The recent stand-off between producers of the play Jai Bhim, Jai Bharat and the play censor board has got the theatre community talking about the relevance of censorship in a format such as theatre.
Censorship has been a point of contentious debate in recent times. But while the majority of the discourse leans towards censorship in films, they are not the only ones at the receiving end of creative guidelines. Instances of censorship in plays have made news time and again and Maharashtra, which incidentally is one of the biggest markets for theatre, is also the only state in the country, along with Gujarat to have a censor board for plays.
A recent instance which has sparked a debate on this issue is the Maharashtra Rangbhoomi Parinirikshan Mandal (as the play censor board is officially known) advising over 10 cuts to the play Jai Bhim, Jai Bharat, which deals with oppression of Dalits. Some of the cuts advised included words such as Bamanshahi (Brahmanism), Boddhmay Bharat (Buddhist Bharat) and references to the 1997 Dalit killings in Ramabai Ambedkar Nagar incident. Although the board relented and certified the play after considerable pressure from the theatre community, the question now seems to have moved away from whether censor board is justified or not to the very relevance of having a board in the first place.
Even as the film industry is mulling over the same question with a new-formed panel under veteran filmmaker Shyam Benegal providing a ray of hope, the theatre industry has always led the way in self-censorship, contends prominent theatre personality Akarsh Khurana. Telling us about the theatre censor board, he says, “Quite honestly, the concept is fairly redundant. While on a broad ideological plane, I am against all kinds of censorship; even the very way in which it happens in plays is very complacent. We do send the script to the board because it’s mandatory, but the kinds of cuts advised are more often than not silly. For example, when the script comes back from the board, they will mention that the there are three instances where the ‘F’ word has been used and would advise that we cut it. However, the same script might have conversations of extremely graphic nature which may go untouched.”
Shedding more light on the process of censorship in plays, theatre-person and actor, Manav Kaul adds, “The main aspect I don’t understand is the point behind censoring a script without even seeing the play. More often than not the content I send across to the board is a flat script and I have never seen anyone from the board actually coming to watch the play. So the question is, how can they understand the play without actually watching it I think this is a very juvenile approach.” Juvenile and erratic, contends Akarsh, who adds, “I must say that a fair amount of latitude is given to theatre, but the functioning of the board is quite erratic. Their focus seems like it is primarily on plays that have celebrities or have strong publicity. So the smaller productions get off easy.”
Unfortunately for theatre personality, Mahabanoo Mody-Kotwal her productions are much talked about and hence, attract much restriction. Like the time the ‘F’ word was asked to be removed from her play Art. She says, “The thing is that each script is screened by a panel of five-people. Now it all depends on whether you get the right five. So it becomes very arbitrary. Now I’ve been told that Maharashtra, along with Gujarat is the only state to have a censor board for plays, which I feel is very sad. Especially for Maharashtra because Marathi is a language, which has not only some of the best plays, but also some of the most honest and brutal content such as the plays by Tendulkar. It is a disservice to the writers to censor their scripts. In one of my plays, Art, the board had asked me to remove the ‘F’ word. While that didn’t make much difference to the script, there are also times when they want some very pertinent dialogue removed. As a producer, my first responsibility is to the writer. I can’t do justice to the writer if I censor it.”
Coming down strongly on the presence of a censor board for plays, Mahabanoo says, “Art of any form is not only a mirror of society, but also a part of its recorded history. And plays especially have a responsibility to present the society as it is to the audience. In such a case, censorship is equal to manipulating social norms of the era.”
While many within the community have fought against censorship, prominent theatre personality Atul Kumar has his own way of dealing with it — metaphors he says, are fortunately or unfortunately not decipherable by the board.
He says, “I have never had any problem with censors because I tweak my plays a lot — sometimes at the risk of annoying my playwrights. Theatre is a changing form and I wonder how censors will react to a script that is a blank piece of paper, since some of my works have no words. I have never had to compromise on my work because of the fear of censors. But then my work has never been openly political or provocative. I believe in subverting ideas and images into metaphors and I am sorry to say that is something censor board is not trained to decipher.”
They only kind of censorship that the industry endorses however, is self-censorship. Says Akarsh Khurana. “Censoring is a is a disservice to the audience — especially the kind of audience that theatre attracts. To tell them what kind of content they can watch. In general, it undermines the intelligence of the paying audience and the theatre community is very aware of that. Theatre has led the way in self-censorship and so I don’t think there is a need for any formal body,” he concludes.
