news details |
|
|
| Commerce, cosmopolitanism, and bans | | |
Kalpana Sharma
In an age where the flow of information cannot be stopped, are bans of the kind recently witnessed in Mumbai — on telecasting films with an "A" certificate — the right thing?
MUMBAI IS fast gaining the reputation of being not India's commercial capital but its "moral" capital. In the course of the last decade, there have been a string of incidents that have illustrated the extent to which moral policing is gaining ground. From stopping couples sitting near the sea-face, to banning bar girls to the most recent ban on telecasting films with an "A" certificate, Mumbai is taking the lead. For a city known for its modernity and cosmopolitanism this is, indeed, a strange turn. Are these trends accidental or are they part of a larger politics that is redefining the city?
Take the latest controversy, on which popular opinion is almost as divided as on the question of allowing girls to dance in bars. When a professor of political science from St Xavier's College petitioned the Bombay High Court, asking for a ban on the telecast of films certified "adults only" because they were adversely affecting children, most people did not take the issue seriously. They did not expect that the Bombay High Court would respond by asking cable operators to black out all such films. Despite its order of December 21, 2005, nothing happened. In any case, it would not have been possible for individual multi-system operators (MSOs) to check each day's programme on the movie channels, determine whether any of the films scheduled to be telecast had been certified "A," and then blank them out.
The status quo continued until the petitioner realised the court's order was not being implemented. Once again she moved the court. This time the High Court threatened to slap contempt of court on the Mumbai police if they did not act. And so they did. On a Sunday night, when many families sit back to watch a film on television, they suddenly found their television sets blank. To protest the police raids on MSOs, all cable operators simply turned off their transmission. The whole of the next day there was complete confusion; no one knew exactly what had happened. The local cable operator only had piecemeal information. Without even news channels, barring Doordarshan, people had no access to "breaking" news. Late that night, all other channels were restored except the movie channels when Home Minister R.R. Patil assured cable operators that they would not be penalised for something that was out of their control.
The next day, when the matter came up before the High Court again, the judges clarified that their order did not apply only to cable operators but also to the channels. Regardless of whether they were uplinking from India or from overseas, they would have to abide by the order that no films certified "A" by the censor board could be telecast.
If they wanted such films to be shown, they would have to seek a "U" or "U/A" certification from the censor board. In any case, under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, and a notification by the Union Information and Broadcasting Ministry in November 2003, films, music videos and trailers must be certified for "unrestricted public viewing" before they can be telecast.
So as of now in Mumbai, the movie channels continue to be blanked out even though other channels are now being aired. Cable operators are relieved that they are not being held solely responsible. The movie channels have not yet decided how they should respond. And the general public is angry with the cable operators for the blackout and yet relieved it can now get its daily fix of soaps or news. Only a small number of people seems to be concerned about the larger repercussions of this blanket ban on "A" movies.
The 24-hour cable blackout has had another interesting fallout. Families that were toying with the idea of switching over to DTH (direct to home) have been pushed to take the plunge. They are clearly not too bothered about whether "A" movies are shown or not as long as they do not have to depend on the cable operator to access their favourite channels.
So if most viewers are indifferent to the certification of films as long as multiple channels and multiple choices are available, why should anyone take on the task of protecting children who might chance upon an "A" movie? Are the majority of TV viewers really concerned about the quality of the fare dished out given that most of it is indifferent and much of it is the same? The woman who filed the petition in the Bombay High Court has taken upon herself to speak on their behalf. But do they want this kind of representation?
The question is relevant only because civil society has so far exhibited little concern or involvement in the quality of programming on television. The majority of those who are hooked to television might occasionally object, or get angry, or even be concerned but their response consists of little more than switching channels.
Worrying indifference
It is this indifference to interventions in our lives that are taking place without any debate or discussion that should be of real concern. For today it might be just films certified "A" — which are incidentally not films termed "adult fare" in the rest of the world — but tomorrow it could be something more important.
This indifference is manifest in the paucity of empirical data or studies that uphold the contention of the petitioner that telecasting films certified "A" damages young minds. In many countries across the world, concerns about the impact of satellite and cable television on young people have produced many surveys and studies. In the United States, for instance, an organisation called the Parents Television Council has conducted surveys to check the impact of sex on TV on adolescents. Its findings have been interesting, and not entirely negative. But by highlighting their findings and campaigning for a change, they claim they have succeeded in reducing substantially the prurient content in the leading television channels in the U.S., particularly at prime time.
One cannot assume that the impact of television in India will be identical to that in the U.S. Television watching patterns are markedly different here with families sitting together to watch television. Studies are needed before decisions are made about what to ban or how to control the broadcast medium.
The few studies that have been done concern the portrayal of women in serials and in advertisements. Advocacy by groups concerned on this issue has made some difference although much more needs to change. Monitoring and advocacy together sometimes do lead to a change. Could the same strategy not have been used to assess the content of movie channels instead of bringing about a ban?
In many countries, there are specific time slots for different types of programmes. There are ways to block channels so that children are denied access. Technology now provides many options. In an age where the flow of information cannot be stopped, does it make sense to resort to bans of this kind? Is there any point in closing a few windows in a house where the front door is open? These are questions that should concern every citizen, regardless of whether they watch television or not. Otherwise, we are laying ourselves open to being controlled by a few people who decide what is right and wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
