This was the general consensus of a discussion on the second and concluding day of the sessions of the IBM? (Infrastructure-Building for Minds & Markets) held as part of the two-day Tenth Osian’s Cinefan Festival of Asian and Arab Cinema in the western metropolis.

While they would not like to have any kind of censorship, most speakers who took part in the discussion on ‘Ban the Book – Flaunt the Film’ agreed that some kind of control was essential in a democracy. But they agreed that bans on books like ‘Nine Hours to Rama’, ‘the Da Vinci Code’, ‘Lady Chatterley’s Lover’ by D H Lawrence or the books by Salman Rushdie and protests to films like ‘Jodha Akbar’ or ‘Fire’ and ‘Water’ had proved counter-productive.

There was also general agreement that state governments should have the right to control law and order in the case of dissent about any film or work of art, and not ban a film that has been cleared by the Central Board of Film Certification.

Initiating the discussion, eminent critic Aruna Vasudev who is the founder of the Cinefan Film Festival said there had been increasing intolerance towards works of art and cinema often leading to bans and violence. She said if the CBFC had cleared a film for exhibition, there should be no reason for people to protest or want a ban of a film.

Osian’s Connoisseurs of Art Chairman Neville Tuli said the In Tolerance section in the festival had been introduced in view of the increasing angst among people, with the aim of highlighting the role and ability of the intelligentsia to come together for debate, which should be at the heart of everything. Bans, he said, were undesirable in a civilized society.

Filmmaker Rahul Dholakia, whose film ‘Parzania’ had faced protests and resistance from theatre owners in Gujarat last year, said it was unfortunate that most people who protested did not understand the message of a film when they began to protest. Most protesters did not known what they were protesting for. He gave the example of his own film which was merely the saga of a suffering family after their son goes missing, but had been unnecessarily politicized. As an artist, he should have the freedom to make what he wanted, and the people could choose not to see it if they wanted. There was need to create a dialogue and build sensibilities to build an environment of tolerance.

He also noted that bans had been counter-productive as they gave popularity to a film and in the case of his own film, many in Gujarat saw it on pirated DVDs or on the internet. He hinted that some of these bans are deliberated orchestrated to help a film.

Eminent writer Nayantara Sehgal said as a writer, she wanted her freedom to hurt sentiments, as this was the only way to bring about change for the advancement of society. She said what artists made or wrote could affect one’s national pride, regional sentiments, or moral values. As an example, she said the large number of books and films condemning the ‘sati’ tradition had resulted in the practice being declared illegal. But she was opposed to violence, and regretted that the kind of protests that had been seen in the western metropolis had been tantamount to terrorism. Mob frenzy often prevented a debate on what true art meant.

Referring to censorship, she said one mistake that the CBFC made was that it assumed that society will never change. Closed minds were the greatest danger to society.

Women’s rights lawyer Flavia Agnes said she felt protest was the basic right of a society, but it should not mean violence. However, it was often very difficult to draw a line between the two. Opposing a work of art was not always regressive, she said. She said value systems keep changing and so do the perceptions of the people.

However, she was categorical that the media – particularly the electronic media – created a lot of issues and she particularly referred to the travails of the bar dancers, noting that the media never talked about prostitution or other crimes, but had played up the bar dancer issue.

Senior journalist and Shiv Sena member of Parliament Bharatkumar Raut said he was opposed to bans of creative art, but freedom of the artist should not mean anarchy and unlimited freedom. He therefore supported protests as long as they remained peaceful, adding that the man on the street also had freedom to do what he liked if the artist had the freedom to make what he wanted.

He did not agree that the media was wholeheartedly to blame, as he said it had only become a reflection of public feeling and was only a follower. He gave examples to show how he had often been forced to only write what people wanted to read, and he said this probably also applied to television channels as well. However, he said in response to several members of the audience who did not agree with him that the media could play a pro-active role to bring about positive change.