Hand that wields the scissors

To argue that the abrupt removal of Anupam Kher from the Censor Board attests to the 8216;8216;increasing8217;8217; politicisation of th...

To argue that the abrupt removal of Anupam Kher from the Censor Board attests to the 8216;8216;increasing8217;8217; politicisation of the arts and culture in India is downright ignorant. The very existence of a Censor Board covertly acknowledges that every work of art is culturally constructed and, therefore, by default politically charged as well as inherently politicised. To be political or not to be, in other words, is not a matter of choice for the creators of such works. Any movie 8212; even if it seeks only to 8216;8216;describe8217;8217; the life of an indigent male protagonist who tames the rich shrew, or that of an impoverished female protagonist who establishes her godliness by silently sacrificing herself for the sake of others 8212; cannot help but 8216;8216;prescribe8217;8217;, just as any plot whether it cheers or denounces one set of characters over another cannot help but endorse certain expressions of gender relations, social equations or economic associations over others. To argue otherwise is to pull wool over the audience8217;s eyes and keep them in a state of perpetual intellectual subordination.

To insist, on the flip side, that Anupam Kher is an RSS man in plain clothing who deserves to be replaced by a more 8216;8216;neutral8217;8217; Chair who does not inflict her/his agenda on the unsuspecting common man is just as naive, if not deceitful: when a work of art is never neutral, how can anyone from the Censor Board depict it as such? To assert the primacy of ideological neutrality and 8216;8216;detoxifying8217;8217; the administration of 8216;8216;coloured8217;8217; elements, therefore, is in itself a politically charged ideology, if not a political weapon to be used against the rival.

It is plain to see that the on-going struggle over the top job in the Censor Board reflects neither a war of ideology versus neutrality, nor of morality versus permissiveness. The war is of one type of ideology against another, and despite the claim that the goal is to resurrect a secular tolerance for diversity in the country, what8217;s happening in this conflict is exactly the opposite 8212; the silent erosion of intellectual and cultural plurality in India, the quiet drying up of democracy.

Whatever his political leanings, therefore, that Anupam Kher was evicted so undemocratically in a country that calls itself the world8217;s largest democracy is indeed lamentable. Yet that Anupam Kher, the latest in a long line of those who have been cast aside unceremoniously in the past after a shift in power at the Centre, is the scapegoat in this entire episode is only incidental. The real victim of this blatant struggle for ideological control is s/he who is repeatedly denied the democratic right to exist in a realm made up of multiple worldviews, and the democratic right to make a substantive choice between these worldviews when standing before the ticket window of a cinema hall. The real victim of this ideological one-upmanship is the Indian audience who is forced to occupy an oversimplified cultural space, one that is constituted of false dilemmas and unnecessary either/or reductions of values, attitudes, and beliefs. This is also to say that those who deny the public the right to watch their movie of choice through official censorship are as culpable as those who burn down theatres, beat up artistes, and deny audiences the right to form an opinion about a movie or a work of art 8212; and therefore the right to think 8212; on their own terms.

Put another way, which works of art are amenable to public consumption is a matter that must be decided fairly, equitably and democratically by all those who have a stake in Indian movies, including the Indian public, just as competing ideologies and expressions of art must be made to take each other on in a publicly constituted domain. The exercise of suppressing rival ideologies, or killing off the careers of its supporters must never be an acceptable option in a civilised society.

Of course, this by no means is to argue that movies made by and for paedophiles, sex offenders or sociopaths of any other kind should be condoned, or even tolerated. But the ideological boundaries of what qualifies as scissor-worthy and what doesn8217;t is a matter that should be arrived at in a transparent and inclusive environment 8212; through consensus-seeking deliberations and negotiations that cut across ideological and cultural differences. In the interest of India8217;s overall development it would be wise not only to close our doors to 8216;8216;closed door8217;8217; politics but also agree that it is our right to disagree.