Banned, banned and banned again!

A still from Gulabi Aaina

Like Jesus Christ is said to have told Peter, ‘Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice’, the Indian Censor Board in Delhi has banned Sridhar Rangayan’s film on drag queens thrice over.

While in April 2003 the censor board refused ‘Gulabi Aaina’ (The Pink Mirror) a certificate because it is “full of obscenity and vulgarity”, recently in April 2006, the board has done a complete change of tack to keep the film in the closet! The revising committee and the second revising committee refused it a certificate because in their opinion “the film Gulabi Aaina deals with an extremely complex issue of alternate sexuality in a peripheral manner”. Further, the board’s order states, “The problems and isolation faced by transvestites has not been dealt with in a holistic manner. Thus the film is refused certification as per relevant provisions of Cinematograph Act 1952”.

No, there’s no need to be happy or shocked that our esteemed State-appointed gatekeepers of art have discovered that most Indian filmmakers, when they are not invisibilizing homosexuality, are making fun of it. Theirs is neither a response to the ‘Girlfriend’ shock or to the ‘My Brother Nikhil’ balm. At worst it is an insidious, invidious game plan to keep a movie that makes no bones about same-sex desire and its natural ness with loads of humor hidden from the public gaze. At best, it is the sheer arrogance of an ignorant lot with no idea about the medium or the subject giving short shrift to the intelligence of both the audience and the filmmaker.

Sridhar is justifiably enraged and ready to join battle. He is planning to fight it out by taking the issue to the tribunal. (Also, see his comments below on the guidelines under which the committee reviewed the film and rejected it.) Fighting a battle for three years to get his film reviewed by the Board, Sridhar says he came across several skeletons in the censor board’s cupboard: “From those who write censor scripts, but actually offer their services as touts to get the film passed by censors to filmmakers who add six scenes of violence so that the censors can cut three and pass it. I even found out from reliable sources that a recent, acclaimed gay film was passed by the Censor Board on payment of certain monies.”

While Sridhar does praise the Board’s chairperson Sharmila Tagore and the regional officer at Delhi who “at least gave the film a fair chance by putting it up for review”, he is critical of the revising committee: “It was ridiculous sitting in front of six people and having to explain why I made the film and what I have tried to say in the film. If I could say it all verbally, then why did I have to use a visual medium like film!

“Peripheral and not holistic?! What do they expect me to say in 40 minutes, which is the length of my film. Moreover, ‘Gulabi Aaina’ is not a documentary. I wanted it to be an entertainer, but layered with subtext. When you do a film about gays, everyone expects a preachy message or a downright maudlin tearjerker. I wanted the audience to laugh with the characters instead of at them. Isn’t that good enough reason to make the film and have it reach viewers? It’s a different way of sensitizing.”

The Board really takes the cake and the pudding for implying that Sridhar’s film is insensitive to the problems faced by what it calls “transvestites”. In fact, that requires a vast stretch of imagination considering that Sridhar has been one of the forbearers of the gay rights movement in Bombay, being deeply involved with 'Bombay Dost' and The Humsafar Trust. It’s like calling Arjun Singh insensitive to the plight of OBC students (In Singh’s case, we are not sure whether his sincerity is for the OBC cause or to his own political survival).

The feckless, hypocrites in the committee after all the 'tamasha' of interrogating Sridhar about the film didn’t have the balls to pass the film. Says he, “They pretend they are broadminded, but when it comes to films with an alternate take, they cower. Basically, I have realized they wanted my characters to cry over their fate. They didn’t take too kindly to the fact that I showed gays and drag queens happy with their lives and being unapologetic. They wanted a daily soap with buckets of tears!” If Ekta Kapoor was looking for 'chamchas', she would have found them there.


Sridhar Rangayan

Meanwhile, Sridhar is looking for your support, especially if you are from the film fraternity and/or the gay community: “My fight is about freedom of expression as a filmmaker, and I damn well know how to use it sensitively and sensibly.”

Thankfully, Sridhar’s latest film ‘Yours Emotionally!’ has been produced by a UK based production house so no going through the sicko censors this time!


Crafty Censors

Instead of protecting the citizens, more often the State uses the law to terrorize them and curb their rights. Our censorship guidelines have also been similarly twisted to restrict free speech and discussion of homosexuality.

While an in-depth look at the guidelines is needed, Sridhar gave his responses to some of the guidelines under which the committee reviewed ‘Gulabi Aaina’ and rejected it:

- The medium of film remains responsible and sensitive to the values and standards of society.
“Nowhere is it mentioned what are these great values and standards of the society that they talk about. It is all a thick cloud in the air that the moral policemen comfortably hide under.”

- Artistic expression and creative freedom are not unduly curbed.
“But that’s exactly what they are doing by banning my film. It’s utterly ridiculous!”

- Certification is responsive to social change.
“If they keep refusing certificate to films that are away from the mainstream and attempt to discuss alternate issues, how do they expect any social change to happen? All they want is to maintain a status quo so that none of them will be blamed for taking an issue forward. It’s the who-wants-to-bell-the-cat syndrome.”

- The medium of film provides clean and healthy entertainment.
“Just look at all the masala films and skin flicks that get the Censor’s nod. Calling it clean and healthy entertainment is a big joke. Take a reality check folks!”

- As far as possible, the film is of aesthetic value and cinematically of good standard.
“My film has been screened at 57 international film festivals and won Jury Awards for Best Film of the Festival in New York and France. Most of the reviews talk about the sensitive handling of the subject and it has been rated as ‘fabulous’, ‘compelling’, ‘unique’ and even ‘an excellent example of Indian cinema’ by a Spanish critic. An art historian at Ohio State University compared it to Shyam Benegal’s 'Mandi', saying it bridged the gap between ‘Fire’ and ‘Bombay Boys’ by “adding that breath of reality”. How much more aesthetic and cinematic value can I pump into the film to please the censors? Maybe I should include 5 grisly murders, 3 item numbers and a bevy of half-naked women!”

Protesting on behalf of DIDs

That's displaced in development (or development-induced-displacement) according to this noteworthy post on Desicritics by Madhukar. My anger is not just about the fact that those being displaced have not received their due compensation -- this is land-grabbing by the State -- but also against the way in which the government used force in an attempt to break up a peaceful demonstration at Jantar Mantar. Just one more instance of police high handedness, you say? After all it's "jiski lathee uskee bhains". But does it mean one should not raise one's voice against it? If the government truly feared for Patkar's health, wasn't there a better time (instead of midnight) or a peaceful way of arresting her and other Narmada Bachao Andolan activists?
You may or may not agree with Medha Patkar's cause but as a commentator about this emotional piece on Patkar's protest says: "(she) deserves to be commended for following what her beliefs are. In today's world, few of us are unworldly, isn't it? We worship at the shrine of high-paying jobs, expensive acquisitions, 'practical decisions' in life like scorning an arts education in favor of science or MBA degrees. Medha Patkar is living her convictions. Which can't be easy on an empty stomach."
If you do care a bit about the cause of the DID though, I would urge you to follow Madhukar's advice in his piece linked above and at the very least sign this petition and write to the media condemning the police for their goondaism.

The Farmer Prince

Img.0014
Originally uploaded by Nitin Karani.

The coming out of Manavendra Singh Gohil as a gay man--the only Indian royal to do so--has caused quite a stir in Gujarat (with news travelling as far as London), within the circles of the erstwhile princely families, and specifically in his native Rajpipla.
My friend Vivek Raj Anand has written a wonderful piece on Manav (as we call him) that can be read on the Gay_Bombay Yahoo! list.
Manav's life would make a wonderful subject for a film and a documentary may be in the works already.

Lessons from Jammu and Lucknow

It's an affliction that's widespread in our police force. They would rather harass and out two grown-up gay people rather than fight terrorism and real crime.

Two adult lesbians in Jammu were threatened and humiliated for living together, even arrested let off (because they had to be--there is nothing in the law books against lesbianism) but not without being forcibly separated and handed over to their respective families, with a (unofficial?) directive to stay separate.

No wonder we have blasts after blasts (and there's more to come, you bet!). Even if there's nothing in the law that makes it a crime for lesbians to cohabit or even have sex, the police will poke their idiotic noses in our affairs. It's time we stopped being diffident and told errant cops to get off our backs!

One big mistake on the part of the LGBT community is that the police have not been sensitized to our issues. So you will find the Lucknow incident where gay outreach workers who are spreading AIDS prevention messages or ordinary gay men who cruise the Internet being arrested and humiliated (in front of the national media too boot--and the National Human Rights Commission cares a whit about it). On the other hand there have been no such incidents in Bombay where the Humsafar Trust has (disclosure: I am a trustee) been regularly holding workshops for the police force in different areas of the city.

It's time LGBT communities everywhere became more proactive instead of reacting to crises.

Guns and 'Romance' - My Vote For The Best Picture Oscar

I am not being self-congratulatory but the plain truth is I chose the right film between Crash and Brokeback Mountain. I posted this on desicritics.org about 30 minutes before the Oscar ceremony began. (see the link in the title for my original desicrtitics post or read the cross-post below.)

I have seen two Oscar favorites so far, and my own vote goes to Crash. Brokeback Mountain, in spite of being a gay-themed film, did not move me the way Crash does.

I can think of several possible reasons for this --other than the intrinsic merits of these films. In random order: The accents (I think I did not understand one-third of the dialogue) in BM, its slow pace, and the fact that I have seen enough closeted men up-close so that I look at most of them with a clinical detachment.

Crash is also a tension-filled drama compared to BM's dry love story. The former leaves you with some hope, while BM leaves me, as a gay man, neither seething with anger at the homophobia (too subtle) nor does it make me cry buckets. I am not a fan of violence in film but here it was too fleeting to either hurt or outrage me (the way I was outraged by the violation of a woman's body in Crash). I would prefer the docu on the Matthew Shepard case instead.

To me Crash is not just about racial prejudice but also a comment on America's gun culture. I have no knowledge about the situation in the States, but I know that enough discrimination exists on the individual level and there is enough violence involving guns to make them alive issues--they may disappear from the public radar but they do not go away. BM's flag for the gay issue is too underplayed for my liking.

In India, coincidentally, some cases of shootings are in the spotlight again, though unfortunately I am yet to see any debate around gun control. I am of course referring to the cases of Jessica Lal, Priyadarshini Matoo and now the latest Meher Bhargava case.

It's time lawmakers and police officals made it more difficult for people to posses firearms rather than making it more tough to run places of entertainment. Or making it a crime for two men to love each other.

Anyway, here's a nice review of Crash by Philip French of The Guardian (not sure why he calls it Hollywood's last taboo though) and one by desicritic, Shanti.

I seem to prefer Philip French over Peter Bradshaw, but I can't agree with French's lavish praise of BM. I would by and large agree with desicritic Triniman's thoughts on Brokeback Mountain.

With the Oscars just beginning. Crash might just crash Brokeback's party.