‘Ban’ on films at International Film Festival of Kerala: An attack on progressive cinema

The denial of censor exemption by the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting for 19 films at the International Film Festival of Kerala (IFFK) has ignited a significant debate on artistic freedom, federalism, and the role of government in cultural events in India. This incident, affecting a prestigious international film festival, underscores the ongoing tension between creative expression and state oversight.

To understand this issue, it's crucial to grasp the background. The International Film Festival of Kerala (IFFK) is one of India's premier cultural events, organized annually by the Kerala State Chalachitra Academy on behalf of the Government of Kerala. Established in 1996, it has grown into a globally recognized platform for showcasing diverse cinematic works, including critically acclaimed films from around the world that often challenge conventional narratives. Typically, films screened at recognized international film festivals in India are granted an 'exemption' from the rigorous certification process of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), as mandated by the Cinematograph Act, 1952. This exemption is usually granted to facilitate the screening of a wide array of global cinema without the bureaucratic hurdles and potential delays of commercial certification, given that these films are not for general commercial release.

The recent incident involved the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (I&B) denying this routine censor exemption to 19 out of the 206 films scheduled for screening at the IFFK. While the exact reasons for the denial were not always explicitly detailed publicly for each film, such interventions often stem from concerns related to 'public order', 'decency', 'morality', or 'security of the state' – grounds that align with the reasonable restrictions allowed under Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution. This move forced the festival organizers, the Kerala State Chalachitra Academy, to either drop these films or seek alternative arrangements, thereby disrupting the curated selection and raising questions about the autonomy of the festival.

Key stakeholders in this controversy include the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, which acted as the regulatory authority denying the exemptions. Their role is to implement government policy regarding media and broadcasting, including film certification. The Kerala State Chalachitra Academy and the Government of Kerala, as the organizers of IFFK, are significant stakeholders whose cultural programming autonomy was challenged. Filmmakers, both Indian and international, whose works were affected, represent the artistic community directly impacted by such decisions. Lastly, the audience and film critics are stakeholders whose access to diverse cinematic content is curtailed, and who often champion artistic freedom.

This incident carries profound significance for India. Firstly, it reignites the perennial debate on **freedom of speech and expression** as enshrined in **Article 19(1)(a)** of the Indian Constitution. While **Article 19(2)** allows for 'reasonable restrictions' on this freedom, the crucial question is always whether such restrictions are indeed 'reasonable,' proportionate, and based on objective criteria, especially for non-commercial, festival screenings. Critics argue that blanket denials without clear justification can amount to arbitrary censorship, stifling artistic voices and critical discourse. Secondly, it highlights issues of **federalism and Centre-State relations**. Cultural events like IFFK are organized by state governments, and central government intervention in their programming raises concerns about the erosion of state autonomy in cultural matters. It prompts a discussion on whether the Union government oversteps its bounds in dictating cultural content at state-level events. Thirdly, such actions can impact India's **soft power** and international image. As a vibrant democracy that prides itself on cultural diversity, interventions perceived as censorship can undermine India's standing on the global cultural stage and deter international participation in its festivals.

Historically, film censorship in India has been a contentious issue. The **Cinematograph Act, 1952**, and the establishment of the CBFC have often led to clashes between filmmakers and the state. From early bans on films like 'Kissa Kursi Ka' during the Emergency to more recent controversies involving films like 'Udta Punjab' (2016) and 'Lipstick Under My Burkha' (2017), the extent of censorship has been a recurring point of contention. While commercial films undergo a stringent certification process, international film festivals have traditionally enjoyed a degree of latitude. The current denial for IFFK films marks a departure from this established practice, signaling potentially stricter oversight.

The future implications are manifold. Such interventions could lead to a 'chilling effect' on filmmakers, who might self-censor to avoid controversy, thereby limiting the diversity and boldness of cinematic expression. It could also prompt legal challenges, testing the constitutional validity of such denials and further defining the boundaries of artistic freedom. Moreover, it could influence how other film festivals across India curate their selections, potentially leading to a more cautious approach to avoid similar conflicts. The incident underscores the need for greater clarity and transparency in the guidelines for censor exemptions at film festivals, ensuring that artistic freedom is balanced with legitimate state concerns without resorting to arbitrary control.

In essence, the IFFK 'ban' is not just about 19 films; it's a microcosm of larger debates concerning fundamental rights, federal structures, and the cultural fabric of a democratic nation.