|

March 06, 2017

India: Central Board of Film Certification under Nihalani and his victorian moral brigade should check out Hindu mythology says Pavan Varma

The Times of India

Moral of a lady oriented film: CBFC under Nihalani has become Victorian, he should read some Hindu mythology

March 4, 2017  in TOI Edit Page 
 
English is not the first language for a great many Indians, but even so, the choice of words used by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to deny certification to Prakash Jha’s film Lipstick Under My Burkha is quite bizarre. The Board says that what is objectionable is that it is a “lady oriented film”, focussing on their “fantasy above life”. It is far from clear why a film that is “lady oriented” is bad, or why women’s fantasies can only have a certain altitude.
Pahlaj Nihalani is also against the “sexual scenes”, “audio pornography” and “abusive words” in the film. Since countless films have all of these three elements, are we to understand that these become unacceptable only if a film is “lady oriented” with “fantasy above life”?

Since Nihalani and his moral brigade have a problem with a “lady oriented film”, perhaps it may be instructive for them to learn about what, according to Hindu mythology, Parvati said to Siva after he had burnt the god of love, Kama, for disrupting his meditation.
Ask for a boon, Siva told Parvati, and the goddess replied: “Now that Kama has been burnt, what can I do with a boon from you today? For, without Kama there can be – between man and woman – no emotion, which is like ten million suns. When emotion is destroyed, how can happiness be attained?” Revive Kama Parvati said, for without him she did not wish to request anything at all. And so, Kama was reborn, this time, according to the Bhagwata Purana, as Pradhyumna, the son of Krishna and Rukmini.
No doubt the revival of Kama was a “lady oriented” request. In the Saura Purana, Kama declares that, “There is no hero, no proud woman, no learned man too powerful for me. I pervade the whole universe, moving and still, beginning with Brahma the Creator.” But apparently, Nihalani feels that however powerful Kama may be, he should not affect women.
Perhaps then he should read how evocatively a sacrificial fire is described in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad: “Woman is fire, Gautama: the phallus is her fuel; the hairs are her smoke; the vulva is her flame; when a man penetrates her, that is her coal; the ecstasy is her sparks.”
Our sages knew how to put sensuality in the right perspective. I don’t know if the venerable members of CBFC have read the Kamasutra (and not merely seen the illustrations). In the very first chapter of the manual, sage Vatsyayana is asked by an imaginary interlocutor on the need of such a book. And, Vatsyayana says that there are four purusharthas or goals in this world: dharma, artha, kama and moksha.
Each of the first three, pursued in the right proportion, and not in exclusion, as part of a balanced life, lead automatically to the last, moksha. Hence there is philosophical validity for desire, and if so, it is not enough just to be a lover, one must, especially for the sake of women, strive to be an accomplished one.
The gopis who frolicked with Krishna in Vrindavana were not concerned about whether the blue god was encouraging “lady oriented” things. They were assertive and uninhibited in their desire, and this is chronicled in explicit detail in the Harivamsha, the Vishnu Purana, and the Bhagwata Purana.
Jayadeva in his immortal Gita Govinda, writes gloriously on the love play between Krishna and Radha, not caring if any censors considered such fantasies to be “above life”. If Krishna was Sringaramurtimam, the epitome of the sensual mood, Radha was Raseshwari, his full-blooded counterpart. In medieval times, Bihari, Chandidasa and Vidyapati wrote love poetry that would have left Lady Chatterley’s Lover asleep at the post.
So why is CBFC so prudish? All of this sensuality was out there in the public realm. I would urge Nihalani saheb to see the Basohli and Kangra paintings of the 18th century or the palm leaf drawings on erotica in Odisha. A visit to Khajuraho and Konarak, where ladies are equal participants in all kinds of “fantasy above life”, is also highly advised. Perhaps, he may also find Kalidasa’s graphic erotic descriptions of interest.
It was our colonial masters who considered Indians to be “disgusting” and “immoral” and full of “horrible beliefs and customs and un-mentionable thoughts”. Ironically, CBFC, that Nihalani arrogantly says “is accountable for preserving the culture and tradition of India”, has become the mouthpiece of Victorian morality, equating sex with sin and desire with guilt.
Frankly, in a changing India, where, especially among the young cutting across religious divides, inhibitions are breaking, cyber space is ubiquitous, women are more self-confidently aware of their sexuality, and fossilised citadels of patriarchy need to be broken, one wonders which world the CBFC is living in. Its own guidelines explicitly state that creative freedom should not be unduly curbed.
But, Nihalani thinks his outdated job is that of a moral policeman. The result is that in a country where the vast majority venerates Shakti as the supreme female power, a film that has won accolades across the world is being denied certification because it is “lady oriented”.