FilmIndia (1948)

reinber, 1948 ; drawing huge crowds at the Capitol, had to be withwn immediately right in the midst of its triumphant This firm action of the Home Minister has created ,onsternation among the film producers who, unable appreciate anything righteous, have let loose a flood ilthv abuse as proof of their ill-conceived temper. It he temper of the rich against a minister who is honest straightforward and against a critic who is blunt { struggling. But whatever the film producers may think about lister Morarji's firm action, the people of our pro;e have good reason to congratulate themselves on ing a minister who is not ashamed to admit the mis; of his own Censor Board and who has the admir; courage to correct the mistake no sooner he realizes inecessity and righteousness of doing so. In my opinion, "Jugnu"' was rightly stopped. It ild have been wrong to have let it run even a day zer. The filth can now be removed and the picture always be re-censored. 1 But the producers have not liked this action. They it drastic, ill-conceived, arbitrary, ruinous and even -pired7". They label censorship as an interference with r industry. They call the minister ultra-moral and , seek a license for their own immorality. They subze the press to distort Minister Morarji's name and him "Moralji". I like this distortion, however. It ribes the man correctly. Morarji is moral whether ducers like it or not and however much the Parsi ers mock at him for being so. Being moral ha* not pme a crime yet. There is no sense in this tirade of abuse and proanda against our popular and honest minister. Vi hat lister Morarji is doing is his duty towards the people » put him in his post. The film is a very powerful lium of instruction and propaganda apart from enterment. It can mould or mar human lives. It can ;e us good citizens or bad criminals. It can do a Id of good if properly harnessed. It is a danjierou:rument in the hands of evil and uneducated men. I most of our producers form, let this be admitted e at least, the most uncouth and illiterate crowd that • lived on this earth. (A conscientious man like Minister Morarji cannot these dangerou people run amok ami permit theni Influence and poison the lives of millions under his t. He know fully well the danger of a bad film. I a part of his duty towards our people. Our film product can be controlled only through Cen>or Board and tin essential function oi the < enBoard is to >a\c "in people fi am potential harm ■ch bad"films may cause. || The Censor Board is not a trade organization to H and sieve the dirty product of th< film producers FILMINDI A The Censor Board cannot accept the producers' patent argument that cuts should be made in films keeping an eye on the continuity of a picture. The story continuitv is the funeral of the producer and not a responsibility of the Censor Board. There cannot be an element of commercialism in censorship. Censorship is purely for the protection of our people. It cannot stoop to commercial considerations and take cognizance of the trade interests of the producer. If it does so. it ceases to be fair, just and national censorship. During the ban on "Jugnu", producers shouted a lot about the losses of one Suganchand who has purchased the exploitation rights of this picture for Bomba\ and Central Provinces. National censorship cannot be enforced to suit the commercial interests of Suganciiands and Kapurchands. These "Chands" have no business to buy dirty pictures and if they insist on making money on filth, they may as well take the risk of losing some money. There are no profits without losses. In fact, life itself is one long risk. Millions who walk on the roads always face the danger of being run over by a motor car. If the poor risk their lives every day in pursuit of their bread, the investments of the rich cannot be protected by the State by the misuse of censorship. Minister Morarji has set a Production Code which was unanimously appro\ed by all the producers. The Code describes the minimum expectations of the State from our film producers. A million different pictures can be safely produced within the limitations of the Production Code. It is not necess-ary for any producer to resort to any filth or anti-social aspects of life to make a picture popular. For one picture that was banned by Minister Morarji I "Jugnu" I two hundred others are running in the country. The State is not interfering with them. How does censorship then become an "interference" as the producers maintain in their shouting? Apart from what these producers say, the "Jugnu" incident should bring home the fact to our conscientious Home Minister that members of the Censor Board must be taught to look at a picture from specific angles for its correct evaluation as a social commodity for universal consumption. Censoring pictures is a very responsible social work and as such it cannot be handled lightly. The free and gay spirit with which members of the Censor Board have so far seen our pictures is obviously not the right approach to censor pictures. And above all both the producers and the censors must remember that there cannot be a finality about censoring. Even after a hundred members of a censor board ha\e seen a picture, the picture can still be renewed and banned if necessary, if it contains, if not glaring, even subtle anti-social aspects which, in the opinion of the government, are likely to be harmful to the people in general. In the end 1 hope that our film producers, instead of decrying the government and abusing me, will abjure their old methods of production and seriously undertake to produce pictures which will not only entertain our million? but will also contribute to build up a healthy national life for a free people. That way lies the prosperity of our pictures and our people. Baburao Patel. 5