Persistent Patwardhan and dogged Doordarshan

BY B.P. Sanjay| IN Media Freedom | 27/08/2006

B P Sanjay

The Supreme Court¿s direction to Doordarshan to telecast Anand Patwardhan¿s, ?Father Son and Holy War? is a narrative of the determination and perseverance of a few media persons who constantly challenge the telecast policies of the public broadcaster. By extension it is also a struggle against censorship institutionalized or otherwise. 

The film and its content per se are perhaps not very relevant here. What the court has said about right of the film maker, Patwardhan is educative: ??has a right to convey his perception on the oppression of women, flawed understanding of manhood and evils of the communal violence throughout the documentary film.?[i] Endorsing the film in its entirety the Court rejected the contention of Doordarshan that part II of the film had been certified A by the censor board. It would be interesting to see if the obstinate DD would   now take umbrage under the recent Mumbai high court ruling and the developments thereof which pertain  to telecasting of films certified as ¿A¿ by the censor board.[ii]  However, Patwardhan and company may cite genre difference in the sense that the film is a documentary and therefore as the court has observed, a documentary cannot be denied exhibition.

Indicting the public broadcaster the court observed that DD had a history of not telecasting many award winning films and obvious reference was to many of Patwardhan¿s films: Memory of Friends, Ram Ke Naam?. It is pertinent to point out that Patwardhan had in the past raised issues regarding censorship itself. The 2003 Bombay High Court judgment with regard to his film, War and Peace pertains to the issue of freedom of expression.[iii]

??we would like to record the oft stated proposition that an issue may be one but there are many facets of looking at it?It is only in a democratic form of government that the citizens have the right to express themselves fully and fearlessly as to what is their view point towards the events which are taking place around. By suppressing certain viewpoint, it is not only the propagator of the viewpoint who suffers but it is the society at large and equally the people in authority who suffer. This is because they fail to receive the counter view and it may eventually lead to an immense damage to society due to erroneous decision at the hands of the persons in authority in the absence of the counter view. That apart, the freedom of speech and expression is important not merely for the consequences that ensue in the absence thereof but since the negation of it runs as an anti-thesis to basic human values, instincts and creativity.?

Patwardhan by raising issues of censorship and broader aspects of responsibility of Doordarshan has no doubt has revived a consistent debate. This debate may also unwittingly allow Doordarshan to transcend its political imperatives and perform its ?autonomous? role. How it can exercise its autonomy in actuality is a difficult question to analyse given the fact that ruling political parties of all hues have not really addressed nor introspected their perceived sense of control over the public broadcaster. Under pressure bureaucrats can whip up convenient strategies in accordance with the perceived political philosophy of the day.  This is evident in the   dithering attitude of DD in the present case.

The political question of the relative ease  with which we can fight the State and its entities vs. the market oriented media is another aspect that needs public debate. The temptation to go back to the Supreme court ruling that airwaves are public property is strong, If not for anything else but the fact that the interpretation has meant deregulation and not necessarily addressing the question of monopoly over public resource-airwaves.

Other television channels will seize this opportunity and we will have panels galore ala big fights and face the nation and in time this contentious documentary might come to occupy prime time space in the days to come. Article 19 (1) (a) is once again in the news and Freedom of   Expression upheld.  Perseverance on the part of the petitioner and doggedness of the public broadcaster has stretched the issue for quite a long time.

Contact: bpssn@uohyd.ernet.in

[i] As reported in Decccan Chronicle, Hyderabad edition, August 26, 2006.

[ii] Reference to public interest petition by social activist Pratibha Naithani and the recent cable television black out in Mumbai. .

[iii] Judgement Day WAR AND PEACE (JANG AUR AMAN) Vs Censorship., see   http://www.patwardhan.com/writings/press/042403.htm