A broad-based body consisting of persons of distinction in the arts should be formed to advise television programme producers to present a fare that does not harm young minds.
FROM time to time there have been demands that some form of censorship be imposed on the proliferating television channels that show what are generally called `entertainment' programmes - serials, music videos, films and other programmes such as those which are called reality shows. Recently this has again been announced by authorities in the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, including the Chairman of the Central Board of Film Certification, Anupam Kher. There has even been an indication that the Cable Television Networks Act will be used to prohibit cable networks from carrying programmes that are considered objectionable.
The reason why this comes up again and again is obvious. Television is now a part of the consciousness of millions of households throughout the country, particularly the young, who spend hours watching a variety of programmes. It is impossible for parents to keep monitoring what they watch, and even if they do, how would they ensure that their proscriptions are being followed? And all the while the numerous television channels are showing films, serials and other programmes some of which contain sequences or events or shots that would be considered offensive or unacceptable by many.
Yet the problems that face any attempt to censor television programmes are numerous and formidable. For one thing, it becomes controversial if censorship is aimed at adult viewers. The assumption behind any attempt to do that is that adults need to be protected from violent, or sexually explicit scenes because if they are not, they may go berserk and indulge in looting, murder and rape. This assumption angers, and with reason, a large number of people. Who, they argue, are these arbiters of good taste? Who are these people who have a greater sensitivity and creative perception than other people, who have the wisdom and insight to decide what people should or should not see? `Social workers', who sometimes have an IQ of 40 or thereabouts and are on the panel of censors only because of their political connections? Political workers, many of whom have criminal cases ranging from murder to rape to fraud against them?
This is not an easy argument to counter. The lists of those on the panel of censors in each regional office of the Central Board of Film Certification will not stand up to scrutiny of the most cursory kind, though among the names one may come across one or two who are rational and sensible; but nonetheless, not people whose views filmmakers and producers of serials and entertainment shows will necessarily accept without question.
But let us look first at the situation as it is. There are few programmes that can be said to contain gratuitous violence or explicit sex; some English films shown on certain channels may have some sequences that Indian films would not usually have, but even they are careful about such matters - for example the f... . words are bleeped out in all films, and violent sequences cut down. Indian serials have little by way of violence and steamy sex; there may be relationships that may be considered socially unusual, to put it mildly, but that is about all one gets. There is far more violence in cartoons; just watch what happens to Tom in a Tom and Jerry cartoon and you will see violence on a scale you cannot even imagine. He is run over by a steamroller, put in a washing machine, and, in one memorable sequence, is grinning with satisfaction when a golf ball smashes through his teeth as if they were made of glass.
So there is some kind of self-censorship; one may not be very happy with it but it is there. The question is, since it is there, must we have any other kind of censorship, by a public body, which will determine the content of programmes? The answer to this is that we should. There is no point in saying that no one can sit in judgment on a creative filmmaker or a producer of a serial. Most filmmakers do need someone to sit in judgment over what they make, because they make these programmes for money and put in not gratuitous violence but enough violence and sexually suggestive shots to make their products saleable. And this becomes all the more urgent when it comes to television, to which the young are addicted more than one imagines.
One may not call it censorship, because the word tends to be associated with the censoring of ideas and information. But whatever one calls it, the fact is it is unavoidable and necessary. The Report on Culture and Development submitted to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) says, in part, "All countries and cultures have struggled to define the line where freedom ends and licence begins. Standards of decency, respect for others and self-restraint vary from one country to another, and from one period to another. While all forms of censorship must be avoided, nowhere is freedom unqualified and allowed to operate regardless of the consequences." (Emphasis added.)
There needs to be a broad-based public body filled with enlightened persons who have distinguished themselves in the arts, appointed by a transparent procedure, which looks at television programming and advises producers and scriptwriters on what they consider would have harmful effects on the young. I am emphasising this aspect because I believe that the body must address itself to what will be harmful to the young and not to what adults should or should not see. The line between the two is thin; you cannot guarantee a child will not watch what is meant for an adult. But the main concern must remain the young.
Will such a body become a strait-laced bunch of narrow-minded moralists? Perhaps. That is a risk that we always run. We run the risk of getting incapable people in high offices whenever these offices are filled, whether they are judges or vigilance commissioners or chiefs of police. That, by itself, cannot vitiate the institution itself. The institution is something that can be criticised, and made to respond to criticism. But it needs to exist, and the burgeoning television entertainment industry must learn to grow within the parameters laid down by such an institution.
At the same time, the government would do well to look at the existing institution it has for films. This institution, the CBFC, needs to have on its panels truly distinguished people. Its procedures must be overhauled, the panels must engage in close discussions with filmmakers so that they understand one another. And it would be best if this were done initially before the film is made, not after the filmmaker has spent money on the sequence the CBFC then thinks must be taken out. Only if the filmmakers and the CBFC panel members fully understand one another will the recurring bitterness between the two end.
And it must not be saddled with the scrutiny of television programmes. Whatever the nature of the body that is set up for television programming, it must be quite separate from the CBFC. There are a number of issues involved that require this; many programmes are, for example, broadcast from foreign countries, uplinked from there and received in India from a satellite 35,000 kilometres out in space. Are those programmes subject to Indian regulation? Why should they not be, if they use Indian cable networks? But then what about programmes that come in free-to-air or through DTH satellites? These issues make it necessary to consider the composition of the programme regulating body carefully, and also the manner in which it will work. But the body must be set up, and soon; there is a great deal at stake, and if we do not address the problem now, later regrets will be of little use.
