Government must protect the art and the artist: Amol Palekar

Amol Palekar advocates against pre-censorship in films and theatre, urging the government to protect artists' freedom of expression.

Days after the Supreme Court decided to examine his seven-year-old plea questioning pre-censorship in films, eminent cine and theatre personality Amol Palekar hoped the plea would be taken up soon as it has been “lingering” for quite some time. “I hope it is heard when I am still alive,” said the 80-year-old, whose petition on pre-censorship in theatre has been pending in the Mumbai High Court since 2017. Known for his committed stance on social issues, Mr. Palekar said it was the government’s “duty to protect the art and the artist” and tell those “creating nuisances to shut up.”

“The government can’t give in to trolls on social media and absolve itself from its duty to safeguard the freedom of expression,” he said.

Comment: Censorship films, a clamping down on creativity

Speaking to The Hindu ahead of the launch of his memoir Viewfinder in Delhi, Mr. Palekar said when there was an agitation against a film or play, the court had a reference point and the aggrieved party like him was heard but the concept of censorship as a whole was not decided upon. “In this case, I have questioned why pre-censorship is required only for cinema and theatre.” Pre-censorship of plays is required only in Gujarat and Maharashtra which Mr. Palekar finds “ridiculous.” The same play, he said, could be performed in other States without any vetting. Wondering why only artists were subjected to pre-censorship, Mr. Palekar asked, “While addressing mammoth rallies, politicians can say whatever is imaginable. Why don’t they have to pre-submit their speech? Why are they not asked certain words in their speech are too explosive and must not be said in public?”

With the entry of OTT platforms, Mr. Palekar argued the concept of pre-censorship of films had no meaning. On the New Broadcasting Bill, which is expected to bring OTT and digital creators under the purview of some regulation, Mr. Palekar said the government was trying to “suppress dissent.”

“This is how the idea of censorship came into being during British rule, and after independence, Indian people in power trying to curb dissent is an extension of it. This is how we see it. We want the courts to take a rational look at it and see it in social context whether only the artists should be subjected to such a curb,” he added.

On whether removal of the pre-censorship clause will create more law-and-order situations, Mr. Palekar said it was the duty of the government to protect the artists and ask those creating nuisance to shut up. “In the 1970s when the Maharashtra government banned my play Vasnakand, officials put forth the argument of possible disruption of law and order behind denying the permission. The High Court’s eloquent judgment found the argument hypothetical and stated that even if it were assumed true, the government must protect the artists and not side with the hooligans.”