The Tamil film, Sarkar, rakes in the big bucks, but not before
its producers bow to pressure from the ruling AIADMK, send it for re-censorship and agree to chop
off controversial scenes
By Col R Hariharan |Politics | Civil military
relations| India
Legal February 26, 2018 http://www.indialegallive.com/politics/sarkar-making-sense-of-censorship-57411
After two aging heroes of Tamil cinema—Kamal Haasan and
Rajinikanth—churned up the political waters of Tamil Nadu with their entry, it
seems to be the turn of yet another movie hero, Thalapathi (Commander) Vijay,
to jump into the fray, riding the political controversy generated in the wake
of his Diwali blockbuster, Tamil movie Sarkar.
Award-winning director AR Murugadoss, well-known for his
blockbuster movies, including the Aamir Khan starrer, Ghajini (2008), in Hindi,
has directed Sarkar. His two earlier films with Vijay as the hero—Thuppaki
(2012) and Katthi had also run into controversy.
Thuppakki’s problem was related to allegations of showing the
minority community in bad light, while Katthi faced the wrath of Tamil fringe
groups as the producer was a close associate of former Sri Lanka president
Mahinda Rajapaksa.
Gautaman Bhaskaran in a review described Sarkar as
“unashamedly a propaganda vehicle for Vijay”. The superhero techie flies into
Tamil Nadu to cast his vote, finds someone has voted in his place. Then he gets
into action singlehandedly to cleanse the corrupt political system, to take
over the reins of the government.
The ruling All
India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazagham (AIADMK) party was not amused with scenes
featuring a political party distributing freebies before elections, its
signature method of electioneering. It also objected to naming one of the
antagonists of the movie as Komalavalli, name of the party’s icon the late J
Jayalalithaa before she joined movies.
Tamil Nadu information minister Kadambur Raju asked the producer
Sun Pictures and director AR Murugadoss to remove the objectionable scenes from
Sarkar. He said, “The Sarkar scenes showing people throwing the Tamil Nadu
government free appliances into fire should be removed voluntarily from the
movie. If not, the government will take necessary steps to remove it.”
Other ministers dubbed the movie as a propaganda against the
party because producer Kalanithi Maran’s family connections with the DMK.
Hundreds of AIADMK supporters went on a rampage particularly in Madurai. They
tore down hoardings and posters showing the baby-faced hero Vijay, posing in
his signature stance a la Superman.
The director,
Murugadoss, received death threats; he sought anticipatory bail after an
individual lodged a complaint with the Commissioner of Police stating that the
director should be booked under acts of terrorism. The producers bowed to
the pressure from exhibitors and agreed to remove the so-called objectionable
scenes from the movie. Ironically, the AIADMK fighting internal wrangles, used
the Sarkar controversy as a rallying point for its cadres.
The Sarkar controversy has both political and constitutional
dimensions relating to fundamental freedoms. Politically, there is a
power vacuum in Tamil Nadu after the exit of two powerful leaders—Jayalalithaa
and M Karunanidhi of rival DMK. The ruling AIADMK party is in a self
destructive three-way leadership power struggle, while MK Stalin, who inherited
the DMK leadership, is flexing his muscles in the wings to capture power.
Already, all political parties are wary of the entry of Kamal
Haasan and Rajinikanth into active politics, who might end up poaching their
cadres to fulfil their own political ambitions. So Vijay’s entry into the fray
adds to their political apprehensions as he has a networked fan base like Kamal
Haasan and Rajinikanth.
Vijay has been nurturing political ambitions for some time now.
In 2008, he flew to New Delhi and met Rahul Gandhi to join the Youth Congress.
Since then he had been dropping hints about his imminent political entrance.
However, he sounded more ominous during the audio release function of Sarkar in
October 2018. When the anchor asked him whether he would become a real-life CM,
he replied, “If I become the CM, then I won’t just act like one, but do my job
sincerely.” Commenting on politics, he said,
The first thing I
want to change if I become the chief minister is corruption. The state needs a
good leader, only when the leader is corruption-free, others below him will also
be without corruption.” The film producers could not walk the talk. The film
raked in the big bucks, but only after, bowing to political pressure, its
producers agreed to remove some of the objectionable scenes.
Censorship of films has a long history dating back to 1920 when
the Indian Cinematograph Act came into force. Censor Boards were placed under
police chiefs in Madras, Bombay, Calcutta, Lahore and Rangoon. After
independence Central Board of Film Censors came to being in 1952. Film
certification rules were revised in 1963 and the Central Board of Film Censors
(CBFC) was renamed as the Central Board of Film Certification.
The CBFC guidelines for certification containing 20 clauses are
elaborate and all-embracing. It covers a whole range of “anti-social
activities” like not glorifying or justifying violence, method of operation of
criminals to scenes justifying and glamorising drinking, drug addiction and use
of tobacco. But some guidelines like “dual meaning words as obviously cater to
baser instincts are not allowed” are too vague. Even guidelines on “visuals or
words which promote communal, obscurantist, anti-scientific and anti-national
attitude” are open to interpretation.
Even after CBFC clearance, some of the movies face the wrath of
local governments which bow to populist or political pressure to block their
screening. The Padmaavat controversy is a very good example of this aberration.
In Tamil Nadu, the release of Kamal Haasan’s Viswaroopam was held up by the
state government ostensibly in the interest of public order and security.
So censor certification continues to be a major bugbear of film
fraternity. This is more so in Tamil Nadu where politics has umbilical links
with movies ever since playwright CN Annadurai founded the DMK with another
playwright, Karunanidhi, in 1949. Since then, there had been no stopping of
political propaganda, ostensibly carrying the message of social reform, finding
its way into Tamil movies.
Movies also provide platform for filmstars to leverage their
popularity to make it big in politics. Perhaps, the biggest of them all were
Karunanidhi, actors MG Ramachandran and Jayalalithaa who ended up as successful
chief ministers. Of course, some superheroes like Sivaji Ganesan failed to make
the grade in politics. The yin and yang of the relationship between politicians
and actors affects the fortunes of political leaders as much as filmstars.
Inevitably, this adds to the film certification woes of
producers and exhibitors in Tamil Nadu. It also raises the larger issue of censorship
in the country. It involves suppression of speech or public communication
regardless of freedom of speech protected in the Indian Constitution. On the
other hand, the constitution also places some restrictions on freedom of
expression for maintaining communal and religious harmony.
While this is understandable, it is difficult to accept
objectionable content, as per the Information Technology Rules 2011. These
include anything that “threatens unity, integrity, defence, security or
sovereignty of India, friendly relations with foreign states or public
order”. It is rules such as these, that are more prone to misuse, that
made Freedom House in its annual Freedom of the Press index give India a
freedom rating of “Partly Free” in 2016.
—The writer is a
retired Military Intelligence specialist on South Asia, and is associated with
the Chennai Centre for China Studies and International Law and Strategic
Studies Institute.
No comments:
Post a Comment