Invisible censors

Silencing stories can’t silence reality. Still, opaque takedowns like that of Satluj are very damaging

Sadly, India has gotten used to discussing censorship. Silent film Bhakta Vidur was the first to be banned, because the colonial govt didn’t like the lead character resembling Gandhi.

After Independence govts continued chopping movies, however they fancied, wherever they suspected a potential to “excite dissatisfaction”.

The Kissa Kursi Ka ban during the Emergency is a famous example.

Unfamous ones are countless. Filmmakers have found themselves saving from the guillotine (or not) a kiss, a divorce, a story “too lady-oriented”. But traditional censorship leaves fingerprints. Someone signs an order. Platform removals are different.

Backdoor censorship is what Satluj ’s been facing.

In its earlier avatar, Punjab ’95, it got pulled from Toronto International Film Festival enigmatically.

Now, suddenly, it’s become “unavailable” on a streaming service in India, “in light of current developments”.

When regulators and platforms interact without explicit orders, responsibility evaporates. Their common line of argument is that the public’s filmic diet must be curated, to ensure that its passions are not over-inflamed, society is not destabilised.

But more than a century of evidence is clear that this is simply not a danger. And in a world where viewers cannot sustain attention through a two-hour movie without checking their phones, the idea that they will emerge radicalised by it, is particularly absurd. It belongs to fantasy.

Neither are citizens passive vessels into which ideas are poured, nor is a film a command. It is an invitation – to think, to argue, to reject, or to be persuaded. To deny citizens that invitation harms art, infantilises the public, and injures democracy. Especially when it comes to the difficult stories about society, censorship is completely wrong-headed.

Uncomfortable mirrors that allow us to confront complexity and injustice only make us stronger. As James Baldwin said, “Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced.”

END OF ARTICLE