Full Text | Sort of Cuts Demanded of ‘Phule’ Will Deprive Film of Its Soul: Kancha Ilaiah Shepherd
New Delhi: A biopic on Mahatma Jyotiba Phule and Savitribai Phule, which was supposed to be released on Phule's 198th birth anniversary on April 11, could not be released after the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) asked for cuts following protests by Brahmin organisations in Maharashtra.
The film titled Phule, directed by Anant Mahadevan, depicts the lives of the 19th-century social reformers, who fought against caste oppression and promoted education for women and Dalits.
Political theorist Kancha Ilaiah Shepherd in an interview expressed dismay over the CBFC's swift response to the protests.
“The film is based on historical facts, yet the CBFC is asking to remove caste names like 'Mahar', 'Mang' and 'Peshwa,' and even the term 'Manu dharma,' which is central to understanding the caste system,” he said.
The board also objected to scenes depicting untouchability, such as a Dalit man carrying a pot to collect spit or a Brahmin boy throwing dung on Savitribai Phule.
Shepherd highlighted that the protests were led by just a handful of Brahmin organisations in Maharashtra, such as the Akhil Bhartiya Brahman Mahasangh, yet the CBFC acted swiftly.
He also criticised the silence of feminist organisations and upper-caste intellectuals.
He pointed to the irony that the Maharashtra government, which is led by Brahmin chief minister Devendra Fadnavis, has recommended a Bharat Ratna for Phule but is mum on the censorship of the reformer’s biopic.
The following is the transcript of Shepherd’s conversation with The Wire’s Atul Howale.
§
Atul Howale: My first question is, why is there censorship against the Phule film?
Kancha Ilaiah Shepherd: Well, I was surprised when I saw that the release of the film on his [Phule’s] 198th birth anniversary was stopped by the CBFC on the pretext that there was a complaint by some Brahmin organisations, particularly one Anand Dave, who represented the Brahmin Federation of Maharashtra.
Now, this film is the first film by Bollywood, with a proper director, producer and with well-known character actors like Patrick Gandhi and Patralekha [Paul]. After the film was finished, when they went for certification – that too after the trailer was released – quite surprisingly the CBFC said that several cuts need to be made because there are protests, there are complaints by Brahmin organisations.
And those cuts which they suggested, some of them are very straight. For example, they were asking for cutting caste names like ‘Mahar’, ‘Mang’ and some other Maratha surnames. Why are they asking to cut what Phule called the ‘Atishudra’ names, who were untouchable at that time? What is the concern of Brahmins here, that these names should be cut?
The other major thing is that they don't want to use the phrase ‘Manu dharma’-situated society, or society of Manu dharma.
They also don't want visuals like that of a Dalit having a pot to his neck and broom to his waist. In the 19th century that was a reality in most parts of India, and more particularly in the Peshwa kingdom, that if a Dalit were come to a village or a town, he had to notify [villagers] by even ringing a bell in certain cases, he had to spit [in a pot] and then his footprints were supposed to be swept off because there were dusty roads in those days.
Now that only indicated the level of untouchability that Indian society suffered. That they wanted to remove. And then there is a scene in the trailer, where a boy with a janeu on his body – a sacred thread on his body – a shaven head, obviously a Brahmin, gurukul-trained boy, throwing dung on Savitribai Phule when she was going to school.
That was a very well established fact – whether it was a boy of that age or whether it was different people of different age – but it were those Brahmin community members who threw dung on her [following which] she had to bathe and change clothes to go and teach.
If those kinds of things are removed, I think the soul of the film is gone.
AH: Do you think this film accurately reflects history and the Phules’ work? Some Brahmin organisations have come forward to protest – I saw that protest, there were only ten to 20 people protesting. Is the censor board really taking this protest by ten to 20 people seriously?
KS: It is interesting that it is in the same year that … the government of Maharashtra headed by Devendra Fadnavis, who himself is a Brahmin, proposed a resolution in the state assembly – which all parties unanimously voted for on March 24 – to give a Bharat Ratna to the Phules …
Although there were such demands for quite some time that the Maharashtra assembly must pass a resolution – because they belong to the Maratha society and so on – it never happened. And the BJP government passed this resolution, obviously with the nod of the RSS [Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh] and the BJP in Delhi.
In the same year, when a major film is being made and is supposed to be released, with the pretext of a handful of people with some kind of organisational, caste organisational names – the protesters themselves are caste organisations – the CBFC immediately responds to that.
Earlier, there were several protests as several films, including films on historical background, films on man-woman relationships and also minority-related films like The Kashmir Files and The Kerala Story, but the CBFC did not respond so quickly.
The only film that it took some time to clear recently was Kangana Ranaut’s Indira Gandhi film [Emergency] because various forces talked about its historical inaccuracy and it was a very recent history of a prime minister of a country that two women [inaudible].
This [Phule] is a film on 19th-century reforms and the facts about those incidents around Savitribai and Phule’s life … the first biographer who noted most of these facts was Dhananjay Keer, who himself was a Brahmin historian. He has written several biographies, including that of Savarkar and so on.
The film’s director, Anant Mahadevan, repeatedly said that ‘no, the film is made on absolute historical facts with a lot of research’ and ‘why would I make a film to offend a community to which I myself belong to’.
So even the film’s actors like Gandhi and [Paul] in their interviews said, ‘no, these are all based on historical facts, we also looked at that background and we were so deeply involved, we thought that we are making a film on a god and a goddess’. So that kind of respect they have for the couple.
What surprised me more is that the protesters are just a handful.
Also read: Anurag Kashyap is Right. Indians Need to Confront the Uncomfortable Truth About Caste
AH: We saw only ten or 20 people in the frame who protested against this film.
KS: Yeah, there are ten or 20–or three organisations they mentioned … I mean, these are known caste organisations. Now, the fact that the CBFC itself is very much concerned about it–how can they say that you should not use ‘Mahar’ and ‘Mang’ names in the cast? They were well established–
After all, see, Phule used the words ‘Shetji’ and ‘Bhatji’ for Brahmins and Baniyas, these were Marathi colloquial names for those communities. And he used Shudras and Atishudras … a whole conglomeration of agrarian communities as Shudras, including Marathas, pot makers, goldsmiths, ironsmiths, all kinds of cattle rearers and so on, what they call Dangars in Maharashtra. Then all Dalits, he put them together as Atishudras.
Now the question is, after that Ambedkar wrote The Annihilation of Caste, organised a Scheduled Caste Federation, including with Mahars and Mangs, and the caste names are very well known all over the country.
At one level we are talking about caste census, but at another level they say don't use caste names.
AH: But professor, my question is, what will happen if the caste names are shown in the film?
KS: If you look at the history of Madigas and Malas in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, Madiga is a surname now … of a whole community–writers, intellectuals, leaders and activists, and surprisingly the CBFC says ‘don't use caste but use varna’.
I mean, how does just the fourfold varna that was just used in a Rigvedic text based on the colour complexion of people at that time, in the context of the Aryan migration, which Phule himself recorded in Gulamgiri very well, that …fourfold Varna idea does not capture the caste system.
And if they say that you should not use ‘Manu dharma’ in the film, I mean, where is the [film’s life] then?
AH: In the last ten years we have seen many propaganda films like The Kashmir Files and The Kerala Story. They run smoothly and don’t have any issues with the censor board and have no restrictions, but at the same time, while truthful history is shown in Phule, the censor board asks for certain parts of it to be cut before it is released.
KS: We saw that when films like The Kashmir Files or The Kerala Story were released, it was not just Muslim intellectuals but even a lot of secular intellectuals and a lot of women journalists said that these films are not made based on historical facts. Even then, the film board did not take cognisance of such writings, protests or whatever.
Leave that alone; in the context of a major reform being accepted by [inaudible] sections in terms of caste and women's equality, the history of the Phules is the history of not just the anti-caste Satya Shodhak Samaj being built with an idea that all castes must live as equal human beings, the question of women’s liberation and education, the kind of struggles that Phule and Savitribai Phule faced from the Pune region’s elite.
And that was the time when Bal Gangadhar Tilak was also alive, and this couple was thrown out of his own father's house, and yet they went to the Dalit wada and started a school for all children, including Brahmin children.
When that kind of couple's life is coming into a film form, all those depictions are historically verified facts and several biographers have written about them.
It is in this context I think it is very disturbing, and they are not bothered about the protests by various sections. Unfortunately, you know, not many feminist organisations have come in the defence of the film. Not many journalists outside the OBC organisations, Dalit organisations, like headed by Prakash Ambedkar.
The media of course is writing the news, but where is the protest against this kind of censorship by the others … at a time when the BJP itself recommends, for the first time to 19th-century reformers, a Bharat Ratna?
I mean, where is the protest? I am shocked at this also. A lot of feminists should have talked about it, [asked that] it should come out without any cuts. And we know that the feminist movement and a large number of women writers, women executives, women journalists–a lot of them come from upper-caste backgrounds.
The propaganda films [are] based on their own hodgepodge research of modern events and contemporary events. They produce all kinds of films and if there are such objections from the film board and agencies like that, even in this case, the information and broadcasting ministry itself suggested that the word Manu dharma not be used in this film.
This is a very strange thing. How can the information ministry now suddenly come in and say ‘don't use Manu dharma’? The critique of Manu dharma by Ambedkar, the critique of Manu dharma [by] Kanshi Ram and [in] the whole of academia now, the word ‘Manuwadi’ has become very popular.
Also read | I Don’t Agree With the Modifications the Censors Made to My Film on Phule: Ananth Mahadevan
In this context, the ministry also says ‘you should not use words like Manu dharma in the film’. It's a very scary situation for the freedom of the productive masses, their representatives and their reformers. And particularly, see, reforms of Phule and Ambedkar were not like the reforms of Raja Ram Mohan Roy or Dayanand Saraswati or Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar or Ranade.
These reforms actually have changed the whole social system to make it competent to change this country into a modern country and face any eventuality tomorrow, either from China or from America, we should become a modern nation with [gender] equality, education for all and caste-lessness in society.
When such films are coming, everybody seems to be against it either by acting against the film or by remaining silent.
This kind of intellectual environment shows that caste is a very, very deep institutional thing. And not only caste; in the very same Maharashtra, the BJP government has given Savitribai's name to the Pune University.
In this atmosphere also a film, for the first time – earlier small films came – but for the first time a Bollywood film is being made on this and a handful of people protest. The CBFC responds, the information ministry responds, and only [there is only] fighting in defence of the film producer, director, actors … [inaudible]. Why should it be like that?
AH: In the last ten years this government has suppressed the voice of Bahujan communities, because on the one hand we saw other movies like The Kerala Story, Chhava and other propaganda movies run smoothly, but what happens when Phule or any other movie connected to the Bahujan people [comes out?]. Why is the government censoring them? Is the government suppressing the voice of this large community?
KS: I'm also concerned about the OBC prime minister who has been talking about the OBCs in order to mobilise votes in Maharashtra in the recent election. They did win the election with OBC votes mainly.
He also knows that the information and broadcasting ministry is asking for removal of the word Manu dharma or other words related to Manu dharma from the film; or even the CBFC remaining very firm about the cuttings, in spite of the fact that Anant Mahadevan himself said, ‘Look, I'm a Brahmin myself, why would I hurt my own community?’. The film does not have that kind of negative issues involved in it, it is based on historical facts.
Yet the BJP government is not intervening to [tell] the CBFC that ‘no, there is no need for these kind of cuts for such a remarkable film made on remarkable people like Savitribai and Mahatma Jyotirao Phule’, whom we all respect today and need them to change this country into an egalitarian country.
My feeling is, in the recent context, both the BJP and RSS, on the one side talk about changes that they are also accommodating. But on the other side, they keep insisting that the sanatan dharma has to be protected, completely protected, and no reforms within the sanatan dharma are allowed.
This goes against their own argument when it came to Muslim women. The very same party, the very same organisations were saying that there is a need for reform within Muslim women. And after all, what Phule did is the same. He did for Brahmin women, he did for Shudra women, he did for Dalit women–Savitribai and Phule–education, Satyashodhak Samaj, everything.
So I think there is a double-edged weapon that both the BJP and RSS and the government are using. Now suddenly when the film of Phule is made by the Bollywood industry [with] a very well-known director, a very well produced film and then seasoned actors acted [in it], they came out with this kind of politics.
I think the whole country must really remain watchful. It is not a question of only SC/ST/OBCs or intellectuals from those communities. It is an issue of all castes.
Why should the Brahmins, who–see my caste has treated Dalits as untouchable; today I'm saying my parents were wrong. My caste earlier was wrong. They should completely treat, they should completely realise that Dalits are equal to shepherd communities, Dalits are equal to all other OBCs. There should not be any discrimination.
So Brahmin intellectuals should take a similar stand wherever they are: whether in the government, whether in the media, and I'm very concerned about feminist organisations not at length talking about this film and the kind of developments that are taking place.
The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
