NEWSLINKS
US EDITION
COLUMNISTS
DIARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ELECTION 99
ELECTIONS
ARCHIVES

Search Rediff

The Rediff Interview/Govind Nihalani

'If a film or a book can tarnish our culture, which is more than 5,000 years old, then what kind of culture is this?'

One of the earliest Indian film-makers to confront intolerance for his depiction of the horrors of Partition in Tamas, Govind Nihalani is alarmed by the row over Deepa Mehta's Water.

He concedes that the resistance to Water is far greater than what he witnessed for his critically acclaimed television series. In a conversation with Archana Masih, Nihalani, one of Indian cinema's foremost directors, dwelt on what freedom of artistic expression means in a democratic country.

Against the background of Tamas, where you faced the most resistance, and now, with the problems Water is facing, how do you react to such encroachment on the freedom of film-makers and actors?

This is a question that has been worrying the artistic community for quite a while. It could be films, writing, drama, painting, whatever. There have been instances when dramas have been stopped because some people didn't like what was being shown. Theoretically, of course, we are a democratic country, we have full freedom of expression. But it's becoming more and more evident that that kind of freedom is more in theory.

What I faced during Tamas and what is happening now is very different. The level of intolerance towards views that are either inconvenient or unacceptable to a certain group of people is much more overt than it used to be. Perhaps it's because those groups have gained strength, political power, support, and because they employ violent means.

Some BJP [Bharatiya Janata Party] leaders said that if Water was shifted to MP [Madhya Pradesh], they [the film's crew] would be stoned. If this is the situation, then it is very frightening, very serious.

The preservation of culture is being made into an excuse. According to me, Hindu culture is far more open and assimilative. It has evolved over centuries and still continues to be strong. It shows the strength in the character of a civilisation. We have a tradition of shastraarth -- where two opponents of conflicting views are given a platform to debate their point and try and convince each other. If they don't agree with each other, the disagreement is accepted, not one repressed or coerced into acceptance. We have the tradition of accepting different interpretations.

Even shastraarth means the debate on the interpretation of the shastras. That there can be two different interpretations is accepted. We are bringing in a practice that tries to curb exactly this, which is very ironic. Whenever this kind of suppression takes place -- when an attempt to curb the freedom of expression or artistic expression is done -- it always leads to a major upheaval.

The human spirit cannot exist in an environment of repression. Certain groups create an impression that they are the sole repository of Hindu culture. Of course, they have the right to differ, to protest. But to express your disagreement there is a platform, there is a legal procedure by which a point can be proved or disproved.

What happened during Tamas?

In Tamas it happened both ways, I was dragged to court and also threatened. I had police protection for eight weeks. Why should we resort to violent means when more peaceful, democratic means are available to express disagreement?

To the groups agitating against Water, these same avenues are available. There is no need to throw stones, burn sets and threaten people. In this case, it seems as if we are in Kafka country, where somebody is being prosecuted for an imaginary crime that has even not been committed. So let the work be realised, let the film be made, let the book be written before any action being taken.

I think this is a very serious situation. When something like this occurs, more than the people from the film fraternity (which is also divided -- politics has also entered its ranks), it is other groups that believe in democratic freedom who support such causes -- like it happened during [the shooting of] Tamas.

Student organisations, trade unions, women's organisations, they all came out in support of the serial. That was what made the difference. A couple of film-makers coming out in support isn't going to make much difference.

A people's movement has a better impact?

Not only film-makers, but a huge section of right-thinking, like-minded people are opposed to this kind of repression, this kind of cultural policing, this kind of cultural fascism. It ultimately comes down to this because you are practising the politics of muscle to assert your position and give the impression that you are the sole interpreter of a culture.

This is unacceptable. Greater responsibility lies with the people who are representing us in Parliament. All parties committed to secular and democratic ideologies should exert force on the ruling party. The streets should not become a battleground.

Look at the way it has been done: The PMO gave clearance, the I&B [information and broadcasting] ministry gave clearance twice... And even their authority is being challenged! So where is the rule of law in this country? It makes you very distressed and angry.

Unlike Tamas, in which case the resistance began when the serial was on air, Water is still being shot ...

In fact, with Tamas, it started building up after the press show, after some sections of the press indicated that it was anti-Hindu. Of course, after the first episode, it became very big. Yes, in this case the film is not even made. All these demands of script censorship... it is ridiculous.

What are the technicalities involved in getting a script approved?

Any film from abroad that is financed with foreign money needs its script cleared by the ministry of information and broadcasting. That is a rule. But it is not mandatory for an Indian production. If I make a film today with my money I don't have to go to the government -- and thank god for that. Tomorrow if I have to submit my script to the government... they are not even taking the government's word on it, they want each group to censor the script. This should never happen.

It is a wrong and dangerous precedent... Then where is the authority of the government, where is the government then? If these individual groups impose their will on films today, it can happen to books tomorrow, to music, to anything.

Does the same rule apply to Indian films shot abroad?

I really don't know because I've never shot abroad. But I don't think they have to submit the script. Here we became very touchy because Louis Malle made a series of documentaries that were found objectionable. It then happened with City of Joy in Calcutta. I would say we're a little oversensitive about these things. If a film or a book can tarnish our culture, which is more than 5,000 years old, then what kind of culture is this?

Is it true that you have helped formulate the film policy of Uttar Pradesh?

I did not participate in any of their deliberations. I don't think I was even invited, but I certainly participated in a session that the UP government had organised, inviting film-makers to come and shoot in the state. I was very much present during that session. I've not participated in their policy formulation deliberations.

What role does the film policy of a state play? Do you have to seek their permission, tell them the outline of the script if you have to shoot there?

No, I don't have to submit a script.

You don't have to interact with that film body?

If I need help from them, certainly: If I need security. If I need permission to shoot at certain places, then the local bodies do get involved.

Does that mean informing them about the script?

Generally you tell them what kind of scene you are shooting so that they know what kind of arrangements are required. If you are shooting a dance sequence with 100 people, you need that kind of arrangement, transport etc. There is no question of approval.

Have you shot in Uttar Pradesh?

A long time ago. I photographed Junoon, produced by Mr Shashi Kapoor and directed by Mr Shyam Benegal. After that I have done a couple of documentaries in that area.

How was that experience?

When we shot Junoon, we had absolutely no problems except a couple of local ones, which had nothing to do with politics.

Deepa Mehta's producers say that in spite of getting a clearance from the I&B ministry and the local administration, they were asked to leave Varanasi. Does that bode ill for foreign crews shooting in India?

This time it is Hindu culture, but sometimes it becomes sheer politics. I am sure films on Tibet were not allowed to be shot here because they [the authorities] didn't want to upset Chinese sentiments. As far as foreign productions are concerned, let us not look at everything in terms of money and let us not allow the market to dictate our cultural policy.

We have to be clear on the basic issues. Whether the money comes from abroad or not is immaterial, whether we are willing to accept a different interpretation, a critical view of any of our institutions or policies that we take for granted, is the issue.

Are we prepared to accept a different point of view at all? By our Constitution we have the right to express our point of view. It may differ from that of certain others. The strength of democracy is that you are allowed to take a critical and appreciative view. Why should that freedom be curbed, that too by extra-constitutional groups?

From Tamas to Bandit Queen, Elizabeth and now Water, there have been cases that suggest that the Indian mindset is not very open to views that don't suit the conservatives.

This kind of a fight, with the censors or with forces that want to police culture, goes on everywhere. Recently, a film was banned in a particular area of London by the local municipality. It is not that things are ideal in other places. We cannot take the attitude that since they banned it, even we can. No, if they banned it, that is also wrong.

These things happen. It happened in Germany during Hitler's time. It happened in Latin America under several dictatorships. Even in Socialist governments in Eastern Europe and Russia. Yet certain film-makers took those limitations as a challenge and did some wonderful work. Those regimes didn't last, ultimately. The desire of the human spirit for freedom cannot be suppressed for long. So it is not an isolated phenomenon, but that does not mean we should accept it.

As a director, what lessons did the Tamas experience give you that could serve as a lesson to other serious film-makers?

That experience has definitely curbed my desire to take risks, to come out more openly. Because you realise it doesn't only involve you but the entire crew, who have no part in the conceptualisation of the film. It makes them also vulnerable. You realise that because of your conviction you are putting several lives at risk -- which is sad.

I can take the risk if I have to face legal action, but, beyond that, you really have to think 10 times. One lesson I've learnt is that if you are making a television serial, opinions can be made on the basis of one episode alone. What follows comes only after a week. So you have to structure your script in such a way that you don't create misunderstandings because certain things only get resolved in the fifth episode. But in a film you can resolve everything in one stretch of two-and-a-half hours while the audience is still there. In television the audience viewing gets fragmented.

The other lesson I've learnt is that if you are tackling sensitive issues, then you have to be very honest. Don't try to put masala into it or be smart. Be direct and the message goes across. Don't try to manipulate, distort or create false interpretations. There should be a certain logic to your interpretation, there should be a certain intellectual rigour behind the effort, and that goes across even at the censorship level.

Where does this lead to? How frustrating is it?

If you still feel strongly about a subject, it is very frustrating because you don't feel fully confident about taking all the risks. But it also has its positive aspects. Then you start thinking of ways and means to convey something indirectly, like it worked for film-makers in Eastern Europe -- in Czechoslovakia, Poland and Hungary -- where outstanding films were made with strong anti-establishment messages. There were even comedies, light-hearted on the surface but with potent messages. It challenges your artistic craftsmanship, your ability to convey the same thing equally forcefully but indirectly.

After the demolition of the socialist regimes in Eastern Europe, few outstanding films came out because under those regimes their [the directors'] minds were constantly working on how to subvert the system. In the process, they came out with outstanding work. In the last five years, how many outstanding films have come out of the region? Maybe now they will start again...

But the point is, why, in a democratic country, should we be even thinking about this? Why is it that the government on the one hand says we want to send signals to the world that we are a modern state going into the 21st century and on the other we have practices which you'd expect in medieval Europe?

What does it spell for the future of serious film-making?

Whatever little cinema is attempted -- cinema which takes the courage of grappling with issues, takes commercial risks -- if even that is muzzled down, then why do we talk of meaningful cinema at all? I am totally against censorship of any kind. I think we're mature enough and the government should treat film-makers as responsible citizens.

Today, if I have to show a man who is a misogynist and obnoxious towards women, I can't. They'll say, 'Cut it out because it is an insult to women in this country'. In reality, such people exist, but if I want to show such a character in my film, I doubt if I can. Why shouldn't I? By not showing that, have I added to the dignity of women? I'm being forced to close eyes to reality.

We should be open. The level of intolerance has become unimaginable today. It has become a political issue.

The Rediff Interviews

Tell us what you think of this interview