Government threatens to impose ban on portrayal of violence in films

'Nishant' - presentable tacticsWith the Sholays, theDus Numberis,Nehle Pe Dehlasand other "action-oriented" films monopolizing the scene, it is little wonder that the government has threatened to impose a ban on the portrayal of violence. A hero single-handedly beating up 30 villains a la James Bond may be a fantastic proposition but it romanticizes strong-arm tactics sufficiently to send shivers down the corridors of the Home Ministry.The fear is that seeing injustice being repelled with the same brutality by which it is inflicted may make violence an acceptable norm of life. Imagine if the Harijans were to beat up the caste Hindus who refuse them water from the village well! It would be a blot upon our hallowed law and order system and lead to anarchy.Far better is the nonviolent way. The Harijans could complain to the police (consisting doubtless of further caste Hindus!) and await justice on the plea that the law accords them equal rights. And they may get it too, if they have the patience to wait for it. It is another matter if they die of thirst in the meantime.The quarrel with the government on the issue of violence in the cinema emanates not from the ends they have in view but from the means by which they expect to achieve them. For, like most bureaucratic ideas, this one too is based upon a superficial observation of facts.The logic runs approximately along the following lines: We are a peace-loving people. Tolerance is our heritage, non-violence our creed. Films are having an adverse effect on us and particularly on our youth. If we do away with violence in the cinema, we will arrest the trend towards it in real life.The argument is unobjectionable but only partially true. For, as the film industry rightly observes, violence was not invented by the cinema. "Were there no wars, no riots, no revolutions before the 20th century?" they ask. "Were arson, rape, murder, theft, gangsterism unknown before they appeared on films? How is it that at a time when the Indian cinema had not even discovered violence, this non-violent nation shot Mahatma Gandhi dead?" These questions are worth going into even if one rejects the obviously absurd claim of the industry that "violence at a fantastic level has no adverse repercussions on society."Where the government and indeed we, as a people, go wrong is in the assumption that India is a non-violent nation. We fancy the idea, to be sure, but in fact we are as far removed from it as any other people in the world. To substantiate this in any detail would be to overstep the limits of this column. Suffice it therefore to say that the myth of non-violence emerges from a misinterpretation of three major facts of history.Firstly, we did not fight off the various invaders who swooped down upon India over the centuries. This resulted from weakness, the absence of a concept of nationhood, and above all a philosophical system that glorifies the idea of individual salvation (thereby inadvertently causing one to reject the merit of collective action), rather than from a positive preference for non-violence.Secondly, we produced men of the disposition of Gautama Buddha, Mahavira and Mahatma Gandhi, all of whom stood for the concept of non-violence. But here again we tend to overlook the fact that they were reformers whose creed could only have grown out of a necessity to react against a violent reality. Thirdly, we never subscribed to the idea of religious proselytization.In a world which saw Muslims and Christians spreading their religion at the point of the bayonet, this emerges as the greatest single proof of Hindu nonviolence. Examined closely, however, the picture is not quite as rosy as it seems. Hinduism does not seek converts because anyone born outside it is a mlecha who can never be redeemed.No swords are unsheathed, but the contempt of the Hindu towards his supposedly less fortunate neighbour is a form of violence far more devastating than any act of physical aggression. Nor is this contempt directed solely at the non-Hindu. The caste system and its variations have institutionalized the grossest moral violence.Added to this is the violence generated by the inequities of our present pattern of life. In a society committed to industrialization and change, it is natural for people to initially suffer from a lack of harmony with the outside world. Alienated from nature, from traditional environments, ancestral occupations and age-old family relationships.We are increasingly joining the ranks of what Romantic literature has aptly described as "the insulted and the injured." We are caught up in the iron contradictions of modern life and find it difficult to strike a balance between the impulses of our will and the aims we feel we ought to achieve.One major result of this has been a desire to escape from reality - a desire that clearly explains the success of the commercial film. But the very fact that the flight from unsatisfying jobs, cumbersome obligations and uncomfortable ideologies has of late favoured a celluloid world of intoxicating action, brutal sensationalism and barbaric fights, points to the existence of a violence simmering beneath the placid exterior of a people eulogized for their tolerance. Indeed, the time may not be far when our tradition of moral oppression will be replaced by an orgy of physical violence.To an extent, it is clear that the vicarious pleasure derived from violence in the cinema acts as a safety valve for pent emotions and the rising anger against a harsh reality. This is the argument offered by some members of the industry who are anxious to go on churning out their cop and robber films. But the government, motivated by a concern larger than that of making a quick buck, rightly foresees a stage when violence will generate violence.While this explains the sudden desire to ban the portrayal of violence in the cinema, it does no particular credit to the mind of the government. For, by ignoring the fact that, like other human beings, we too are prone to violence in a social situation similar to the one prevailing in India today, the government is being as escapist as our irrational audiences. What is required is not a flight from but an encounter with reality. There is no need to ban violence in the cinema. On the contrary, there is a need to encourage its portrayal with the injunction that it must be shown in realistic terms as an undesirable way of life.Published By: AtMigration Published On: Apr 6, 2015 09:39 IST--- ENDS ---

Download App

Get 37% off on an annual Print +Digital subscription of India Today Magazine

Government threatens to impose ban on portrayal of violence in films

With the Sholays, the Dus Numberis, Nehle Pe Dehlas and other "action-oriented" films monopolizing the scene, it is little wonder that the government has threatened to impose a ban on the portrayal of violence.

PUBLICATIONS

TELEVISION

EVENTS

RADIO

GAMING

USEFUL LINKS

PRINTING

WELFARE

DISTRIBUTION

SYNDICATIONS

WEBSITES

EDUCATION