Saturday November 17, 2018
Home Entertainment Censorship in...

Censorship in India: Protection or Supression?

The power of films was recognized long ago and they have been controlled ever since

0
//
Censorship in India, the power to stay in power
Censorship in India, a suppression of the free speech or a motive to protect the vulnerable? Pixabay
Republish
Reprint

New Delhi, November 6, 2017: Film, as one understands, is the basis of all motion pictures and both the most persuasive and pervasive form of communication in the contemporary world. Following the development of technology, films have become much more ubiquitous and accessible. It is quite apparent that films have a lot more to them than just the purpose of entertainment. Not just a communicator of ideas, a film is also a crucial pedagogical tool that facilitates learning, spreads awareness, and motivates participation from the audiences. It is an efficient medium to help audience rethink their place in the world and to encourage them to do something for good.

Noting how influential films are as a medium of communication, the topic that
always remains hot is Censorship.

Censorship is not something that can easily be placed in the category of good or bad, in fact, both its supporters and those against it, have broken their necks to justify their arguments.

Films can change attitudes, inspire people and influence them in the deepest of ways. This was recognized long ago when the 1925 Russian film, Battleship Potemkin, was banned across the world as its story and visualization were deemed so powerful that it had the potential to arouse social outrage.

The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) takes charge of Censorship in India. The board commands directors to remove everything it deems as offensive, on a regular basis. The CBFC has failed to convince a large audience with the reasons that it provided for the ban of certain films in India. One of these films is “Lipstick under my Burkha” which is the most recent film to become extremely popular for its ban in India. The reason that CBFC gave for the denial of certification to the film was that it is “Lady oriented”, which apparently, none can consider to be valid. If stifling the voices of women can be justified under the name of censorship, the very idea of it is threatening and must not be entertained.

Also readFacebook quietly develops Censorship Tool to re-enter World’s Second Largest Economy China after 7-Year Ban. 

Udta Punjab was also in limelight for the 94 cuts that CBFC demanded in the film, some of which included removal of the names of Punjab cities, the name of the state itself and the name of a dog which was called Jacky chain. There are many other films where the grounds on which the Censor board asked the filmmakers to cut scenes are unacceptable and sometimes plain hilarious. “Phillauri” makers were asked to mute Hanuman Chalisa as it failed to shoo the ghosts off.

The argument that the supporters of censorship usually give is that it is only in a perfect world, where children wouldn’t be exposed to films inappropriate for their age, where every person recognizes the boundary between film and reality, would censorship not be necessary; but the fact is that we don’t live in a perfect world. Censorship, as they call it, is just the step to protect the vulnerable in the society.

The people against censorship, however, shrug this idea off, and do not hesitate to call censorship in India, an incentive for the people in power to stay in power.

In principle, government holds a responsibility to make the art accessible to whoever is interested. However, with a country as diverse as ours, both absolute freedom and strict censorship could be problematic. The heterogeneity of citizens suggests the varying needs, sensibilities, attitudes and therefore, one needs to strike a balance.

-Prepared by Samiksha Goel of NewsGram. Twitter: goel_samiksha

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2017 NewsGram

Next Story

Facebook Won’t Remove Content for Being False

"Even if it is a horrible assertion of falsity, whether it's about the Holocaust or any other world even, we don't remove content simply for being false," Bickert, Facebook's Head of Global Policy Management added.

0
Facebook
We disagree with Apple but Android use purely on merit: Facebook. Pixabay

Even as the world painfully takes notes of dangers of fake news spread on social media platforms, Facebook has said that it does not remove content simply for being false.

While the social network platform has in place rules against hate speech and takes personal attacks seriously, false content does not face censorship on its platform, Monika Bickert, Facebook’s Head of Global Policy Management said on Thursday while participating in “Hard Questions”, a series that explores the most challenging issues Facebook confronts.

“We don’t allow hate speech on Facebook because it creates an environment where people feel personally attacked, where they won’t feel comfortable coming and sharing themselves,” Bickert said.

“The one thing that we don’t remove is where someone simply asserts something false,” she said, adding that Facebook tries to counter the virality of such content or tries to promote or make visible other views.

We don't remove content for being false: Facebook
Rumours on social media have been linked to real world violence in several countries. Flickr Common

“Even if it is a horrible assertion of falsity, whether it’s about the Holocaust or any other world even, we don’t remove content simply for being false,” Bickert added.

The statement bears significance at a time when rumours on social media platforms have been linked to real world violence in several countries, including India.

Also Read: Facebook will not Remove Fake News- but will ‘Demote’ it

Facebook, Bickert said, also considers local regulations while blocking content on the platform.

“And we also block the speech where countries have told us, ‘this is illegal in our country’, then we will remove that speech in that country alone,” she said. (IANS)