I Don’t Agree With the Modifications the Censors Made to My Film on Phule: Ananth Mahadevan

Director Ananth Mahadevan is putting up a brave front. His latest film, Phule (based on the lives of anti-caste reformers Jyotiba and Savitribai Phule), starring Pratik Gandhi and Patralekha, was set to release on April 11. But after objections were raised by some Brahmin groups on the basis of the film’s trailer – the Central Board for Film Certification (CBFC) directed the makers to alter the mentions of caste names like ‘Mahar’, ‘Mang’, ‘Peshvai’ and ‘Manu’s system of caste’. According to a report in The New Indian Express, a member of the Brahmin group is quoted as saying: “It could stoke caste-based tensions”.

During a phone interview with The Wire, Mahadevan tries his best to downplay the situation. One can hardly blame him, considering what his contemporary – actor/director Prithviraj Sukumaran – recently faced after the release of L2: Empuraan, which touched upon the 2002 Godhra riots. Mahadevan does, however, concede that like all storytellers, even he would have liked his ‘baby’ to ‘not have any scars’. 

Mahadevan seems fine with removing the caste references, if the rest of the film is seen the way he intended. But in this interview, he’s seen doing a difficult balancing act: asserting his agency as a filmmaker, while also trying to ensure his film’s release without further controversy.

After implementing the changes suggested by the CBFC, Phule has got a ‘U’ (Universal) certificate – and is now slated for April 25, two weeks after its original release date. 

Edited excerpts:

If you could elaborate on the objections Phule faced from Brahmin groups?

I want to, first of all, start off by saying this entire thing has sprung off into something which was not necessary.  Number one, the trailer was only meant to be an indicator or a dramatic representation of what the film would be. If we show each side of the trailer and every exclamation, it wouldn't be a trailer, it would be the full film. Now, people inferring things from the trailer and coming to the conclusion that a particular community has been targeted, a particular community has been degraded or humiliated is totally unfair and wrong. 

I am a Brahmin, I've made films. They have not been pulled down (in the film) in any way. In fact, the Phules started off their school only because Brahmins gave them their premises to start schools. So you can see the mindset of Brahmins was in conjunction with that of the Phule. 

A few Brahmins have taken objection. So four or five people or a minority in a particular community do not represent the community.

Coming to the second part of your question. I don’t know how the paper listing the corrections of recommendations leaked? Who leaked it? That was confidential information only between the producer and the CBFC. All they did was give five or six recommendations and we tweaked those moments. We didn't cut scenes. Alright, you want to soften something, you feel that you want to take a softer stand towards society. We have no problems with that. 

We implemented all the changes and we sent it to them and they gave us a U certificate right away because they also felt that this film should reach the youngest of audiences in the country and the world because it's about the upliftment of youth. It's about education, fighting discrimination among castes, genders, you know, whatever. For God's sake, do not politicise the film.

There have been previous films made on the Phules. Do you think it’s because yours is a Hindi film that has brought it under scrutiny?

We have not muted anything. We have just replaced it with a softer term without naming the Mangs and the Mahars. We have said the downtrodden and the oppressed people. That's it. You know, it may be a little diluted, but the impact will not go away. That's what I'm trying to tell these people. Nothing is going to be missing in the film. The film is as it is, as it was shot. We're just taking a softer stand on a couple of things.

Because we want to follow the law. Absolutely. The CBFC is a legal body in the country. Why would we want to create unnecessary friction between us? So, if this is how you see it, okay, this is how we see it. 

Do you agree with the modifications suggested by the CBFC?

Definitely not. I mean, we put up our stand. Our stand was that – there are all the research books. These are all written. So, we have depended on research and subject material written by Brahmins, observers and historians in Hindi, Marathi and English. They said, yes, we admit. We know all this happened. We are not saying that you cooked it up or fictionalised it for the sake of creating any kind of tension in society.

And they were probably right. Look, one trailer and what it caused. There was complete conflagration. So, probably they are right. You’re (people protesting about the apparent censorship) proving them right.

Do you think the CBFC did everything within its power to protect your vision of the film?

In what sense? Because my vision is still there. My edit is still there. It's only this little dilution that has happened,

Yes, the dilution is exactly what I’m talking about here…

Yeah, I mean, every director would want his film untouched. Especially when you make a film with such passion, without cinematic and dramatic liberties, unlike so many of our other biopics, which have resorted to going over the top and creating and visualising situations, which you know are impossible and incredible.

So, yes. Any director worth his salt would say, please don't touch my baby. Please don't inoculate him here. Please don't inject him there. You know, there will be little scars here and there. And just keep him as he is. 

But then, you see, since we are in the public domain, we have to follow certain rules and regulations to modify, send it to any other country. They will have their own censor board, whether it's the UK or China or the US, they have their own censor board. And we don't even know what they do with our film, what they cut. So, it is something that I guess we have to live with. Unfortunately, we have to live with It

Do you think filmmakers are free to make films with their socio-political convictions today in India?

Of course, they are. I mean, but you should have the sensibility to, you know, not go the extra mile and try and provoke people unnecessarily. Present the facts as they are. That's what we’ve done. We have only represented history. We have only recreated history. We haven’t interpreted history. That is for the audience to interpret, take home and find the message in it. You know, otherwise it becomes an agenda film.

The problem with what you're saying is that being held to a standard of history only applies to a certain kind of films which criticise our historical greatness.

No, no. Don't get the RSS into it. The RSS or any other community has nothing to do with this. I mean, I don't know why we immediately pick up a particular organisation or a particular party or something like that and say that these are the people behind it. They have nothing to do with it. They cannot say a word about it. 

But I didn't mention the RSS. 

I'm talking about a film like, say, Chhaava. It's not held to the same standard that probably your film is in terms of historical authenticity. Do you think that's fair? 

Yeah, I mean, if you see through it, I mean, again, it is only a film. It is not some kind of a morcha that is being held all over the country on the streets to create an uprising. I mean, it's a film, it depends on how you see it. 

I would say, you know, if you make cinema honestly, that becomes more provocative. For the reasons you just explained, one wouldn't take Chhaava or those creations seriously in that sense, 

But you do feel there’s a certain preferential treatment for some films?

No, not preferential. It's like, you know, it's more of ignorance, I would say. I mean, they ignore certain things. 

I'm talking about censorial powers who allow things in a Chhaava and ask you to remove things in Phule.

I don't know, like... See, I'll tell you what, the board of eight or 10 people who watch a film changes with every film. There are more than, I don't know how many members, 100 or 200, I have no idea how many members they have. So it's like, it's like the film awards, you know, it's like the International Film Festival. A jury may not like your film, or a jury would have rejected your film, which goes to another film festival, and then they select it there. And it eventually goes on to win something, you know, or the greatest of performance. So it's a totally subjective view.

When people sit there, they have their rules. They definitely have their rules and regulations, but some of them apply it, some of them don't apply it, and some of them see it differently. So that is how it is. You know, it varies with even the members sitting there in judgements.

Do you feel free and secure as a storyteller in the current circumstance?

I do. Because you see, my approach towards filmmaking is absolutely honest.  And when I'm making a film like Phule, which is about two fearless people, who stood their ground against all the opposition that was thrown at them. And they showed tremendous strength, you know, and integrity. Why would I feel not free to make a film on them? That means if I'm going to do it with a sense of fear and doubt in my mind, then I'm not doing justice to this great couple.

So for me, I do not see anything. Even if someone had told me in the beginning, that, oh, look, you're treading on very thin ice and all that. No, I'm saying it as it is. Why are we frightened of the truth?

Would you undergo the hassle of making a political film again?

I think without being provocative, without being prejudiced towards anybody, a fair assessment of whatever you want to say of a situation or person is always welcome and it varies from film to film and subject to subject. You need to know how to do it and the way you present it.

I would, if there is another sensitive subject and if it demands that it's an urgency of or it excites me as a filmmaker, I will certainly go ahead and do it.

The problem is that the bitter truth can be labelled provocative by the powers that be.

I will cross that bridge when it comes to that. First, let me make the film that would make, you know, create that kind of a problem. Today, I've made Phule.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.