central ministers and state governments to intrude into your area of decision-making. Would you accept that?
Sharmila Tagore: How so?
Karan Thapar: Let me give you an example. When, for instance, Priya Ranjan Dasmunshi decided that he wanted to see The Da Vinci Code himself, even though the CBFC had cleared it, you didn’t actually launched a protest. Shouldn’t you done have so?
Sharmila Tagore: Official protest? I feel that it’s teamwork. It’s not them verses us. We need to form synergy and obviously have a healthy respect for each other and go forward from there. Unfortunately, I was traveling. I was not here in the country.
Karan Thapar: Had you been here, would you have protested?
Sharmila Tagore: I most certainly would have picked up the phone and tried to speak to the minister and would have said that ‘please don’t do this, because it’s going to set a very bad precedent’. I think that’s my responsibility to do so. Because, that’s why I’m here.
Karan Thapar: Absolutely. The critics point out that because you didn’t have that opportunity to pick up the phone, now you say because you were out of the country at that time, what the minister in effect did, first of all to undermine the autonomy of the CBFC and, secondly, to place himself in a position of judgment over your decision. Both of which are a bit unfortunate.
Sharmila Tagore: I don’t think it is going to have a very long-lasting effect. I’m not taking it like that. I have discussed it with the minister and the ministry. I have made my position very clear. I think a few magazines have carried my article also. I think in his defence I would say he did it because of the compulsions that he was facing, I don’t know what. But in the long run, for a healthy functioning of CBFC vis-à-vis the ministry and the film industry, the other responsibilities that we have, it is not a very good thing. Because the differences come out in the public and everybody then asks questions, like you are asking me right now. That should be avoided.
Karan Thapar: Are you confident that it won’t become a precedent and it won’t happen again?
Sharmila Tagore: I think so. Most certainly, I will do my best. I have made my position clear. I don’t believe in going to the media and talking about it because ultimately the media can’t solve my problem.
Karan Thapar: But you have spoken to the minister, which is the main thing.
Sharmila Tagore: I will speak to the people who can do something about it.
Karan Thapar: Let me raise another issue connected with that same film. Seven state governments chose to ban the showing of the film in their states even though the CBFC had actually cleared it. And once again people felt you should have protested against those state governments, because in a sense, this was a little slap in the face of the CBFC.
Sharmila Tagore: No, I don’t think it was in my position to protest. If anything, it was the government’s decision. There were many other people who could have protested.
Karan Thapar: But were they ill-advised as state governments to ban something which you had cleared?
Sharmila Tagore: Again, I don’t know what their compulsions were. I’m not a very political person. So I have no idea why they did it. But as a member of the civil society, I was somewhat puzzled as to why it was banned in Punjab, Hyderabad. I can understand, perhaps, Nagaland. But I was a bit puzzled, I must say.
Karan Thapar: And did you also as Chairperson of CBFC feel that this was unnecessary that after all you exist to censor films, once you cleared it and given it an A-certificate, state governments should accept it’s been done properly.
Sharmila Tagore: That’s where I feel that there should be a kind of togetherness in this and we should speak to each other more often and present a united front, so the media does not get an opportunity to point a finger at us, like you are doing now.
Karan Thapar: All right. One other issue. People also say that earlier this year when it was question of clearing Rang De Basanti, you referred the matter to the Air Force, rather than taking the decision immediately yourself. Given that it was your prerogative to take the decision. Don’t you think that by deferring to the Air Force or the Defence Ministry, you were undermining your autonomy or your authority?
Sharmila Tagore: You know, the way you are saying it: I have to defend something, which is very abstract. My objective is exactly the same what you are saying. But my objective is to achieve my goal. How I do it, it’s my own strategy. In this particular case, with my experience of 40 years in the film industry and the mass media structure, I have seen a film is released and then it runs into problem. Like The Rising did. Somebody brings in a PIL or somebody brings a protest and then the movie is withdrawn from theatres and that causes the producer far more anxiety and problems because the film doesn’t get picked up.
Karan Thapar: So you are in a sense being diplomatic and clearing the problem in advance.
Sharmila Tagore: I just felt that it was dealing with a defence matter and a sensitive issue at that. So I needed to talk to. I just asked the Defence Ministry to respond to that, but I think they wanted to see the movie, because everybody came, including the ministers and all the Service Chiefs.
Karan Thapar: Let me tell you why people were concerned with that particular decision. They said that suppose the film was about journalists or lawyers, would you have consulted the Editors’ Guild or the Bar Association? Have you set a precedent that could be a problem for yourself in the future.
Sharmila Tagore: I don’t think so. Because, this is a technical issue. Although we know that MiGs were crashing on a regular basis that it was in the papers. But there were some technical aspects of it as well.
Karan Thapar: And you wanted to be safe rather than sorry.
Sharmila Tagore: Yes, because they had written a very polite letter earlier, pointing out these mistakes. Police continually do so, saying why are you allowing this?
Karan Thapar: So once again you are saying, look at the decision in terms of the end result rather than the process and the end result was that the film got cleared.
Sharmila Tagore: Yes. It was very positive and we took them along with us.
Karan Thapar: And you are saying to your critics, don’t be cantankerous about the process, give me the right to judge the best process. It’s the result that counts.
Sharmila Tagore: Absolutely.
Karan Thapar: Ms Tagore, in August, speaking to the Mumbai newspaper Mid Day, you said that you wanted to get permission from the government to give A+ and X certificates to films that contain, what was said to be, adult content. Does that mean that you don’t think banning such films outrightly or censoring them is in fact the right response?
Sharmila Tagore: We were recently challenged by a film called Closer, which I thought was a wonderful film and has won many awards. But we had problems clearing that with the existing guidelines. So I just felt that because more and more adult subjects or perhaps subjects with explicit scenes and language are coming up. For instance, Closer did not have any visuals, but the dialogues were very explicit. So I felt that there should be a category for such films so that instead of cutting it, censoring it or deleting a few scenes, we can show it in its entirety.
Karan Thapar: In other words, you are finding a way of permitting adults, regulated by age, to see adult films and one way of doing that is giving advanced categories like A+ and X.
Sharmila Tagore: Yes, that’s true.
Karan Thapar: In 1975, Justice G D Khosla, who headed an enquiry into the whole issue film censorship said, and I quote, “In a country where the lingam and the yoni are publicly worshipped and where the book Kamasutra was written, what could happen if a couple is shown kissing on screen?” Would you broadly agree with the argument?
Sharmila Tagore: Well, now kissing on screen is being allowed.
Karan Thapar: Very delicately, almost hesitantly.
Sharmila Tagore: Well, that depends on the producers and actors how awkward they are and how free they are. But the fact is that kissing is allowed.
Karan Thapar: So, you would be happier for a bold case?
Sharmila Tagore: From our point of view, we have allowed a case which, if we feel, is aesthetically pleasing and is relevant to the subject and not just a titillating scene. These are the guidelines that we are bound by.
Karan Thapar: This is wonderful. You are suggesting, if I can understand and interpret you, that you are not prurient about kissing on screen, provided it’s part and parcel of the story.
Sharmila Tagore: No, because it’s already happening. Kissing is being allowed.
Karan Thapar: Let me push this a little further. In 2002, Vijay Anand, one of your predecessor as the head of CBFC, actually went one critical step further and said the government should consider legalising the showing of pornographic films, provided they were shown only in carefully-selected special theatres. As he put it, “Porn is shown everywhere in India clandestinely. The best way to fight this onslaught of blue movies is to show them openly in special theatres with legally authorised licenses. Would you endorse that thing?
Sharmila Tagore: No. I would not endorse that because something that is shown underground does not have the official stamp of approval on it. So, I don’t think Indian society and the Indian people are ready for it. Because, there is a cultural difference between India and the rest of the world. I know there are some liberal friends who say that it’s one market economy. One market, one economy. But I think everywhere there is a little bit of difference. I don’t think Indian people are ready for this.
Karan Thapar: So, this is the Laxman Rekha that shouldn’t be crossed today.
Sharmila Tagore: It might. Twenty years down the line, I have no idea. Because people evolve and society evolves and they get used to a certain thing and it may not remain a taboo any longer. But right at this point of time, I don’t think Indian society is ready for it.
Karan Thapar:All right. Let’s raise another issue, which is very much I suppose a concern for the CBFC. Sometimes people argue that films like the Da Vinci Code or The Last Temptation of Christ, because certain communities or large sections of people hold them to be offensive, therefore on those grounds these films should either be censored or perhaps not shown at all. Do you believe that ‘causing offense’ is a ground for not showing a film or banning it or censoring it?
Sharmila Tagore: As you know freedom of speech and expression has been guaranteed by the Constitution. But also there is a clause that was added as ‘reasonable restriction’. It had many grounds, but one was most certainly to strike a balance between that freedom and larger public interest. No other government organisation is more aware of these different sensibilities that exist in India than us. Because it’s very diverse. We deal with it on a daily basis. Because what is culturally accepted in south of India may not be accepted in Manipur etc. But we can only give one certificate nationwide.
Karan Thapar: This is why I asked the question. Because, as you said, the whole thing hinges upon what is freedom of speech and where does it stop.
Sharmila Tagore: We are eternally vigilant of not allowing offense. Because we are here for the public, really. So, we need to interact with the different sections of society. On one hand, there is the civil society, and on the other hand there is the film industry and the government.
Karan Thapar: Let me push you and put it like this. Do you believe and accept that freedom of speech includes freedom to satirise and mock?
Sharmila Tagore: Yes, some would say that would be logical. But the age that I am today -- I have seen India and I have a sense of India -- I am left asking myself as to what purpose does it serve? What would be achieved by mocking somebody?
Karan Thapar: So you would say that a film that mocks faith or God or mocks people or mocks individuals should not be permitted?
Sharmila Tagore: Yes, of course it should not be permitted.
Karan Thapar: What about satire which is sometimes different to mocking?
Sharmila Tagore: It really depends on merit. How a subject is dealt with and what is the effect. If the intention is only to mock to give offence, then people will be offended. But if the intention is not to give offence, a kind of a discourse or discussion or a part of a subject, where something bad is shown to make an opposite point, to show something good --- these are the cases where we will see it.
Karan Thapar: Is there a flip side to your position as well? Are you also saying to those communities and societies that get easily offended, ‘don’t always take offence’? If sometimes you don’t like a movie, do not see it rather than seek its ban. In other words, tolerance lies both ways.
Sharmila Tagore: With due respect, and I hope people will not take offence at what I am going to say and will allow me to say this, I think it’s very seldom people who take offence. It’s some organisations, which speak on their behalf -- maybe, it’s their duty to talk on behalf of their community.
Karan Thapar: So you are saying to those organisations or those ‘busy bodies’ to be a little bit more tolerant about other people’s right to see.
Sharmila Tagore: I would not call them ‘busy bodies’. That’s their work. They have to be vigilant. But I would only request them to be a little bit more tolerant, understand and be not so quick to take offense. After all in a matured society, we need to laugh at ourselves sometimes. It’s not necessarily offensive. It’s a perspective. You don’t have to be offended that quickly.
Karan Thapar:In other words, if you don’t want to be offended, you won’t find it offensive?
Sharmila Tagore: Because some things are bigger than us and it’s been around. Christianity or Islam, they have been there for thousands of years. So. we don’t really need to be offended.
Karan Thapar: It’s question of striking a balance?
Sharmila Tagore: I think so, yes.
Karan Thapar: Sharmila Tagore, a pleasure talking to you on Devil’s Advocate.
Sharmila Tagore: Thank you.
Karan Thapar: Hello and welcome to Devil's Advocate. Should adults be allowed to see what they want on television or should they accept restrictions in the interests of protecting children? That's the key issue that I shall raise today with the Chairperson of the Central Board of Film Certification, Sharmila Tagore.
Ms Tagore, let’s start with the recent decision to prevent television channels from showing any A-certificate film. Do you believe it’s justified? Do you believe it trespasses on the rights of adults or worse, does it treat adults like children?
Sharmila Tagore: First let me tell you that this is not a very recent thing. In 1995, there was this Cable Network Act, which very clearly spelt out that on television, only ‘Universal’ content would be shown.
Karan Thapar: Quite right. But that Act is actually ignored in the end. It was not enforced. Now, this new decision to enforce it. Do you think it’s justified?
Sharmila Tagore: Well. Obviously adult material should not be shown to children. That’s the main thing. I don’t think children should be exposed to say, Omkara for instance. We have given it an ‘A’ certificate and it’s going to be exhibited in halls where we can restrict the audience. Whereas if a film like this is shown on television, maybe the children will be able to see it and we don’t want that
Karan Thapar: But if the intention is to protect children from seeing films they should not see, who does the onus devolve upon? Does it devolve upon channels or upon parents and guardians? Because this decision puts the responsibility on channels and it seems to absolve parents and guardians of the responsibility of regulating what their children see?
Sharmila Tagore: I think it is a combined and collective responsibility of the government, channel owners, civil society and the parents, obviously. But nowhere in the world, does this happen. There is a time for adult films to be shown.
Karan Thapar: Absolutely. In England, for example, there is something called Watershed Hour. After 9 pm, adult footage, adult films, films with certain percentage of violence cannot be shown. Would that not have been a more sensible thing to do in India? To permit the showing of A-certificate films after say 9 pm or 10 pm or even 11 pm. But to ban them all together is to reduce television viewing to what a young 18-year-old or 14-year-old or 16-year-old can take, which is perhaps unfair on adults.
Sharmila Tagore: Absolutely, and I think a debate like that can happen. But you know, you and I don’t make the law. It is the Parliamentarians, who have the right to change it.
Karan Thapar: But they listen to your advice, much more than mine.
Sharmila Tagore: We’ve had many conferences and discussions before with all the stake holders when the previous minister was there and we were coming to that kind of a conclusion, that a specified time is necessary for adult viewing, for screening of adult films.
Karan Thapar: In which case, the absolute ban probably took you by surprise.
Sharmila Tagore: It’s not a ban. I don’t call it a ban. It was the rule of the land.
Karan Thapar: Absolutely. But it wasn’t enforced and now it is, so it effectively a ban.
Sharmila Tagore: That is not an excuse. The ban should have been enforced. Everybody has responsibility. You cannot trash the law of the land or you cannot trash court orders.
Karan Thapar: So you are saying, given that this is a law, it should be enforced. But you are also saying that a better way of protecting children will be a time threshold rather than an outright ban.
Sharmila Tagore: That would be a practical and a reasonable solution because after all, there are many adult films, which are relevant and adults would like to see it in the comfort of their own home.
Karan Thapar: At a time when they can ensure that children aren’t watching.
Sharmila Tagore: Absolutely. There is another opinion, which says that children might get up at 11 or 12 pm and will see it. For example, Pratibha Nathani is against it..
Karan Thapar: But you seem to disagree with that opinion. Aren’t you?
Sharmila Tagore: I think the film industry has a huge economic machine. It is doing a lot of good, earning revenue and winning awards abroad. Like for instance, Anand Patwardhan’s film. It’s an A-certified film. But then, they are relevant.
Karan Thapar: So, what you are saying, at the end of the day parents should assume responsibility that their children aren’t watching after the Watershed Hour, and therefore, a watershed is better than a ban.
Sharmila Tagore: I think yes, that a reasonable compromise. And I’m in favour of it.
Karan Thapar: Can I put something to you? As Chairperson of the CBFC, you carry a lot of weight in the country; you would take lot of weight for the courts. Would you consider petitioning the courts to ask them revise their decision so that instead they impose a watershed, and adults after that watershed, be it 10 or 11 at the night, can actually watch films as adults and, thereafter, it’s their responsibility to ensure that the children are asleep.
Sharmila Tagore: I think there is a better way of doing it. We can, of course, go to court. But in view of the Cable Network Act, officially we are saying that only ‘Universal’ films should be shown on television.
Karan Thapar: But you could go to the court now and ask them to revise it. Would you consider that?
Sharmila Tagore: I don’t think the court is the pertinent or relevant body here. We need to go back to Information and Broadcasting Ministry and tell them to come back with a change.
Karan Thapar: Would you consider that?
Sharmila Tagore: Yes, of course. In fact, I&B is considering something like this.
Karan Thapar: So, I&B is considering a revision of what is, at the moment, an effective ban?
Sharmila Tagore: Well, they are discussing it that maybe there should be a time for adult films on television
Karan Thapar: And you are encouraging them down this road.
Sharmila Tagore: I think so, yes.
Karan Thapar: You support this thing?
Sharmila Tagore: Sure.
Karan Thapar: All right. Let’s turn to the functioning of the CBFC. As you are perhaps be aware, there are certain criticism, particularly of the fact that people say you have not always defended the autonomy and the authority of the CBFC to take its own decision. They say you permitted Central ministers and state governments to intrude into your area of decision-making. Would you accept that?
Sharmila Tagore: How so?
Karan Thapar: Let me give you an example. When, for instance, Priya Ranjan Dasmunshi decided that he wanted to see The Da Vinci Code himself, even though the CBFC had cleared it, you didn’t actually launched a protest. Shouldn’t you done have so?
Sharmila Tagore: Official protest? I feel that it’s teamwork. It’s not them verses us. We need to form synergy and obviously have a healthy respect for each other and go forward from there. Unfortunately, I was traveling. I was not here in the country.
Karan Thapar: Had you been here, would you have protested?
Sharmila Tagore: I most certainly would have picked up the phone and tried to speak to the minister and would have said that ‘please don’t do this, because it’s going to set a very bad precedent’. I think that’s my responsibility to do so. Because, that’s why I’m here.
Karan Thapar: Absolutely. The critics point out that because you didn’t have that opportunity to pick up the phone, now you say because you were out of the country at that time, what the minister in effect did, first of all to undermine the autonomy of the CBFC and, secondly, to place himself in a position of judgment over your decision. Both of which are a bit unfortunate.
Sharmila Tagore: I don’t think it is going to have a very long-lasting effect. I’m not taking it like that. I have discussed it with the minister and the ministry. I have made my position very clear. I think a few magazines have carried my article also. I think in his defence I would say he did it because of the compulsions that he was facing, I don’t know what. But in the long run, for a healthy functioning of CBFC vis-à-vis the ministry and the film industry, the other responsibilities that we have, it is not a very good thing. Because the differences come out in the public and everybody then asks questions, like you are asking me right now. That should be avoided.
Karan Thapar: Are you confident that it won’t become a precedent and it won’t happen again?
Sharmila Tagore: I think so. Most certainly, I will do my best. I have made my position clear. I don’t believe in going to the media and talking about it because ultimately the media can’t solve my problem.
Karan Thapar: But you have spoken to the minister, which is the main thing.
Sharmila Tagore: I will speak to the people who can do something about it.
Karan Thapar: Let me raise another issue connected with that same film. Seven state governments chose to ban the showing of the film in their states even though the CBFC had actually cleared it. And once again people felt you should have protested against those state governments, because in a sense, this was a little slap in the face of the CBFC.
Sharmila Tagore: No, I don’t think it was in my position to protest. If anything, it was the government’s decision. There were many other people who could have protested.
Karan Thapar: But were they ill-advised as state governments to ban something which you had cleared?
Sharmila Tagore: Again, I don’t know what their compulsions were. I’m not a very political person. So I have no idea why they did it. But as a member of the civil society, I was somewhat puzzled as to why it was banned in Punjab, Hyderabad. I can understand, perhaps, Nagaland. But I was a bit puzzled, I must say.
Karan Thapar: And did you also as Chairperson of CBFC feel that this was unnecessary that after all you exist to censor films, once you cleared it and given it an A-certificate, state governments should accept it’s been done properly.
Sharmila Tagore: That’s where I feel that there should be a kind of togetherness in this and we should speak to each other more often and present a united front, so the media does not get an opportunity to point a finger at us, like you are doing now.
Karan Thapar: All right. One other issue. People also say that earlier this year when it was question of clearing Rang De Basanti, you referred the matter to the Air Force, rather than taking the decision immediately yourself. Given that it was your prerogative to take the decision. Don’t you think that by deferring to the Air Force or the Defence Ministry, you were undermining your autonomy or your authority?
Sharmila Tagore: You know, the way you are saying it: I have to defend something, which is very abstract. My objective is exactly the same what you are saying. But my objective is to achieve my goal. How I do it, it’s my own strategy. In this particular case, with my experience of 40 years in the film industry and the mass media structure, I have seen a film is released and then it runs into problem. Like The Rising did. Somebody brings in a PIL or somebody brings a protest and then the movie is withdrawn from theatres and that causes the producer far more anxiety and problems because the film doesn’t get picked up.
Karan Thapar: So you are in a sense being diplomatic and clearing the problem in advance.
Sharmila Tagore: I just felt that it was dealing with a defence matter and a sensitive issue at that. So I needed to talk to. I just asked the Defence Ministry to respond to that, but I think they wanted to see the movie, because everybody came, including the ministers and all the Service Chiefs.
Karan Thapar: Let me tell you why people were concerned with that particular decision. They said that suppose the film was about journalists or lawyers, would you have consulted the Editors’ Guild or the Bar Association? Have you set a precedent that could be a problem for yourself in the future.
Sharmila Tagore: I don’t think so. Because, this is a technical issue. Although we know that MiGs were crashing on a regular basis that it was in the papers. But there were some technical aspects of it as well.
Karan Thapar: And you wanted to be safe rather than sorry.
Sharmila Tagore: Yes, because they had written a very polite letter earlier, pointing out these mistakes. Police continually do so, saying why are you allowing this?
Karan Thapar: So once again you are saying, look at the decision in terms of the end result rather than the process and the end result was that the film got cleared.
Sharmila Tagore: Yes. It was very positive and we took them along with us.
Karan Thapar: And you are saying to your critics, don’t be cantankerous about the process, give me the right to judge the best process. It’s the result that counts.
Sharmila Tagore: Absolutely.
Karan Thapar: Ms Tagore, in August, speaking to the Mumbai newspaper Mid Day, you said that you wanted to get permission from the government to give A+ and X certificates to films that contain, what was said to be, adult content. Does that mean that you don’t think banning such films outrightly or censoring them is in fact the right response?
Sharmila Tagore: We were recently challenged by a film called Closer, which I thought was a wonderful film and has won many awards. But we had problems clearing that with the existing guidelines. So I just felt that because more and more adult subjects or perhaps subjects with explicit scenes and language are coming up. For instance, Closer did not have any visuals, but the dialogues were very explicit. So I felt that there should be a category for such films so that instead of cutting it, censoring it or deleting a few scenes, we can show it in its entirety.
Karan Thapar: In other words, you are finding a way of permitting adults, regulated by age, to see adult films and one way of doing that is giving advanced categories like A+ and X.
Sharmila Tagore: Yes, that’s true.
Karan Thapar: In 1975, Justice G D Khosla, who headed an enquiry into the whole issue film censorship said, and I quote, “In a country where the lingam and the yoni are publicly worshipped and where the book Kamasutra was written, what could happen if a couple is shown kissing on screen?” Would you broadly agree with the argument?
Sharmila Tagore: Well, now kissing on screen is being allowed.
Karan Thapar: Very delicately, almost hesitantly.
Sharmila Tagore: Well, that depends on the producers and actors how awkward they are and how free they are. But the fact is that kissing is allowed.
Karan Thapar: So, you would be happier for a bold case?
Sharmila Tagore: From our point of view, we have allowed a case which, if we feel, is aesthetically pleasing and is relevant to the subject and not just a titillating scene. These are the guidelines that we are bound by.
Karan Thapar: This is wonderful. You are suggesting, if I can understand and interpret you, that you are not prurient about kissing on screen, provided it’s part and parcel of the story.
Sharmila Tagore: No, because it’s already happening. Kissing is being allowed.
Karan Thapar: Let me push this a little further. In 2002, Vijay Anand, one of your predecessor as the head of CBFC, actually went one critical step further and said the government should consider legalising the showing of pornographic films, provided they were shown only in carefully-selected special theatres. As he put it, “Porn is shown everywhere in India clandestinely. The best way to fight this onslaught of blue movies is to show them openly in special theatres with legally authorised licenses. Would you endorse that thing?
Sharmila Tagore: No. I would not endorse that because something that is shown underground does not have the official stamp of approval on it. So, I don’t think Indian society and the Indian people are ready for it. Because, there is a cultural difference between India and the rest of the world. I know there are some liberal friends who say that it’s one market economy. One market, one economy. But I think everywhere there is a little bit of difference. I don’t think Indian people are ready for this.
Karan Thapar: So, this is the Laxman Rekha that shouldn’t be crossed today.
Sharmila Tagore: It might. Twenty years down the line, I have no idea. Because people evolve and society evolves and they get used to a certain thing and it may not remain a taboo any longer. But right at this point of time, I don’t think Indian society is ready for it.
Karan Thapar:All right. Let’s raise another issue, which is very much I suppose a concern for the CBFC. Sometimes people argue that films like the Da Vinci Code or The Last Temptation of Christ, because certain communities or large sections of people hold them to be offensive, therefore on those grounds these films should either be censored or perhaps not shown at all. Do you believe that ‘causing offense’ is a ground for not showing a film or banning it or censoring it?
Sharmila Tagore: As you know freedom of speech and expression has been guaranteed by the Constitution. But also there is a clause that was added as ‘reasonable restriction’. It had many grounds, but one was most certainly to strike a balance between that freedom and larger public interest. No other government organisation is more aware of these different sensibilities that exist in India than us. Because it’s very diverse. We deal with it on a daily basis. Because what is culturally accepted in south of India may not be accepted in Manipur etc. But we can only give one certificate nationwide.
Karan Thapar: This is why I asked the question. Because, as you said, the whole thing hinges upon what is freedom of speech and where does it stop.
Sharmila Tagore: We are eternally vigilant of not allowing offense. Because we are here for the public, really. So, we need to interact with the different sections of society. On one hand, there is the civil society, and on the other hand there is the film industry and the government.
Karan Thapar: Let me push you and put it like this. Do you believe and accept that freedom of speech includes freedom to satirise and mock?
Sharmila Tagore: Yes, some would say that would be logical. But the age that I am today -- I have seen India and I have a sense of India -- I am left asking myself as to what purpose does it serve? What would be achieved by mocking somebody?
Karan Thapar: So you would say that a film that mocks faith or God or mocks people or mocks individuals should not be permitted?
Sharmila Tagore: Yes, of course it should not be permitted.
Karan Thapar: What about satire which is sometimes different to mocking?
Sharmila Tagore: It really depends on merit. How a subject is dealt with and what is the effect. If the intention is only to mock to give offence, then people will be offended. But if the intention is not to give offence, a kind of a discourse or discussion or a part of a subject, where something bad is shown to make an opposite point, to show something good --- these are the cases where we will see it.
Karan Thapar: Is there a flip side to your position as well? Are you also saying to those communities and societies that get easily offended, ‘don’t always take offence’? If sometimes you don’t like a movie, do not see it rather than seek its ban. In other words, tolerance lies both ways.
Sharmila Tagore: With due respect, and I hope people will not take offence at what I am going to say and will allow me to say this, I think it’s very seldom people who take offence. It’s some organisations, which speak on their behalf -- maybe, it’s their duty to talk on behalf of their community.
Karan Thapar: So you are saying to those organisations or those ‘busy bodies’ to be a little bit more tolerant about other people’s right to see.
Sharmila Tagore: I would not call them ‘busy bodies’. That’s their work. They have to be vigilant. But I would only request them to be a little bit more tolerant, understand and be not so quick to take offense. After all in a matured society, we need to laugh at ourselves sometimes. It’s not necessarily offensive. It’s a perspective. You don’t have to be offended that quickly.
Karan Thapar:In other words, if you don’t want to be offended, you won’t find it offensive?
Sharmila Tagore: Because some things are bigger than us and it’s been around. Christianity or Islam, they have been there for thousands of years. So. we don’t really need to be offended.
Karan Thapar: It’s question of striking a balance?
Sharmila Tagore: I think so, yes.
Karan Thapar: Sharmila Tagore, a pleasure talking to you on Devil’s Advocate.
Sharmila Tagore: Thank you.