Dropping Punjab from Udta Punjab exposes government's worst fears

A movie about an important social evil, starring acclaimed actors of the world's largest film industry, should have been heartily embraced by the Indian government that rules the world largest democracy.

Instead, Udta Punjab, starring Shahid Kapoor and Alia Bhatt, has run into fresh trouble with India's censor board, which has, on last count ordered 89 cuts in the film.

The censor board's revising committee has outdone the CBFC by demanding that not only should Punjab be dropped from the title, but the movie's portrayal of reality should be replaced by placing it in a fictional land instead of Punjab.

The decision came after the Akali Dal, which is part of the NDA both at the Centre and the Punjab government, vehemently criticised the movie for maligning Punjab (or the Akalis?) by depicting Punjab's drug problem.

Udta Punjab is scheduled to be released on June 17, but the fate of the film now hangs in balance. It may yet sail through if the courts intervene, but the shoddy manner in which a politically inconvenient film is being suppressed reveals the many problems that accompany censorship:

Potential for political abuse that undermines democracy

If we put aside all the excuses the government is presenting for the censor board's latest move, the brutal truth is that the film is being censored as it doesn't suit the ruling party and its allies.

By depicting the out-of-control drug crisis of Punjab, the film is bound to further discredit an already struggling government.

That Punjab suffers from the worst drug crisis in India is no secret, yet this being an election year in Punjab and drug abuse being a leading election issue, the film would have haunted Akalis who have used every trick in the book (like controlling the cable network, bringing in defamation cases, et al) to prevent the truth from being told.

Given Akalis' propensity to suppress freedom of speech and the availability of censorship powers in the hands of a board controlled by its allies, they find it easy to abuse their political power to bury a politically inconvenient subject.

This potential for high-handed abuse that accompanies censorship powers is ill at ease with democratic ethos. Since when is speaking truth to power forbidden in a democracy?

This blatant political use of censorship is something that regimes of Kim Jong-un and Xi Jinping are known for and this control over voices of opposition is exactly what defines anti-democratic regimes.

Why are we trying to compete with the likes of North Korea to suppress the truth? If, in a democracy, ruling governments can't be criticised or their bad aspects be depicted, then slowly the democracy will turn into a dictatorship of a single party.

Bidding adieu to minimum government, maximum governance

Modi, after riding to power by promising to reducing the government's unnecessary involvement in the economy and society has repeatedly defied the promise - from retaining the control of sick PSUs and wasting public money over them to keeping intact the entitlement scheme he once criticised.

Yet, this tendency of maximum government and minimum governance reaches peaks when the Centre, through its censor board, decides to get into the business of naming movies or deciding their location.

Why should taxpayers' money and the time of the government be wasted on preventing the release of a movie on drug abuse rather than using it as a tool to arrest the crisis?

Exercising the censorship power is another case of the government overstepping its brief and distracts it from its essential responsibilities.

Who are censor babus and party acolytes to decide what a director should direct and what a viewer should watch?

If the viewer watching the film makes a informed choice, why should the government have any problem? Who is government to decide the place where a film is set?

It's high time the government stopped poking its nose where it has no business to - censorship is definitely one such issue.

Colonial hangover - distrust and disrespect of the population

Behind this whole concept of censorship and the absurd notion of protecting its citizens from cuss words lies a colonial mentality on part of our government.

It believes that citizens are fools who cannot be trusted and respected to rely upon their own judgment. Somehow its judgment, the government believes, is better than that of its citizens.

There is a condescending paternalism that underpins such censorship: this paternalism is a colonial hangover devoid of substance and harmful to the evolution of a more responsible and mature society.

Why scuttle creativity?

The government's censorship powers are the foremost threat to creativity. It exacts a price from the creative minds that speak truth to power.

Since those in the government have to incur no personal cost while the filmmakers have to bear the legal fees, any possibility of a litigation against the censor board has a detrimental effect on the filmmakers, apart from crowding our already overcrowded courts.

It creates filmmakers who are less likely to depict the harsh realities of the society. The possibility of recognising our faults and correcting them is also diminished.

Obsession with a false image

Often, censorship is exercised when films expose the society's apathy towards some of its evils, certain disconcerting realities around which there is collective conspiracy of silence.

By deploying censorship, the powers-that-be seek to maintain a fake image that is out of sync with the reality that a creative mind seeks to expose.

But why should any forward-looking society be so obsessed with its image?

Shouldn't making the reality better be our prime concern?

But since every society has an inclination to retain a false, comforting image, censorship becomes a tool for sustaining it.

The controversy over the censorship of Udta Punjab thus brings out the pressing need to do away with the system. There is no other permanent solution than replacing censorship with certification.