It is a mixed, unconvincing signal that has been sent out by the Central Board of Film Certification in clearing Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s Padmavati with a minimum of modification. At one level the “censor board”, as the panel is popularly known, is to be commended for resisting pressures not to clear the film ~ whose prospects at the box office have been boosted by the controversy that threatened its ever making it to public cinema ~ but at another remove it has earned much disrepute for itself for permitting the “issue” to thus snowball. A quick decision would have indicated maturity and independent thinking. More so because only five modifications were suggested after a special group was set up to “screen” the film, and the producers have reportedly accepted them. That the most significant move of the CBFC was to call for dropping the ‘i’ from the title is an exposure ~ the panel had to make a show of “doing something”. Such wilting under pressure is ominous, in a country as diverse (divided?) there will always be “groups” ~ religious, regional, communal, professional and what have you ~ who can nitpick about anything they deem unflattering, and the trend toward intolerance will be accelerated if those capable of raising a stink have their way. If there really was valid objection to Padmavati it would not have secured U/A certification. That the panel has buckled on previous recent occasions fuels suspicions of its being overly “sensitive” to outside influences.

Now that the movie has been virtually “cleared”, the liberal credentials of the Central and state governments have been put on test. Due respect and honour must be accorded to the decision of a government appointed body, it does have official sanction. From Raisina Hill a strong message must be delivered to the chief ministers who have declared that the movie would never be shown in their states, disrespecting the CBFC clearance must be projected as equating with defying a judicial order (the Bombay High Court has already indicated its strong views on the subject). In turn, chief ministers must direct the police and district officials to take all measures to contain “fringe elements” who continue to threaten disruptive violence. There can be no scope for any more threats of maiming or beheading, there is deep sanctity to maintaining law-and-order.

It is a constitutionally-mandated duty, not subject to political whim. The apex court had sagaciously declined to get embroiled in the Padmavati controversy saying it fell within the domain of the CBFC, now it must exercise its moral and “physical” muscle to endorse the decision of the panel in which it had placed much stock. Any further “compromise” would ensure this nation makes a laughing stock of itself ~ over nothing more than a movie.