-
We are making bold cinema now. But the ratings remain the same. I had requested the government to bring in more ratings.
There was enough drama within the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) just before Pahlaj Nihalani became chairperson in January 2015. The change, for which the film industry was haggling, didn’t live up to expectations. Soon enough, the film certification process was plagued by random, dogmatic cuts and a bizarre approach. And, Nihalani was the villain of this story. He has now been replaced by adman-lyricist Prasoon Joshi. Nihalani, often blamed for playing a bhakt, being too conservative and micromanaging things within the board, defends himself in a chat with THE WEEK. Edited excerpts:
Did you have any inkling that you would be ousted?
No, I wasn’t aware. It was as big a surprise when I was appointed [the CBFC chairperson] and it was equally surprising when I was let go. Both [times] I came to know from the media.
How do you look back at your tenure?
It has been a fantastic journey, and I have done a fantastic job along with my staff and officers. It was quite known that the board was corrupt [CBFC CEO Rakesh Kumar was arrested in 2014 in an alleged bribery case]. I had experienced it, too. I was successful in making it corruption-free, transparent and [bringing in] online certification. Also, there was no delay in certification—both in terms of films and promos.
We reduced the fees [for producers] by about Rs 20,000. Before I joined, the burden of the expenses incurred during the preview for certification was entirely on the producers. I got that removed. We also have a broker-free CBFC. The middleman was fooling a lot of producers by charging a lot of money. We contained that completely. Now, the producer only has to pay the amount needed for certification—Rs 22,000 to Rs 36,000—depending on the length of the film. It is more like a corporate office now.
The number of certificates being issued by the board has gone up drastically. We were issuing 100 to 200 certificates almost every day. Just in the Mumbai office, in a year, approximately 2,500 certificates were issued as compared with 1,000 certificates previously across India.
But, nobody is talking about these things.
It is not my job to tell. Ninety-eight per cent of film producers are satisfied. We have certified 82 per cent films without any cuts. Even when it is not just a certification body, we have been giving certificates under the three categories—U, U/A and A. It is a misconception of the producers, created by the government, which told them that it is a certification body when the entire controversy began. It is a confused body. And it created a problem for me. They [producers] started thinking I am enforcing arbitrary and Hitler-like attitude by making unnecessary cuts. It is a complete lie. They have been blaming me through the media and through board members.... I have been blamed for micromanaging, looking after all the certificates, which means I was watching all the movies. Truth is, I have been acting as per the guidelines. As chairperson, I am not allowed to constitute an examining committee, I can’t suggest a member, and I can’t even see the film....
But I am happy that because of all these controversies something positive has also come out. Almost all the films that came to us got a certificate—if not from the examining committee, then the revising committee—and eventually a release on the stipulated date. And if [the revising committee] also didn’t clear [it], like [in the case of Lipstick Under My] Burkha, it has gone to the tribunal [Film Certification Appellate Tribunal], which has cleared it. So, where is the problem? In my two-and-a-half years, only three-four movies have remain unreleased.
Two per cent of the people have created these problems and they are influential people who have raised their voice in Delhi.
Why did board members turn against you?
Because of their ulterior motives of becoming chairman. But, I am not concerned with any of that. I have performed my duty with sincerity and dedication.... I am an industry man, a true soldier of the industry and whatever I have done, it is for the industry.
But, it has been a harrowing time for filmmakers who had to go from one committee to another.
We were not taking up any time. You have to queue up for the examining committee. But, for the revising committee, we made sure to do it in three-four days. It is an excuse that the producers are giving. Like [for] NH10, we formed a revising committee within a day and it was cleared. Bombay Velvet had been given an A certificate, but they wanted U/A certificate. Next day, we formed a committee and cut some portions, which were necessary for an U/A certificate. But, an entire debate on freedom of expression began around that. Some of these films have a marketing plan. They use the CBFC as a platform to promote their films by creating controversies. People like Anurag Kashyap [Bombay Velvet director] should understand that films work on the basis of content and not such controversies.
But don’t you think you were making the process difficult by demanding NOCs—some of the highlighted cases being An Insignificant Man and Modi Ka Gaon?
It’s a rule. You read the Act. In the case of Indu Sarkar when the filmmaker is saying that 30 per cent is based on true story and Sanjay Gandhi’s daughter demands to watch the film on the pretext of that, it should be followed. Nobody knows these rules, including some of the Board members because they have never made films.
All through your tenure, you have been perceived as dogmatic and arbitrary in your approach...
I have been blamed because people think I am aligned to the government and am just cutting portions from their films. But if you ask people who have got the certificates, they will say I am the most cooperative person, available 24 hours a day. The people who have created these problems have lobbied and wanted me removed from the position.
What happened during the screening of Babumoshai Bandookbaaz before the examining committee? It is being perceived as one of the reasons for your ouster.
They had screened the movie on [July] 20 and, after four-five days, he [director Kushan Nandy] came to see me. There was a lot of political pressure on me to clear this movie. But, I said that as a chairman I cannot give the certificate and he will have to go to the revising committee and can also approach the FCAT. But, the version that is out says that a committee member insulted the lady [producer Kiran Shroff]. That is wrong. He [Nandy] is lying. If that is true, why didn’t he complain about that to me? As per the rules, if you are approaching FCAT, it is compulsory to show the same cut of the film that was shown to the examining committee. An affidavit is also required. But they showed a different picture to us and a different one to FCAT. I wrote a letter to cancel the screening [for the tribunal].... We have everything in writing and on record.
Any advice for the new chairperson?
That the CBFC is not a certification body. That when you get appointed as a chairman or any member, you have to refer to the Cinematograph Act, 1952, and act accordingly. I have immense respect for the Act. It has foolproof guidelines, but there is a limitation in terms of ratings. We are making bold cinema now. Some even have obscene scenes, but the ratings remain the same. I had requested the government to bring in more ratings. I am aware of the kind of liberty and liberation that we require today. There should be certain freedom....
Today, I am happy that because of the two per cent people, the government has at least taken a stand. I am out, but for the betterment of the industry, I am happy that somebody better than me has come and he will take care of it now. But the guidelines need a change; otherwise he will face the same heat that I have faced so far.
