In the ever-evolving landscape of Indian cinema, the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) remains a formidable force, often dictating the final version of films that reach the audience. While the board’s mandate is to ensure content aligns with societal norms and sensitivities, its interventions have frequently sparked debates about artistic freedom and censorship. Recent instances highlight the extent to which the CBFC’s decisions influence both domestic and international films, sometimes even preventing their release altogether.Dhadak 2: Navigating Caste SensitivitiesThe much-anticipated Dhadak 2, starring Siddhant Chaturvedi and Triptii Dimri, serves as a poignant example of the CBFC’s influence. As a remake of the Tamil anti-caste film Pariyerum Perumal, Dhadak 2 faced significant scrutiny. The CBFC mandated 16 substantial edits, addressing political, caste-based, and religious sensitivities. These changes included the removal or modification of potentially controversial content, adjustments to references involving caste, and alterations to visual elements. Additionally, some violent scenes were toned down, and appropriate disclaimers were added. Udta Punjab: A Battle for Creative ExpressionIn 2016, Udta Punjab, a film delving into the state’s drug crisis, became a focal point in the censorship debate. The CBFC initially demanded 94 cuts, citing concerns over explicit content and the portrayal of Punjab. The board argued that setting the film in Punjab would damage the region’s reputation and discourage tourism and investment. The filmmakers challenged this decision, and the Bombay High Court eventually cleared the film with just one cut, emphasizing the importance of creative freedom. L2: Empuraan: L2: Empuraan, a Malayalam film starring Mohanlal and Prithviraj , faced its own set of challenges. The CBFC first cleared the film with U/A certificate but the growing backlash from right wing led to filmmakers voluntarily making 24 cuts to the film totalling 2.08 minutes. Cuts included edits to riot sequences, portrayal of violence against women, and changes to character names and visuals. Notably, the antagonist’s name was changed from Balraj to Baldev to avoid associations with real-life figures involved in the 2002 Gujarat riots. The film’s depiction of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) was also modified, with references to the agency being muted. These alterations were made to address concerns about political and social themes in the film.International Films: Facing the CBFC’s GatekeepingThe CBFC’s influence extends beyond domestic productions. Santosh, a British-Indian film directed by Sandhya Suri, was blocked from release in India reportedly due to its depiction of police brutality, misogyny, and caste discrimination. Despite international acclaim, including accolades at Cannes and an Oscar nomination, the film was banned in India over concerns about its negative portrayal of the police. Suri expressed disappointment, noting that significant cuts demanded by the censors would undermine the film’s integrity.Similarly, Dev Patel’s directorial debut, Monkey Man, faced hurdles in India. The CBFC reportedly avoided screening the movie altogether, with banning or suggesting cuts being a secondary consideration. The film, which includes themes of revenge against corrupt officials and draws from Hindu mythology, was released internationally but remains unreleased in India due to the lack of certification. Singham Again: Modifying Mythological ReferencesRohit Shetty’s Singham Again underwent several cuts to secure a U/A certificate.The censor board asked Rohit Shetty’s film team to make several modifications before release, mainly around religious and sensitive content. A 23-second sequence comparing Singham (Ajay Devgn), Avni (Kareena Kapoor), and Simmba (Ranveer Singh) with Lord Ram, Goddess Sita, and Lord Hanuman was altered. Another 23-second scene showing Singham touching Lord Ram’s feet was also modified. A 16-second scene of Raavan grabbing and pushing Sita was entirely deleted. A 29-second reference to Lord Hanuman burning Lanka, paired with a flirtatious line from Simmba, was removed.Arjun Kapoor’s character Zubair’s dialogues were edited at four places, including one where he compares himself to Raavan. Kareena Kapoor’s lines as Avni were modified as well. Visuals of a Constitutional head and their lines were deleted in two instances. Citing diplomatic concerns, a 26-second sequence involving dialogue and visuals related to a neighbouring country was removed. A violent police station murder scene showing a beheading was blurred. Additionally, the colour of a religious flag in two scenes was changed, and the ‘Shiv Stotra’ hymn was deleted from the background score. These cuts aimed to tone down religious, political, and violent sensitivities before the film’s public release.Punjab ’95: A Story Yet to Be ToldPunjab ’95, based on the life of human rights activist Jaswant Singh Khalra and starring Diljit Dosanjh, remains unreleased in India. The CBFC suggested 120 cuts, leading to delays and disputes. Dosanjh expressed his support for the film only if released without cuts, emphasizing the importance of preserving its message. Back in February of this year, during his Instagram live, Diljit said “I hope the film gets released in India soon. I will support only that film that will be released fully without any cuts. If you release the film without cuts I will come, otherwise with cuts it doesn’t matter. I hope some solution will come out and it will release in Punjab.” He also shared that the potential of Punjab’95 will decline if it is released with cuts and it simply defeats the purpose of the film’s message.Director Honey Trehan criticized the CBFC’s demands as ‘unreasonable and politically coloured’, stating his commitment to his film and team.The film has still not released. Emergency: A Political Drama in LimboKangana Ranaut’s directorial venture, Emergency, faced delays due to the non-issuance of a censor certificate. The film, depicting the Emergency period in India, was caught up in controversy after Sikh organizations accused it of misrepresenting the community. Ranaut accused the film body of stalling certification to delay the release. Despite all the back and forth and months of drama, the matter was settled with just a 1-minute cut.Conclusion: Balancing Sensitivity and CreativityThe CBFC’s role in shaping Indian cinema is undeniable. While its mandate is to ensure content aligns with societal norms, the extent of its interventions often raises questions about artistic freedom. As filmmakers continue to push boundaries and explore complex themes, the balance between sensitivity and creativity remains a contentious issue. The ongoing dialogue between creators and censors is crucial in navigating this complex landscape, ensuring that cinema remains a reflective and thought-provoking medium.
