Printer Friendly Version

Printer Friendly Version http://www.screenindia.com/print.php?content_id=5020

Friday, July 13, 2007

SEX AND TELEVISION

Feminists Engage with Censorship

“The powerful always seek to limit freedom by talking of the misuse of freedom, but freedom cannot be called freedom unless one has the right to misuse it... More than evil itself, I have learnt to fear the menace of good that comes in the form of improving others...” (Rabindranath Tagore from Jibansmriti, Rabindra Rachnabali, cited in Nandy 1994) “If you love freedom and like sex, censorship in bad news...” (Kathleen Peratis, women’s rights attorney, cited in Strossen 1995)

n 1993, the BJP and Shiv Sena launched an assault on Bombay cinema by disrupting films in mid-screenings; banning stars of Pakistani origin and boycotting ‘anti-national’ stars like Dilip Kumar and Shabana Azmi for attending Pakistan Day celebrations.8 The resultant ‘treaty’ between the BJP and the Film Makers Combine (FMC) recommended steps to curb the ‘deterioration of cinema culture’ by prohibiting ‘insult to the Hindu faith’; promotion of ‘anti-national elements’ or ‘body exposure’.9 The Hindu right was perhaps quicker to sense the subversive potential of popular cinema. MIDBANNER

The first major controversy around ‘obscenity’ was articulated through major representational shifts concerning women: the blurring of distinction between the ‘bad’ vamp (Westernized, sexy and promiscuous) and that of the ‘good’ heroine (chaste and virtuous). Like most non-conventional ‘disruptions’, it appeared first in the song and dance sequences and was celebrated unabashedly in ‘Choli ke Peechey Kya Hai...’? (What’s Behind the Blouse?) from the film Khalnayak (The Villain, 1993).

The ‘choli’ controversy debated whether or not the song was vulgar and obscene. The Hindu right attack against the song was led by the Shiv Sena in Bombay and the students wing of the BJP, Akhil Bhartiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) in Delhi. A petition was filed in the Delhi High Court asking for the deletion of the song from the film and a ban on audio cassettes sales. The petition allege that the song was ‘vulgar, against public morality and decency’. After

1 of 5 7/13/07 4:59 PM Printer Friendly Version http://www.screenindia.com/print.php?content_id=5020

dismissal of the case by the trial court, the petitioners went to the High Court with the appeal that, left unchallenged, the court’s decision would be an incentive to depicting increasing vulgarity on screen, which in turn, would lead to increasing sexual harassment. The High Court dismissed the petition in a 14-page order on the ground that (a) film viewing was a matter of choice with no coercion involved; (b) that it was ‘sheer imagination’ that the song would lead to eve-teasing, and (c) the alleged vulgarity was acceptable to society in keeping with ‘latest developments’ in the film world.

Khalnayak features two versions of the ‘choli’ song. The allegedly ‘indecent’ version is sung by two women (Ila Arun and Alka Yagnik) and performed by two women (Madhuri Dixit and Neena Gupta) who pretend to be prostitutes.10 The second version, with identical lyrics and music is sung and performed by men. This version culminates in the heroine being intimidated and physically assaulted by the male protagonist. Ironically, both the petition and the protesters chose to ignore this version. The anxiety regarding ‘increasing sexual harassment’ notwithstanding, the protesters demanded censorship of not the version that actually depicted violence against women but one that represented sexual agency on their part.

The ritual of outrage and anxiety around the ‘choli’ song was re-enacted around subsequent songs like ‘Sexy, Sexy, Sexy, Mujhe Log Bole...’ (People Say I am Sexy, Sexy, Sexy) from Khuddar (Self-respecting Person, 1993), ‘Meri Pant Bhi Sexy...’ (My Pant is Sexy) from Dulaara (The Loved One, 1993); ‘Sarkayleo Khatiya Jara Lage...’ (Bring Your Cot Closer, I am feeling Cold) from Raja Babu (His Lordship, 1993) and similar songs with double-entenders. The word ‘sexy’ placed both the songs from Khuddar and Dulaara in trouble. The CBFC asked the director of Dulaara to replace the word ‘sexy’ with ‘fancy’. Despite AIR’s ban, the song topped all popularity charts. ‘Sexy, Sexy, Sexy, Mujhe Log Bole...’ ended up being re-recorded as ‘Baby, Baby, Baby’ even though all private television channels continued to broadcast the ‘sexy’ version.

Organisations that protested against ‘obscenity and vulgarity’ in film songs included the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), the Centre for Media Studies, the National Commission for Women (NCW), the Parliamentary Standing Committee and the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). Anurag Chaturvedi of the Marathi paper Mahanagar and member of the examining committee constituted to look into these songs told the press that ‘unless this trend is checked more songs will be written in the language of the Kamasutra. Eve-teasers will be singing them on the streets and there will be no one to stop them.11 Justice Ranganath Mishra, Chief Commissioner for the NHRC called film songs ‘the worst violators of human rights’.

This outrage and panic around ‘obscenity’ received an impetus with the release of the Media Advocacy Group (MAG) report titled People’s Perceptions: Obscenity and

2 of 5 7/13/07 4:59 PM Printer Friendly Version http://www.screenindia.com/print.php?content_id=5020

Violence on the Small Screen (1994).12 Targeting films songs as the ‘worst offenders,’ the report claimed that parents are ‘angry and disgusted’ at the rising levels of obscenity in the media and are unable to control the viewing habits of their children. It identifies the ‘low-income group male’ as the most vulnerable to ‘negative effects’ and assumes that media ‘impacts’ directly on the audience.13 Assuming the classic ‘culinary fallacy’ - that people consume wholly and uncritically whatever appears on TV - the report constructs the viewer as a vulnerable and passive non-agent.

The reportage of this report in newspapers generated more anxiety by carrying the ‘image blaming’ process a step further by concluding that ‘obscene and vulgar’ film songs ‘increased eve-teasing and harassment’ (Rai 1994; Ninan 1994; Kazmi 1994). That ‘there seemed to be a great fear that young women might start imitating the clothes and morals depicted on the screen’.14

Pressured by these groups and following a furore in Parliament, the Information and Broadcasting (I&B) Ministry recommended revision of the CBFC guidelines in order to curb ‘obscenity and vulgarity’. The consequent ‘revision’ added to the already existing list of ‘objectionable visuals’ under categories titled Violence and Vulgarity that merits being quoted in its entirety.

1. Selectively exposing women’s anatomy (e.g., breasts, cleavage, thighs, navel) in song and dance numbers, through suggestive and flimsy dresses, movements, zooming particularly in close-shots [sic]. 2. Double meaning dialogues referring to women’s anatomy (e.g., breasts or apples or some other fruits).3. Stimulation [sic] of sexual movements (e.g., swinging of car, cot).4. Man and Woman in close proximity to each other or one over the other and in close proximity and making below-the-waist jerks suggesting copulation.

5. Pelvic jerks, breast swinging, hip jerks, man and woman mounting on each other, rolling together, rubbing women’s body from breasts to thighs, hitting/rubbing man with breasts, sitting on each others thighs and waist with entwined legs, lifting and peeping inside a woman’s skirt [sic] squeezing woman’s navel and waist.6. Vulgar kissing on breasts, navel, buttocks upper part of thighs.7. Coins, etc. being put inside blouse and other types of eve-teasing as there is invasion of privacy of women’s body.8. Disrobing women.

The Spiral of Moral PanicsThe hosting of numerous post-choli seminars, meetings and revised CBFC guidelines notwithstanding, the anxieties around satellite broadcasting were not allayed. From 1992 onward moral panics recurred regularly.

In 1994, a controversy around obscenity broke out over advocate-cum-model Anjali Kapur who had posed in the nude for Fantasy magazine. This controversy placed ‘pornography’ under scrutiny. Later that year, the CBFC stopped Shekhar Kapur’s Bandit Queen for its depiction of ‘sex and violence’ and recommended 10 major cuts and some general ones. Phoolan Devi herself filed a petition in the Delhi High Court demanding the film be banned as it had allegedly violated her sexual privacy.

1994 also saw the launch of Shiv Sena’s ‘clean-up culture’ drive in Maharashtra. In order to ‘repel the attack on [Indian] culture by sexual permissiveness’, Pramod Navalkar, the then Shiv Sena Minister for Cultural Affairs, promised to remove sex and vulgarity from advertisements and street hoardings.15 This campaign also saw the indiscriminate confiscation of books, magazines and films that contained sexually explicit material.

The year 1996 saw a rapid succession of moral panics. In January, a controversy broke out around the Tuff shoes advertisement that showed a nude couple (models Madhu Sapre and Milind Soman) locked in embrace with snake wrapped around their necks. In April 1996, another controversy took place over Mahesh Bhatt’s statement

3 of 5 7/13/07 4:59 PM Printer Friendly Version http://www.screenindia.com/print.php?content_id=5020

that those who wished to watch pornography had a right to do so. This provoked social and women’s organisations to demand his removal from the governing council of the Film and Television Institute in Poona. In a memorandum to the Minister of I&B, prominent members of the women’s movement demanded Bhatt’s removal on the grounds that no citizen, particularly someone in an official capacity, can claim the right to watch pornography.16 Affirming the ‘proven nexus’ between ‘violence, pornography and prostitution’ and concluding that pornography ‘debased and commodified’ the human body, it argued that while the constitutional provision of free speech and expression were important, imposing ‘reasonable restrictions’ were imperative to prevent practices that were ‘derogatory to the dignity of women’.17 The memorandum also demanded ‘a code of decency aimed at checking vulgarity in the electronic media.’ Meanwhile, Global Internet Ltd, a Chandigarh-based company proposed the launching of an adult channel called Plus 21. The mere announcement of the proposed launch provoked immediate censure and legal action. Responding to a petition filed by the National Commission for Women (NCW), the Delhi High Court asked Global Internet to submit a list of its subscribers. Indira Jaisingh arguing for the NCW expressed fear that the programmes would be ‘obscene and indecent’.18

Subsequently, metropolitan magistrate Prem Kumar asked Doordarshan to stop screening all films,TV serials and advertisements that did not have a Censor certificate. The ‘directions for compliance’ had been issued because ‘threats to the ageless Indian culture and ethos are no less serious than threats to its political sovereignty and independence’ (The Pioneer, 4 July 1996). The order was in response to a petition filed by an inmate of Tihar jail concerned about a mosquito repellent and that had used the national anthem. The petitioner had also complained about the screening of adult movies and serials showing adulterous themes and crimes. Mr Kumar’s ‘directions’ authorised the police to enter any place of screening and exhibition in order to seize ‘objectionable material’. A subsequent High Court decision stayed Mr Kumar’s orders (The Times of India, 31 July 1996).

In 1996, the BJP came to power for 13 days with Sushma Swaraj as Minister of I&B. Within this brief span, she criticised women newscasters in Doordarshan for wearing ‘semi-transparent’ clothes and passed an in-house order banning an advertisement for a music system where the woman’s skirt lifts momentarily with the music.19 Mrs Swaraj also banned a sex education radio broadcast, believing that such programmes promote ‘adultery’.

In January 1997, the debate surrounding nudity and obscenity reappeared with the Bajrang Dal’s (youth wing of the VHP) attack on an exhibition of the artist M.F. Hussain for having painted goddess Saraswati in the ‘nude’.20 While the attack was an overtly communal one, it was articulated through notions of decency and indecency. In 1998, a similar outrage was articulated around the Delhi Tourism Department’s decision to include a photograph of the dancing figure of the archaeological site of Mohenjodaro, a common image in elementary history books.21

The moral panic also spilled over onto newer communication technologies. In May 1997, the cover of Stardust carried a ‘morphed’ photo of Pooja Bhatt with the banner: ‘Scoop of the Month: Actresses caught NUDE in the net.’ The picture, supposedly downloaded from the internet, is an excellent illustration of the subjectivity governing notions of nudity and obscenity, as the ‘nude’ actress, Pooja Bhatt, is actually wearing a bikini.22

—Shohini Ghosh

4 of 5 7/13/07 4:59 PM Printer Friendly Version http://www.screenindia.com/print.php?content_id=5020

URL: http://www.screenindia.com/fullstory.php?content_id=5020

Print this Story

Ads By Google Make Money On Forex Without Actually Trading On Forex We Provide Step by Step Instruction forexanswers.blogspot.com Dating Online - Start Now Find the Dating Website for you Online Dating - start dating today! www.click-about.com/online_dating New York City Rentals Find New York Apartments for Rent For Rent by Realtor and Rental Co. www.nyquickrent.com

Expressindia | The Indian Express | The Financial Express | Screen | Kashmir Live

5 of 5 7/13/07 4:59 PM