In the controversy about the delay in the release of MSG: The Messenger of God, much of the media’s focus has been on the fact that the film was cleared by the Film Certificate Appellate Tribunal within a few days of it being denied a certificate by a review committee of the Central Board of Film Certification.
This seems to be a classic case of missing the wood for the trees. If anything, the appellate tribunal’s decision to clear MSG, apart from being a shot in the arm for Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh Ji Insan , is a victory for free speech in India.
Public order
The Cinematograph Act, 1952, states that a film shall not be certified for public exhibition if in the view of the competent authority, the film or any part of it is against the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or involves defamation or contempt of court or is likely to incite the commission of any offence.
If one were to go by media reports and statements made by certain members, it would appear that the CBFC decided against granting the film a certificate on grounds of public order, decency and morality.
However, the Ministry of Home Affairs was geared up to deal with trouble, since Ram Rahim has a long history of political and theological battles with Sikhs. The home ministry issued an advisory to state governments to be prepared as “various Sikh organisations and individuals are opposing the movie on the ground that its release would disturb the communal harmony and law and order”. Even though the state of Punjab eventually decided to ban the film, the Central government chose not to abdicate its responsibility to maintain law and order. The Minister for Information and Broadcasting Arun Jaitley has gone on record to state that the government will not interfere in the decision of the appellate tribunal.
Decency and morals
It would appear that the CBFC’s real gripe with MSG is on grounds of decency and morals. One member of the CBFC said that MSG had been denied a certificate because it looked like a lengthy advertisement for the godman rather than a feature film. The CBFC also felt the film glorified Rahim as a “messenger of God”, and a miracle worker who had the ability to vanquish drug addiction, restore sight to the blind, cure terminally-ill patients and single-handedly destroy his opponents.
The hypocrisy of the members of the CBFC stands exposed when one compares their handling of the recent Aamir Khan blockbuster PK. In that film, Khan plays an alien who picks up the Bhojpuri language by holding hands with a prostitute for several hours. Godmen such as Rahim are the focus of much ridicule in PK and the “blind faith” of Christians, Muslims and Hindus are the subject of much exposition.
PK was released without any cuts. But the members of the CBFC decided that MSG should not be released at all. The simple question for consideration is this: If Aamir Khan can have his say, then why not Ram Rahim?
Je Suis Ram Rahim
With the delay of the release of MSG, much of the focus has been on the corruption at the CBFC and how it has outlived its utility. Supporters of Leela Samson, who has resigned as chairperson of the CBFC, claim that there has been ministerial interference and the film being cleared by the appellate tribunal in record time was due to the fact that Rahim openly endorsed the Bharatiya Janata Party during October's Haryana polls.
Whatever the motivations behind the tribunal’s decision, what needs to be acknowledged is that the Indian State has for a change decided to allow the release of a film that it knows, in advance, will create public order problems across multiple states.
The members of the CBFC’s review committee clearly did not agree with what MSG and Rahim had to say. This of course brings to mind Voltaire’s famous quote that is invoked ad nauseam by proponents of free speech: “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.” Voltaire also had this to say about God: “If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him.”
Perhaps the same can be said about the self-proclaimed messenger of God Ram Rahim. If the Indian public watches the film, they just might re-evaluate their blind faith in the likes of Rahim and his ilk and it might just put paid to the godman phenomenon. Or it might just enhance his cult status even further. Either way, in a democracy, the decision must be left up to the individual viewing the film and not to the few wise men and women at the CBFC.
We welcome your comments at
letters@scroll.in.
This seems to be a classic case of missing the wood for the trees. If anything, the appellate tribunal’s decision to clear MSG, apart from being a shot in the arm for Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh Ji Insan , is a victory for free speech in India.
Public order
The Cinematograph Act, 1952, states that a film shall not be certified for public exhibition if in the view of the competent authority, the film or any part of it is against the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or involves defamation or contempt of court or is likely to incite the commission of any offence.
If one were to go by media reports and statements made by certain members, it would appear that the CBFC decided against granting the film a certificate on grounds of public order, decency and morality.
However, the Ministry of Home Affairs was geared up to deal with trouble, since Ram Rahim has a long history of political and theological battles with Sikhs. The home ministry issued an advisory to state governments to be prepared as “various Sikh organisations and individuals are opposing the movie on the ground that its release would disturb the communal harmony and law and order”. Even though the state of Punjab eventually decided to ban the film, the Central government chose not to abdicate its responsibility to maintain law and order. The Minister for Information and Broadcasting Arun Jaitley has gone on record to state that the government will not interfere in the decision of the appellate tribunal.
Decency and morals
It would appear that the CBFC’s real gripe with MSG is on grounds of decency and morals. One member of the CBFC said that MSG had been denied a certificate because it looked like a lengthy advertisement for the godman rather than a feature film. The CBFC also felt the film glorified Rahim as a “messenger of God”, and a miracle worker who had the ability to vanquish drug addiction, restore sight to the blind, cure terminally-ill patients and single-handedly destroy his opponents.
The hypocrisy of the members of the CBFC stands exposed when one compares their handling of the recent Aamir Khan blockbuster PK. In that film, Khan plays an alien who picks up the Bhojpuri language by holding hands with a prostitute for several hours. Godmen such as Rahim are the focus of much ridicule in PK and the “blind faith” of Christians, Muslims and Hindus are the subject of much exposition.
PK was released without any cuts. But the members of the CBFC decided that MSG should not be released at all. The simple question for consideration is this: If Aamir Khan can have his say, then why not Ram Rahim?
Je Suis Ram Rahim
With the delay of the release of MSG, much of the focus has been on the corruption at the CBFC and how it has outlived its utility. Supporters of Leela Samson, who has resigned as chairperson of the CBFC, claim that there has been ministerial interference and the film being cleared by the appellate tribunal in record time was due to the fact that Rahim openly endorsed the Bharatiya Janata Party during October's Haryana polls.
Whatever the motivations behind the tribunal’s decision, what needs to be acknowledged is that the Indian State has for a change decided to allow the release of a film that it knows, in advance, will create public order problems across multiple states.
The members of the CBFC’s review committee clearly did not agree with what MSG and Rahim had to say. This of course brings to mind Voltaire’s famous quote that is invoked ad nauseam by proponents of free speech: “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.” Voltaire also had this to say about God: “If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him.”
Perhaps the same can be said about the self-proclaimed messenger of God Ram Rahim. If the Indian public watches the film, they just might re-evaluate their blind faith in the likes of Rahim and his ilk and it might just put paid to the godman phenomenon. Or it might just enhance his cult status even further. Either way, in a democracy, the decision must be left up to the individual viewing the film and not to the few wise men and women at the CBFC.
