The new incumbent to the post, Arvind Trivedi (television actor and former BJP MP), gave his views thus, "I am completely against the proposal. It is against our culture and does not reflect nicely on our society." Not merely porn, Trivedi is against any depiction of sexuality.

"I am not against kissing if it is necessary," he said. Asked when he would consider kissing 'necessary', he said, "Kissing could be deemed necessary in scenes between a mother-daughter or brother-sister. But scenes of closeness or expressions of love between a woman and man would be unacceptable, as the moral boundaries imposed by society must be respected." Anand himself is clear about porn: "I would hate this kind of cinema." He had examined the issue purely as a management exercise. "As Chairperson of the Censor Board, we have to consider all the suggestions that come to us. But I resigned as the government said we must not discuss the issue."

The Censor Board was in favour of discussing the Kerala board's suggestion only insofar as it could help save mainstream cinema, he asserted.

A huge number of films are made in Bollywood, 2100 of which received a Censor Board certificate last year. Plagued by a series of flops despite the money poured in, the industry is desperate to get audiences back into the theatres. Industry watchers say the sex films’ industry has eaten into its audiences and profits. In several parts of the country, film producers routinely shoot two versions of a film, one with explicit sex scenes and another that is more regular and acceptable to the Censor Board.

In some places, more commonly in small cinema houses in satellite towns across the country, theatre owners interpolate 'sexually explicit' scenes into films certified for public viewing. In Sangli (Maharashtra) for instance, a theatre showing the English film, An Officer and a Gentleman, suddenly began screening sex scenes. Journalist Vasant Bhosale said, "The actors were obviously foreign and so was the locale. They had no connection with the story and the sequence went on for 15 to 20 minutes. We were startled, but others in the audience hardly reacted. Obviously, this was a common occurrence."

The experience put off Bhosale and others from venturing out to see an English film, indirectly bolstering the argument of the Kerala film producers and others that porn films are better off in select theatres. "These films are killing the real business of cinema," said Anand, adding that the process of film certification needs to be more stringent. Producers who apply for certification of these films will be scared stiff because their films can be released only in 50 theatres across the country, Anand said. He even had a plan for appointing nine detective agencies for each of the nine regional censor boards to ensure spot checks on theatres and fines for violators.

Indeed, the problem is a complex one. On the one hand, there is the issue of porn—soft or hardcore. Such films, DVDs, VCDs, cassettes and print material are smuggled into the country, clearly violating the laws governing possession and distribution of what is termed as 'obscene' material. Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code terms as 'obscene' anything that is 'lascivious or prurient' and therefore likely to disturb moral sentiments.

The Rajiv Gandhi government passed the Indecent Representation of Women Act,1989, to cover visual material. The move was widely seen as an attempt to establish its reputation as a pro-women government.

The Cinematography Act of 1952 is supposed to ensure that 'healthy entertainment' is provided to citizens, and it has numerous guidelines governing the depiction of sexuality. In 1975-76, the G.D. Khosla Committee report recommended that "kissing and nudity be shown on Indian screens, provided these are shown aesthetically".

However, all these pieces of legislation have suffered implementation problems largely due to the vague and uncertain definition of prurience or indecency. Obscenity itself has been debated at length, and liberals and puritans have been at odds about the influence of changing cultures and social mores on these concepts.

By the 1980s, the resurgence in the women's movement brought in another dimension to the debate: That pornography as opposed to erotica was demeaning and derogatory to women. That pornography was sexually explicit, sexist and amounted to violent depiction of women, mainly as victims and as objects of titillation, and that an organised industry spawned a huge and sophisticated market for pornography. That the profits being made from the manufacture and sale of pornographic material ultimately contributed to the destruction of the rights and self-respect of women.

Activist and writer Nandita Gandhi who works with Akshara, a Mumbai-based women's library and resource centre, asserts that the arguments in favour of making pornography more accessible have not contributed to the reduction of sexual violence anywhere. Pornography grossly violates the rights of human beings to deal with one another on an equal and non-exploitative manner. Puritanism, she felt, could not be viewed in opposition to pornography either.

"There is a sea change on the entire issue of censorship," says film critic Maithili Rao, adding that India must explore the efficacy of certification with more effective policing and enforcement. Porn is an issue that needs wider debate, not limited to the film industry, but drawing upon the perceptions of educators, teacher-parent organisations, psychologists and others.

The lack of sufficient data on the spread of porn, and of porn material at video parlours, cyber cafes or cable television channels is a handicap. Media literacy, she stresses, is a vital element in aiding both children and adults to deal with such imagery. "Education is the only way out and unfortunately, we don't introduce it even to college students, leave alone schools," she rued.

A majority in the film industry shares Anand's view on certification as opposed to censorship. Indeed, the film industry's reaction to the entire controversy over porn films has focused not on the issue of porn films as such, but on the issue of censorship.

Amit Khanna, President of the Film Producers' Guild of India, says, "Porn films are a non-issue for me. I have no problems with them, but I am not interested in them. I think the Kerala Board's suggestion was more in the nature of introducing a new category of film classification to cover 'adult' films and I am definitely in favour of it." Censorship, he reiterated, had a negative function in the 21st century society and was repugnant to independence.

The Censor Board, as it exists, can be effective only if one talks of regulation, not control, surmises well-known film director Shyam Benegal. "There is some virtue in the suggestion of the Kerala Board. In any case, it is a minor issue. What's the big deal about pornography?" In official circles, he says, there is a great deal of confusion between erotica and pornography, the former being contextual. Humans have an interest in different kinds of prurient pleasures and as individuals, they have to find a way to deal with it.

"Has porn taken over the world? Are Indians cretins or what?" asks Shyam Benegal, inferring that the talk of clamping down on porn is born out of an assumption that Indian audiences are not mature and discerning. Instead of concerning ourselves with pornography, one must be exercised about things that destroy one's self-esteem, he feels.

In a nutshell, this is what the debate has been reduced to—morality and censorship versus permissiveness and liberalism.

The space for sexuality that is passionate, non-exploitative and beautiful is still a dream.

 

How do you decide what is lewd?

Let me make it very clear that I do not support anything that is essentially obscene, lewd, offensive, indecent or licentious. But at the same time, defining such things is not an easy job. The concepts are liable to change with the passage of time. I see a sea-change in our attitudes within a passage of just three generations. When I recall the days of my mother or her mother and try to match them with those of my daughter, nothing seems to have any correlation whatsoever in most of the areas of their lives. So how shall he or she determine what is lewd and what is not? Generally, an oft-repeated argument is offered that what can be seen with the women of your family can be taken as a model of decency. This is not only a misplaced line of reasoning, but has often been misused as a shrewd trick disguised within it. Going by this argument, can we believe that anything written in words can never be indecent as it is to be read by a single person in isolation? The ploy is to isolate one’s self from others and evolve a logic for double standards and parameters in one’s life. Pornography doesn’t lie in the presented visual, but, in fact, rests in the mind of its creator. Banning or censoring such things means giving the driver’s seat exclusively to those who do not hold even a driving licence and are out to plunder others because this has gradually become a part of their economics. Today’s porn is not the outcome of mentally sick minds. It is, unfortunately, growing under the stewardship of very strong and insensitive brains. The advent of new technologies has made it easier and cheaper to create such material. And this can be devastating.

 

Porn has no place in a cultured society

Pornography refers to depiction of erotic behaviour in pictures or writing intended to cause sexual excitement. A work of art may also be an imaginative depiction of erotic behaviour but is not intended to cause sexual excitement. The difference between the two is the same as between a raw impulse and its sublimated form. Pornography has no place in a cultured society. However, given the prevailing paradigm of development which privileges economism over culture, market over society and prosperity over integrity, it only makes sense that pornography is finding favour with many people. Many of the social thinkers almost predicted it. Pitrim A. Sorokin postulated a theory of social-cultural dynamics in which he argued that the socio-cultural systems change in a cyclical manner through three stages, i.e. sensate, ideational and idealistic. He also contended that the modern age is of sensate culture in which sensual pleasures have to prevail. The image of woman has changed in various historical eras. In the feudal age, for example, woman was viewed as a property of men. In the age of capitalism, the image of woman turned into a commodity. Now her image has once again changed to merely that of a sex object. Children and youth in our times are passing through very trying times in terms of their value socialisation. Earlier, there were four major agencies of socialisation— family, neighbourhood, peer group and the school. These traditional agencies generally worked in concert with one another and reinforced a common value system. The modern age is distinguished by the emergence of certain new agencies of socialisation — television, cinema, computer, Internet, etc. The new agencies are competing with the traditional ones to shape values. This new package is diametrically opposite to the traditional one. Sandwiched between two conflicting value systems, the youngsters are utterly baffled. Pornography is part of the new package which has the potential to pervert the thinking of the child at a tender age. No system of society can provide for all the needs of all people. It can, at best, provide for most of the needs of most of the people. In the process, some of the needs of some of the people are bound to be sacrificed. Given this as a parameter, a society has to have certain rules of the game, certain norms and values which have to be respected by all. Pornography is violative of those cultural norms.

 

Do we need help to make our choices?

Does our government think of us as little kids who need help with their choices? Freedom to think, to be ..... and to see, I might add. One movie cannot cater to the tastes of all individuals. We all need variety. The censorship laws have made film directors wary. Thus, they churn out the same old stories and family dramas which keep the Censor Board happy. How can you expect the likes and dislikes of a nine-year-old to match that of a 40-year-old? The Censor Board brackets children and adults together. What could be more ridiculous? The system in the USA is closest to the ideal. Movies are rated according to content. Let the people decide what rating to watch. The Indian Censor Board acting the Big Brother is far from ideal. It’s time to take away the scissor and give them a rubber stamp. Don’t snip it, rate it.

 

Shringara is rasa raja, it can’t be snipped

As far as Hindu scriptures, and even ancient Sanskrit literature, is concerned, Shringara rasa has always been centrestage because it is the rasa raja. Right from the Vedic era onwards, we have acknowledged as well as assimilated desires and their fulfillment into our socio-cultural set-up. Which other civilisation has given the world Vatsayayana, Gitagovinda and Meghdoot? In our socio-cultural milieu, Bhojwad (desire for food) and Bhogwad (indulgence in sensual pleasures) coexist. Indulging the senses is as basic a desire as is the need for food. Literature never does injustice with the truth. There are sexually explicit descriptions in the Vedas, Puranas and other ancient literary texts. If we start censoring or acting the moral police, we will have to throw all our ancient literary texts into the ocean. Who is the arbiter of what is decent and what is vulgar? The issue of vulgarity and indecency is the biggest weapon used to browbeat any artist or writer. In a country where you have the Ajanta, Ellora, Khajuraho and the Kamasutra, prudishness is misplaced. Even Krishna calls himself Kama in the Bhagavadgita. You cannot expurgate desires from life. If, on the one hand, you talk of the ill-effects of sexually explicit scenes on children, on the other hand, is it also not a fact that many adolescents are having psychological problems due to repression? Anything that is repressed into the subconscious can cause even physical symptoms, leave alone mental aberrations. If something is natural, normal and necessary, treat it as such.

 

Young minds need protection

Anything that is forbidden tends to arouse curiosity. Traditional Indian society is still conservative and the youth is even today bound by cultural inhibitions to a large extent. On the one hand, you have these in-built inhibitions while, on the other hand, there is easy access to explicit portrayal of violence and sex via the Internet and other media. This generates conflict which could possibly lead to maladjustments and deviant behaviour. The general trend in Indian cinema is to project sex through suggestive scenes set to raunchy tunes and lyrics, which serve no purpose other than titillation. Easy access to pornography leads to repeated exposure to gross libidinal perversion. This may in turn lead not only to an increased acceptance of the extramarital sex but, more importantly, aggression against women, as is evident in the high incidence of sexual crimes against women in India. Viewing pornographic stuff leads to vicarious pleasure and when gratification is denied, it results in violence and sex-related crimes. On the contrary, if some aspects of sexual relationships are handled sensitively under more relaxed censorship rules and are portrayed as an integral part of a loving, caring and warm man-woman relationship, it might have a positive effect on the general perception of sex, as opposed to its present perception as a taboo. While some theorists hold the opinion that viewing violence on screen could possibly be cathartic in effect, violent acts of aggression on TV and in movies, however, tend to encourage aggressive behaviour among children and adults. Viewing sexual violence or perversions can leave an indelible impact on impressionable minds. More stringent censorship laws ought to be applied to the exhibition of violence.

 

Leave it to people

Censorship, can be of two kinds: intrusive and exclusive. One is when the doing of something is prohibited; this could also be termed preventive censorship. The other is ex post facto, that is, something done is barred from dissemination. Military censorship is used in times of war, internal or external; recent examples are Sri Lanka and during the US military operations in Afghanistan against the Taliban and the Al-Qaida network. Creative and literary censorship was employed during the Soviet and Nazi eras. Then there was Lady Chatterley’s Lover and The Satanic Verses. Charlie Chaplin, it was recently disclosed, was denied a knighthood by Britain for 20 years because the USA felt he had communist leanings (because of the nature of his films). One of the principles of good governance enunciated in the Harare Declaration is transparency in government. And, somehow, censorship and transparency are antithetical. Ironically, almost all the states that espouse transparency and open government themselves resort to censorship in a big way. A form of intrusive censorship is splendidly portrayed in the Steven Spielberg film, A Minority Report, as pre-crime. Indeed, the concept of censorship seems highly paradoxical in highly-educated societies. Is that to say that censorship is permissible in not-so-highly-educated societies? During the years of my research in international law in the USA and UK, I realised that as long as there are no internationally accepted norms or principles governing censorship rules or a regulatory mechanism in place, nothing can be done. Even though x-rated stuff is banned in the UK, there was a case involving a company from The Netherlands which was responsible for screening of porn, but no legal action could be initiated since pornographic material is free to air and any one can have access to it. Sovereignty might influence certain kinds of censorship. As long as x-rated stuff is free to air, the decision to curb pornograopy rests with each individual society. And, if volksgeist (as per tradition, custom and consensus) is the source of law, then let the people decide.