It would be reasonable to assume in the New Year that cinema is safe. With a vowel expected to end the controversy that was ignited recently, it is generally expected that Padmavat will be released sooner rather than later. No less critically, the curtain ought also to go up on the celluloid version of The Argumentative Indian, Suman Ghosh’s documentary embedded in Amartya Sen’s book of the same name. It is immensely gratifying to reflect that the film can now be screened across the country and without cuts thanks to the clearance that has now been accorded by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), notably the very rational intervention of the present chairman, Prasoon Joshi.

One must give it to the board that it has eventually taken the film beyond any argument. Sad to reflect that both films reaffirm how the political/ideological underpinning can shroud cinema in a fog of uncertainty. It would be pertinent to recall that The Argumentative Indian was confined to the cans six months ago when the CBFC took umbrage to two expressions used by Sen and no less ~ “cow’’ and “Gujarat”. Both words, regretfully at the root of recent killings and a pogrom, had been ordered to be “beeped out” by the previous chairman… along with the words, “Hindu India” and “Hindutva view of India”.

Sen had been filmed saying: “Why democracy works so well is that the government is not free to have its own stupidities and, in case of Gujarat, its own criminalities, without the opposition being howled down and booted out”.

Happily, the 60-minute documentary will now be screened without being bowdlerised ~ Thursday’s horribly belated decision over which the film-maker is said to be “relieved as well as pleasantly surprised”. Sure the performing arts are open to subjective reflection. Appropriately, therefore, the viewer ought to be free to draw his conclusions on the documentary, indeed to spell the difference between the film and the book that didn’t trigger even a scintilla of controversy.

There has been a remarkable change in perceptions from one person to another. While Pahlaj Nihalani had barred the film, Mr Joshi is said to have “loved the documentary that kept him
completely engrossed”. Indeed, he has been quoted as saying that he “got to learn a lot about Amartya Sen”. Markedly, he did not find anything objectionable and has cleared the documentary without cuts. Crucially, Mr Joshi has overruled the objections, articulated last July, restoring ~ at any rate for now ~ the CBFC’s faith in the freedom of expression. It would be no promotion of the film to suggest that it richly deserves the U/A certificate; only to underline the rational imperative. And there is a parable to be drawn from the controversy ~ the political climate ought never to influence cinema.