The upcoming Malayalam film Janaki vs State of Kerala has found itself in the middle of a controversy. The CBFC is reportedly demanding a change in the film’s title or the names of its characters.
While no formal objections have been issued by the CBFC so far, the producers have alleged that informal concerns were raised regarding the use of the name “Janaki”, the name of the film and its protagonist, due to its association with the Hindu goddess Sita.
Amidst the ongoing dispute, people have taken to social media to voice their concerns about how the CBFC is functioning these days.
Many argue that the CBFC is a powerful tool used to suppress liberal viewpoints and filmmakers who challenge ultranationalist ideologies.
Citing examples from recent films, critics pointed out that Punjab ’97 received an impossibly long list of cuts. The makers complied, but still didn’t receive a certificate. The law mandates that the CBFC must come to a decision, but in this case, they simply didn’t.
Monkey Man hasn’t been screened at all. This tactic avoids leaving a paper trail, essentially playing games with a Hollywood studio. And since major studios can afford to drop such fights anywhere in the world, it’s a strategic gamble that has paid off for the censors.
Critics argue that the CBFC’s decisions amount to nothing short of cultural vandalism. And the future may reflect that.
At some point in the last decade, the National Film Archive of India (NFAI) stopped receiving the cut footage of censored films. On top of that, the descriptions of cuts, which are supposed to be detailed and precise, are often written poorly by people lacking fluency in any language.
This means that whatever documentation we do have will likely be unreliable. Archivists and film historians will have to run around chasing oral histories of censorship, interviewing those who witnessed the process firsthand.
And even if someone does find the courage to speak up, they’ll be trapped in an endless legal loop. Since the CBFC doesn’t have a permanent board member, any case dragged to court will see a rotating panel appoint someone new, resetting the process again and again.
The very body meant to regulate cinema now seems to be evolving into a propaganda machine, amplifying the voices of those in power. Any content that questions authority is censored or edited out, ensuring that audiences are only fed what doesn’t challenge the system, so they don’t start questioning it either.
