National Film Award-winners protest to the President of India

Last month, award-winning film-makers Rakesh Sharma, Gaurav Jani and Praveen Kumar  registered their protest with the President of India during the National Film Awards ceremony held in Delhi on September 14, 2007 against the growing harassment of documentary film-makers by the police and officials by the CBFC (Central Board for Film Certification).

Rakesh Sharma, recipient of the Special Jury award for his internationally-acclaimed film, Final Solution, found it ironic that the President of India was recognising the technical and artistic merit of his film by giving it an award, while the Government's own Censor Board saw it fit to 'ban' the film. “I certainly hope the President will turn her attention to the antiquated censor laws and order a thorough review. Stifling art and expression through censorship, whether legal or extralegal (by politically partisan groups) is a blot on our Democracy" he said.

Praveen Kumar, winner of two National awards for his film Naina Jogin added that  "the hallmark of a mature and robust democracy is freedom of thought and expression. It is sad that film-makers are now facing a growing intolerance, both by government officials and extralegal censors." Gaurav Jani, winner of the Best Film award for his documentary Riding Solo to the Top of the World expressed hope that “the Government would at least now invite us and other film-makers for a dialogue."

Read the full text of the petition below and express your view :

TEXT OF THE PETITION HANDED OVER TO THE PRESIDENT OF INDIA

The Hon'ble President of India
New Delhi
Sub: Censorship and documentary films
Dear Madam President,
We, the undersigned, write to you in anguish, deeply perturbed by the censorship regime that has become a serious concern, specially to the documentary film-making community in India.
While we are honoured to recieve from you a National Award for excellence in cinema, we would like to bring to your attention the following:

1. Several of the National award-winning documentaries including Riding Solo to the top of the world by Gaurav Jani (Best Film), Final Solution by Rakesh Sharma (Special Jury Award) and Naina Jogin by Praveen Kumar (Best Film, Art & Culture and Best Editing) could not have received these awards from you were it not for a lawsuit filed by documentary filmmakers, as all documentaries using the video format were being prevented from even competing for the National Film Awards! Please see the accompanying note about the High Court writ petitions that allowed these films to be considered by the Jury.

2. Final Solution by Rakesh Sharma is a perfect illustration of why there should be no censorship for documentaries. The President of India is now recognizing a film for its merit and excellence, which was initially 'banned' by the Censor Board (or CBFC) and finally granted a certificate for public exhibition, without a single cut, following widespread protests by various sections of civil society.
As per the National Film Awards Jury's citation, the film has been given the award " for its powerful, hard-hitting documentation with a brutally honest approach lending incisive insights into the Godhra incident, its aftermath and the abetment of large scale violence ".

Curiously, in sharp contrast to the National Film Award Jury, the CBFC (censor board), while 'banning' the same film in 2004 had observed that the film " promotes communal disharmony among Hindu and Muslim groups and presents the picture of Gujarat riots in a way that it may arouse communal feelings and clashes among Hindu Muslim groups ...(The film) attacks the
basic concept of our Republic i.e. National Integrity and Unity. Certain dialogues involve defamation of individuals or body of individuals. Entire picturisation is highly provocative and may trigger off unrest and communal violence. State security is jeopardized and public order is endangered if this film is shown.... "

Prior to this, the film-maker was endlessly harassed by the Censor Board officials of the day. The harassment included malafide delays in slotting the film for a censor panel preview, a clear violation of the Cinematograph Act itself. The CBFC also sent him frivolous notices about Customs and FERA violations in connection with international film festival screenings, matters clearly outside the CBFC's jurisdiction! Formal complaints about this harassment were filed with both CBFC and the Ministry of I & B at the time.

Such harassment is not an aberration or an exception. Politically partisan censor panel members and officials have harassed documentary film-makers in the recent past, especially if their films dealt with politics of hate, communalism/ fundamentalism, gender or even the environment. A case in point is Anand Patwardhan, who has filed and won several lawsuits against the Censors before going on to win National awards.

3. Of equally serious concern is the disruption of even trade screenings and film appreciation sessions by the police. Curiously, narrative feature film-makers routinely organize "trial" shows before even applying for a censor certificate, recognized as an industry practice by the concerned authorities. Documentary film-makers, on the other hand, are prevented from following the same practice - in some cases, the police have even siezed the film, summoned the film-maker and threatened to file charges! In the last couple of years alone, police have tried to stop screenings at JNU (Delhi), Prithvi Theatre (Mumbai), Bhupesh Gupta Bhavan (Mumbai), Freedom Film Festival (Bangalore) and at many venues in other cities and small towns.

4. The Government of India is committed to the Freedom of speech and expression, as envisioned in Article 19 i (a) of the Indian Constitution. It is ironic that documentary film-makers are needlessly harassed at each stage - during filming, certification by CBFC and screenings. Documentaries do not just inform and educate but foster a climate for informed discourse. We feel that any curbs on documentaries are a direct interference with the public's Right to Information, again a stated policy the Government of India is committed to.
We would like to request you to
1. Consider a comprehensive review of the Cinematograph Act (1952) as many of us feel that several provisions of the Act are anachronistic and outmoded.
2. Consider accreditation for documentary film-makers with the Press Information Bureau, along the same lines as for TV journalists.
3. Either remove the certification requirement from documentaries altogether, or, direct the CBFC to evolve a distinct and separate code for documentaries, as opposed to the certification of narrative feature films.
We suggest that the CBFC be directed to assign ratings only ( A, UA, U etc) to documentaries, without maiming or mutilating any documentary by ordering cuts and bans.
4. De-criminalize the act of screening documentary films. Direct the Ministry to let documentary film-makers, film societies, educational and research institutions and NGOs/ activist groups screen documentary films, without being forced to seek specific exemptions under section 19 of the Cinematograph Act for each screening, a cumbersome and time consuming procedure.
We appeal to the government and to all opinion makers to rethink the entire censorship regime and to usher in a more transparent and liberal practice that does not stifle art and expression. This is a pre-requisite if we are to rise to the level of a mature democracy. We look forward to an early response.
Yours sincerely

Gaurav Jani (Tel: 09833013039)
Praveen Kumar (Tel: 09869975222)
Rakesh Sharma (Tel: 098203 43103)

* National Film Awards: A brief on the court cases

1. How Final Solution was able to compete for the awards:
During the previous year, Rakesh Sharma had filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court upon being prevented from entering his film for the 52 nd National Film Awards (NFA). The authorities contended that the film was certified by CBFC after the eligibility period and hence was ineligible. The film-maker argued that the CBFC itself deliberately delayed the
certification process and the film-maker should not be penalized for the CBFC's malafide actions. He also challenged the exclusive use of the censor certificate to determine the date of production and hence, the eligibility of the film.

Alternative proof to determine whether the film had been produced during the eligibility period was offered in the shape of nearly a dozen international awards won by the film. The Directorate of Film Festivals (DFF), however, continued to insist that the film was not produced during the year it won these awards, but the year later, as per the CBFC certificate's date! Finally, the writ petition was withdrawn as the Jury screenings nearly
finished even as the writ petition was being heard, but after the Ministry assured the Hon'ble Court that the film would definitely be allowed to compete during the 52 nd National Film Awards.

However, when the notification for the 53rd NFA was published, Final Solution wasn't eligible as the officials suddenly changed the eligibility criteria and prevented any videofilms from competing for the awards. Rakesh Sharma nonetheless sent his film, directing the authorities' attention to the assurance given to the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.

2. How Naina Jogin and Riding Solo were able to compete for the awards:
In the notification for the current 53rd National Film Award guidelines, the video format was suddenly and unilaterally excluded from eligibility, without any consultation with the documentary film-making community. Film-makers Gaurav Jani, Anand Patwardhan and Simantini Dhuru filed a writ petition in the Mumbai High Court challenging this clause. The DFF amended the rules soon after and published a fresh notification, inviting entries on the video format.

The writ petition also challenged the mandatory requirement of censorship prior to consideration by the NFA Jury. The Mumbai High Court ruled in favour of the film-makers, before the NFA jury previews commenced. However while the NFA rules were amended to allow the video format, the Directorate of Film Festivals (DFF) defied the High Court's ruling that censor certificates were no longer required for NFA eligibility. The DFF instead sought a remedy by appealing in the Supreme Court, thereby delaying the announcement of the national awards. Finally the Supreme Court ruled on a technicality that while it would not object to the government withdrawing the censorship clause, the court did not see it fit to order the government to do so. A review petition has been filed in this matter which is yet to come up for a hearing.