A recent event surrounding the certification of a children’s film exposes the redundancies surrounding the process, presses for the need for change, and leads to several questions.
In January, the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) refused to give a ‘U’ certificate to a children’s film unless a dialogue was muted and a scene was deleted. The Children’s Film Society, India (CFS) agreed to the suggested changes, but in June the CBFC refused to give a ‘U’ certificate because the film showed violence and discrimination against a community. The board was ready to give it a ‘U/A’ certificate, but this would mean that children below the age of 12 must watch the film only with parental supervision. With a U/A certificate the film would cease to be a children’s film.
The CFS approached the court and on July 5 the Bombay High Court rebuked the CBFC for acting like “ostriches” and choosing to decide what others must see.
While the case will come up for hearing on August 5, it throws up pertinent questions: What is safe for children, and, who gets to decide that?
If a film which depicts violence in any form is deemed unfit for children, shouldn't there be an advisory against children reading newspapers! Or for that matter should children’s expose to news media be regulated? After all not a day goes by without newspapers reporting news about violence, caste discrimination, etc.
Traditional wisdom says that children, to become better and informed citizens, and, in some cases, to improve their grasp of the English language, should read newspapers. Educational institutions encourage students to read newspapers, some schools have newspaper reading sessions, quizzes are conducted on current affairs, etc. Children are exposed to newspapers at an early age.
If films are certified on the content they have and on the potential influence they can have on children, should a similar yardstick be used to measure the media, which reports on violence, such as rape, murder, arson, etc. on a daily basis? The answer is a no. A big, affirmative NO.
We live in a world where media penetration is at a superlative level and it is foolish to think in silos. For the CBFC to think that by ‘sterilising’ cinema it is doing children a great favour is silly. The 24X7 TV channels and the all-pervasive social media have made it virtually impossible to shut the world around us. The CBFC with its obdurate views are shutting its — and in this case children’s — eyes to the real world.
That’s why the high court’s views in the above mentioned case is pertinent. The two-judge bench observed that it was better to use films to explain issues such as racism, discrimination, child labour, and drug abuse. “How else does one show and explain these issues to a child? Is it not better to show such films to the child and explain that this is what happens and this is wrong.” It also said that organisations must stop thinking and deciding for the individual.
Rather than having a population that is oblivious to the world around them, isn’t it a better thing to sensitise and prepare them to face the real world? Whether or not the media changes its ways in information dissemination, the CBFC must.
For more Opinion pieces, click here.
Discover the latest Business News, Sensex, and Nifty updates. Obtain Personal Finance insights, tax queries, and expert opinions on Moneycontrol or download the Moneycontrol App to stay updated!
