Space for Freedom of Cinematic Expression Shrinking

The certification process has become tortuous because the certification body often transforms into censorship. To believe any movie, based on historical events or contemporary politics, has caused riots or communal tension is a myth and people are intelligent enough to know what cinema is. And yet a form of censorship prevails.

The Case of Jana Nayagan and the ‘censors’ has become politically loaded as the central figure of the movie Vijay is a budding politician who has been making waves with his fledgling party. Support for the film’s problems with certification has cut across the political spectrum with the Tamil Nadu CM M.K. Stalin dubbing the CBFC a “Centre’s puppet” that is much like the central investigation agencies which are used to exert political control. Rahul Gandhi believes the delay in certification is an attack on Tamil culture.

Truth to tell, the timing of the objections to a certificate already granted by CBFC in December 2025, reeks too much of political interference. The producers of Vijay’s movie won’t be the first to have to run to the courts for relief, but their plight in the delays being caused to the release of a film made to a big budget is not just symptomatic of the malaise of censorship of films in a democratic India with an open society. It is a drag on freedom of expression.

The way the process has been handled became suspicious when a belated complaint by a single member was made to reverse the process of certification. And not even a judge’s wisdom in pointing out that a certificate had been granted by a majority of the examining panel was allowed to render justice to an event that has been mismanaged by whoever is pulling the strings. If this boomerangs with Vijay’s popularity only swelling with sympathy, the people will know who is to blame.

The film’s tryst with the CBFC, which seems too much like the process itself becoming the punishment, has been running like a movie script with huge financial and political stakes at play. Unless the justice system sees the larger picture and concludes that freedom is far more important than petty ideological battles that should be settled at the ballot box rather than the box office, the film might take a while more to hit the screens.

Will wisdom dawn on the powers in time for the damage to cinematic freedom to be undone without too great a cost to the makers of the film that Vijay has said may be his last as he has stepped into politics full-time? Not to conflate the film with the political entry would be ideal and any corrective measures suggested to be taken in the film must be done quickly enough for the film to release before the election dates are out and the state is embroiled in poll politics.

The state has a history of cinema, dating back to a time even before MGR. It is a fact that MGR, as chief minister, continued to star in his films without once bringing into play grave impropriety in the interplay of politics and cinema. And in these days of enormous content consumption that goes way beyond films, the message of any one film hardly stays in the mind for too long to make any difference in the politics of the ballot box that is a separate territory altogether.

Politics is, unfortunately, not played by the Marquis of Queensbury rules which apply to the fiercely combative sport of boxing. Realpolitik is an even more different world populated by those who dare to be in the world of politics, polls and power in which ideological, moral or ethical premises mean less while realism takes precedence over everything. And yet there is a place for fair play which must be respected if the journey to maturity is to be complete as a nation.