Censoring Kabir? Anything’s possible…
Given half a chance, the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) would ban the persona of Kabir. Not to be left behind, the government would probably file cases against Kabir for offending religious sensibilities, if not, promoting enmity between communities!
Now that's not as far-fetched as you think. It is indeed ironical that cuts were ordered by the Board on a film on Kabir, who did not have a clear hindu or muslim identity, on the ground of violation of the guideline that "visuals or words contemptuous of racial, religious or other religious groups are not presented". In a film eulogizing Kabir, the most hard hitting of critiques against obscurantism and superstition, excisions have been directed on the ground of promoting communal, obscurantist and anti-scientific attitudes.
The film Had-Anhad, translated as Bounded-Boundless is part of a series of four films by Shabnam Virmani exploring the legacy of Kabir reflected in folk songs, music, books and films. All four films were submitted to CBFC for certification. The Board proposed minor changes in two of the films which were accepted. Certificate of unrestricted exhibition was granted to three of the films. However, in an order on November 5, 2009, four cuts or excisions were ordered with regard to the film Had-Anhad. The Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT), in an order on May 28, 2010, turned down one cut but upheld three others.
The film-maker filed a petition against this decision and, in a well reasoned and thorough judgment delivered on March 9, 2011, Justice S. Muralidhar of the Delhi High Court struck down all the excisions ordered by the FCAT and directed the CBFC to grant a certificate of unrestricted viewing to Had-Anhad.
Justice Murlidhar was unequivocal:
"The film lends democratic space to the "speaking subject" and the "citizen viewer" to engage in a civilized debate on issues that are perceived to be contentious. It invites introspection into and the cleansing of prejudices from the inner recesses of a bigoted mind with the aid of Kabir's words and thoughts. It demonstrates how the created barriers of regions, borders, languages, religions, nationalities and nations melt away in Kabir's universal message of love and compassion. A viewer who stays to see the film till its end is unlikely to be left feeling hateful or vengeful towards any religion or community. The viewer might be impelled to contemplate on the futility of bigotry and violence. Viewed in this light, and in light of the settled constitutional law of the freedom of speech and expression, none of the excisions as directed by the CBFC, three of which have been upheld by the FCAT, are legally sustainable."
Why so many cuts?
Had Anhad opens with the declaration that the film journeys through song and poem into the politics of religion, and finds a myriad answers on both sides of the hostile border between India and Pakistan. The opening plate reads: "In recent Indian politics, Ram has been invoked by certain groups to consolidate Hindu identity and votes in divisive opposition to Muslims living in India and the neighbouring Islamic state of Pakistan".
The first cut ordered is the deletion of the words "Muslims living in India and the neighbouring Islamic state of Pakistan", declaring it violative of Guidelines 2 (xii), 2 (xiii) and 2 (xvi) formulated by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (I&B) under the Cinematographic Act. Guideline 2(xii) requires the CBFC to ensure that "visuals or words contemptuous of racial, religious or other groups are not presented"; Guideline 2(xiii) requires the CBFC to ensure that "visuals or words which promote communal, obscurantist, anti-scientific and anti-national attitudes are not presented" and Guideline 2(xvi) requires it to ensure that "friendly relations with foreign States are not strained".
Fortunately, better sense prevailed at the stage of Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT) which struck down the first excision ordered by CBFC. However, the Appellate Tribunal appears to have exhausted the quota of "better sense" and upheld the other three excisions ordered by the Board.
The opening narration continues: "In 2003, I set out in search of Kabir . Why Kabir? What made me want to search for a 15th century mystic poet today? Maybe turning to Kabir was a turning away from Ram… …that militant Ram used to stoke Hindu-Muslim hatred in India today. But then, I found a Ram in Kabir too. And their stories began to unfold through the fog of history and politics, intertwined."
The CBFC ordered the excision of the words "militant Ram" on the ground that it constitutes violation of the guideline with regard to words contemptuous of racial, religious or other groups (Guideline 2(xii)). The FCAT has upheld the excision giving the following reasons:
"It is common knowledge that the Christian, Islam and Hindu religion are very old. The question of a "militant Ram" stoking ill-will between Hindus and Muslims does not arise. Therefore, wherever including in the title card there is reference to "militant Ram" and such similar ideas/words, the words have to be deleted. It is also recommended by CBFC. Guideline 2(xii) is not applicable because it is factually incorrect. During Shri Ram's times there was no Islam and Shri Ram was a man of peace and was forced to battle with Ravana to save his wife. Lord Rama was not a man of war and returned to Ayodhya as soon as his wife was freed. Serial No. 2 stands decided."
The FCAT seems to have totally misunderstood the function to be performed by the Tribunal and gone on the erroneous footing that it was called upon to adjudicate and pronounce upon the issue whether a "militant Ram" could be said to be stoking ill-well or upon the deeds performed by Ram. Law does not require the Tribunal to deliberate to agree or disagree with the content or viewpoint of films. The observation by the Tribunal that Guideline 2(xii) is not applicable makes it puzzling as to the grounds for upholding the second excision.
The film then proceeds to record the conversation of the film maker with a shopkeeper in Ayodhya which sell VCDs showing the demolition of Babri Masjid on 6 December 1992 and also contains few visuals of young men climbing the domes of the Masjid. The FCAT has ordered the deletion of the entire sequence at Ayodhya on the ground of ensuring that communal, obscurantist, anti-scientific and anti-national attitudes are not promoted; "the security of the State is not jeopardized or endangered" and "public order is not endangered." The CBFC and FCAT do not care to offer any reasoning and seem to proceed on the premise that mere mention of promoting "anti-national attitudes", jeopardizing "security of state" and endangering "public order" should be enough to carry the day.
In a remarkable feet of legerdemain the excisions of words and visuals with regard to the Babri Masjid demolition by the Board, duly upheld by the Appellate Board declares: "The visuals of demolition of Babri Masjid as such are not objectionable but were found to be objectionable in the context of the documentary wherein it purports to symbolize the pent-up anger of the Hindus against building 'Babri-masjid' on the 'Ram Janmabhoomi' and the said videos are being sold as mark of victory".
The demolition of Babri Masjid was part of a deliberate invoking of the past-trauma of the destruction of Somnath by Mahmud of Gazni in 1021 A.D., as if it happened now, along with conflating Mongol invaders like Taimur and Genghis Khan with present day muslims and a calculated stoking of anger among hindus. The Censor Board and Appellate Tribunal rulings strain credulity and seem premised on a sort of make-believe world reeking of hypocrisy ordering the excision as if it is the documentary Had-Anhad which is guilty of misrepresentation and an attempt at divisiveness.
In fact the High Court observes:
"The CBFC and FCAT appear to have lost sight of the context of the film 'Had Anhad' as a whole. They have viewed in isolation the scenes involving the conversations around the incident of 6th December 1992. No reasonable viewer watching the film as a whole would be provoked into harbouring either a communal or anti-national attitude. Had Anhad makes a strong statement against bigotry and on the futility of violent disagreements over religion."
The last excision ordered is the deletion of one line out of a conversation between two persons returning from Wagah Border between India and Pakistan after observing the change of guard which has been held to be "contemptuous of the muslim community". The line is picked up and taken out of the context. In fact, it depicts the views of a bigot and provokes the viewer into thinking differently.
The spirit of Kabir
The film Had-Anhad is a delight to watch with soul stirring rendition of Kabir by artists across the subcontinent led by Prahlad Tipanya of Malwa, Mukhtiyar Ali in Rajasthan, Farid Aiyaz and Shafi Faqir from Pakistan. It is difficult to imagine renderings of Kabir would promote superstition, obscurantism or invoke contempt for communities or stoke hindu-muslim divisiveness. As could be expected from a film on Kabir, introspection, interrogation of prejudices and a questioning of superstitious practices are the feelings invoked in the viewer.
Finally, considering that in a film about Kabir the major excision ordered was in the context of the demolition of Babri Masjid and the building of a Ram Temple, it is apposite to end with two couplets of Kabir:
"Jo matware Ram ke, lagan huye man mhan,
Jo darpan kee Sundari, konhu pakda nhan".
'For those intoxicated with Ram, marriage is in the heart,
Like the beauty in the mirror, whom none can catch'.
"Kankar-pather jod ke, masjid lai chunaye,
Ta chadh mulla bang de, ka bhera hua khuday"
'Putting together stones and pebbles, masjid was constructed ,
Climbing onto it the mulla is crowing, has God gone deaf'.
(Rakesh Shukla is a Supreme Court advocate)