Noted filmmaker Khawaja Ahmed Abbas completed a documentary Chaar Sheher Ek Kahaani in 1968. This was a story of dashed hopes and heartbreak of the youth of the country. But it was refused a U (General) certificate by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). The reason being, it depicted poverty, social unrest and sexual violence. This was the reality then and is still there today, which the youth have to grapple with, but it was considered ‘immature’ to show it on screen. Abbas went to court and won. This opened up the cracks of the deep paradox that youth-oriented films are rarely considered suitable for youth unless they contain allegories like Raja Beta and Lal Pari.
But even after more than half a century has passed, this contradiction remains the same. Rather, the cracks have only widened. CBFC quickly used its scissors on the story of women (both girls and middle-aged) searching for their desires in Lipstick Under My Burkha (2016) or the story of a child victim of caste violence in Bhonsle (2018). Generally age classification tool is used on such films. Now CBFC has introduced new categories of age classification in its film certification. The question is whether this is welcome or will it become a tool to impose more restrictions?
Initially the CBFC had broad classifications of U (general or unrestricted), UA (parental guidance for children under 12) and A (adults only). Now the new arrangement will divide the UA category into three different age groups: UA 7+, UA 13+ and UA 16+. According to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, this arrangement will “play an important role in balancing the principles of freedom of expression and consumer choice with the need to protect vulnerable audiences such as children.”
Deceit: Leonard Whiting and Olivia Hussey in Jefferley’s 1968 Romeo and Juliet
On the surface, this may seem like a change that is in line with global standards. After all, similar age classifications exist in the UK (BBFC) and the US (MPAA). However, in our country, the system of various types of censorship is ready at every moment to strangle creativity. The guards of the so-called moral and identity politics stand with bayonets in their hands. Therefore, there is concern that these changes might become a reason for tightening restrictions instead of easing them.
Film certification systems around the world have long been contradictory. An example of this is Franco Zaffarelli’s 1968 adaptation of Romeo and Juliet. It starred Leonard Whiting and Olivia Hussey. According to BBC, their ages were 16 and 15 at the time of the film’s production. The film contained nude scenes with Hussey and Whiting, who were too young at the time for the film to be legally released.
Decades later in 2023, Hussey and Whiting sued Jefferley for lying to them about filming the nude scenes. Both of them said that before filming the scene, they were assured that they would be dressed in skin-coloured clothes and would be seated in such a way that nudity would not appear. However, on the day of shooting they were only asked to wear body makeup and brief scenes featuring Whiting’s buttocks and Hussey’s breasts were shown in the film. The case proceeded after a change in California law placed a temporary halt to the statute of limitations on child sexual abuse claims.
This case is an example of the inadequacy of the rating system, which is based on reaction rather than prevention. Now come to our country, where film certification is often dominated by censorship and so-called moral policing. The CBFC has for long behaved less like a certification body and more like a censorship watchdog. Films like Lipstick Under My Burkha, Udta Punjab (2016), Haider (2014), and most recently Sister Midnight (2024) and Santosh (2024) have faced absurd cuts, bans or conditional clearances. The fact is that all these films have great artistic merit and are of great public interest, but this probably has nothing to do with the CBFC.
In theory, age classifications such as UA7, UA13 and UA16 could help serve content to different audiences. For example, a film with mildly abusive themes for teen-agers may fit better in UA 13, rather than being arbitrarily pushed into the restrictive UA or A slots. These nuances could theoretically allow filmmakers to avoid an ‘A’ rating. But for this an effective system is required. If seen practically, there is no such system in India. Most theaters do not check age etc., and OTT platforms rarely impose strict restrictions even though they are required by law to disclose age to audiences. How will the UA 13 rating apply where ‘A’ movies can be watched by minors with a single click?
Then, will the CBFC consistently enforce this new age classification or will the old, opaque patterns continue? It is not difficult to know that films criticizing the government or the government party will receive strict ratings, not because of their content, but because of the politics.
Over-classification also has its risks. More categories could give the CBFC an excuse to exercise so-called caution or bias and put films in unnecessarily strict age categories. This can make a huge difference to box office earnings and OTT deals. Making films that are more daring or nuanced than this can put filmmakers in trouble, especially small or independent creators. Filmmakers already have to navigate the ever-changing and expanding scope of censorship in the country. Only time will tell whether this new classification will actually be helpful or is it just going to add more hurdles without transparency or accountability. Because there is already an environment of many types of restrictions in the country. In such a situation, this matter may not get further trapped in red tape due to these other types of restrictions. There are many questions which need to be answered.
(The writer is a film, TV and culture critic. Monitors gender, political and power biases in the media)
