Famous filmmaker Khwaja Ahmed Abbas completed a story of four cities in 1968. This was the story of watering and heartbreaking on the expectations of the youth of the country. But he was refused to give a U (General) certificate by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). The reason, it showed poverty, social disturbance and sexual violence. It was the reality of that even today, which is still to fight the youth, but it was considered ‘immature’ to show it on the screen. Abbas went to court and won. This revealed the cracks of deep contradiction that youth based on youth are rarely considered suitable for youth, unless they have metaphors like Raja son and red fairy.
But even after more than half a century, this contradiction remains the same. Rather the cracks are wide. The CBFC scissors their scissors on the story of the children (both girls and middle -ageds) or Bhonsle (2018) discovering their wishes in Lipstick Under My Burka (2016). Usually used tools of age classification on such films. Now CBFC has launched new categories of age classification in its film certification. The question is whether it is welcome or will it become a tool to impose more restrictions?
Initially CBFC had a comprehensive classification of U (general or unrestricted), UA (parents below 12 years of age) and A (just adults). Now the new system will divide the UA category into three different age classes: UA 7+, UA 13+ and UA 16+. According to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, this arrangement will play an important role in the balance of “freedom of expression and the principles of consumer’s choice with children with raw-minded audiences like children.
Chhal: Leonard Whiting and Olivia Hussey in Jeferrali’s 1968 Romeo Juliet
In the upper side, it may seem to be a change that coincides with global standards. After all, similar age classifications exist in Britain (BBFC) and the US (MPAA). However, in our country, the Nizam of various types of censorship is ready every moment to strangle the creativity. The so -called moral and identity politics stands with serious hands. Therefore, there is a concern that these changes will not be the reason for tightening restrictions instead of ease.
Film certification arrangements around the world have been making a long -standing contradiction. Its example is Franko Jeffly’s adaptation of Romeo and Juliet in 1968. Its main role was Leonard Whiting and Olivia Hussey. According to the BBC, he was 16 and 15 years old at the time of film production. The film had nude scenes of Hussey and Whiting, which were legally very young before the film was legally released.
Decades later in 2023, Hussey and Whiting sued Jeferrali that he was shot naked as a lie. Both said that before filming the scene, they were assured that they would be dressed in skin colored clothes and would be seated in such a way that nudity is not there. However, on the day of shooting, he was asked only for body makeup and the film featured brief views with whiting buttocks and Hussey breasts. After a change in California law, the matter proceeded after a temporary ban on legal boundaries on child sexual abuse claims.
The case is an example of rating system, which is based on a response in exchange for prevention. Now let’s come to our country, where film certification often dominates sensorship and so -called moral watch. CBFC has been treated more like a long -term certification institution, more like censorship watchdog. Films like Lipstick Under My Burka, Udta Punjab (2016), Haider (2014), and Sister Midnight (2024) and Santosh (2024) have suffered absurd cuts, restrictions or conditional approval. The fact is that all these films have a lot of artistic ability and people’s interesting is also very well, but this probably has nothing to do with CBFC.
In principle, age classifications such as the UA7, UA13 and UA 16 can help serve materials for different viewing classes. For example, the subject of adolescent children, a light abusive film UA 13 can sit better, instead of arbitrarily pushed into restrictive UA or A slot. These nuances can be theoretically made a way for filmmakers to avoid ‘A’ ratings. But this requires effective arrangements. If you look at the behavioral form, there is no such system in India. Most theaters do not check age etc., and the OTT platforms hardly stop, while it is necessary to law to tell the audience. Where ‘A’ films can watch minors on one click, how will the UA 13 rating apply?
Then, will CBFC continue to implement this new age classification or will the old, opaque patterns continue? It is not difficult to know that films criticizing the government or government party will get strict ratings, not because of its content, but because of politics.
Extreme classification also has its own risks. Through more categories, CBFCs may get an excuse for so -called vigilance or bias and can put films in unnecessary strict age classes. This can make a huge difference on box office earnings and OTT deals. Making more courageous or fine texture films can cause beds in front of filmmakers, especially small or independent creators. Filmmakers already have to keep their mouth shut in the constantly changing and expanded scope of censorship in the country. Time will tell whether this new classification will be really helpful or more obstacles are going to be added to it without transparency or accountability. Because there is already an atmosphere of many types of restrictions in the country. In such a situation, this matter should not go into the court of more red tape due to these restrictions of other forms. There are many questions, which need to be answered.
(Writer film, TV and culture critic. Sexual, political and in favor of power in media)
