To Download Click here.

Date: 08-06-16

Girta censor

89 cuts on Udta Punjab show Censor Board esteems politics, not cinema

While India is subpar and struggling to improve in many areas from ease of doing business to education (the accompanying opinion essay details the latter), our film industry strides with pride on the global stage. Bollywood may even be India’s best known brand, marshalling enormous soft power from Afghanistan to America. It deserves all possible support and encouragement. Instead, the Central Board of Film Certification, particularly under the chairmanship of Pahlaj Nihalani, seems to want to dishearteningly drag films back to the worst kind of licence raj. In the latest horror story, it has ordered as many as 89 cuts from the film Udta Punjab.

This is also a case of flagrant politicisation of film certification. Udta Punjab is about the drug menace and the fact that CBFC reportedly wants to chop all its references to Punjab, including towns and cities and in the title itself, is clearly related to impending assembly elections where drugs are an issue. The ruling Shiromani Akali Dal, which is an NDA ally at the Centre too, objects to the film referring to Punjab’s drug problem. That a political party thinks it can dictate filmic content is proof of all that’s wrong with film certification in India today.

Consider the tragicomedy that’s been playing out since Nihalani took office in 2015. In a country and an age that is filled with the sound of gaalis CBFC has been lopping off even innocuous swearwords at whim. It’s been waging war against kisses that go on for too long and against double meanings. It’s squeamish about sex but also objected to the word ‘virgin’ in Finding Fanny. Instead of 21st century cinema CBFC frequently acts like it’s holding a brief for Amar Chitra Katha.

On the upside there’s been the appointment of the Shyam Benegal headed committee to re-establish CBFC as a certification board rather than censor. It has recommended that CBFC should stop scissoring films and only assign them different classifications – like suitable for plus 12 years of age or adults only. These reforms must be implemented on an urgent basis. Economies need creativity and innovation to be competitive in the 21st century, it’s no longer about iron-jawed workers turning out nuts and bolts on a factory assembly line. Killing Bollywood, one of the few sectors where creativity and innovation flourish at present, would be tantamount to crushing the spirit of India for transient, if not imaginary, political gain.

Date: 07-06-16

Clear the air on FDI in retail

Given the Centre’s focus on attracting investment and improving India’s ‘Ease of Doing Business’ ranking, it is time it took an unambiguous stand on foreign direct investment (FDI) in retailing. While it is true that the government has eased some rules relating to investment in single-brand retail operations, the norm on ‘sourcing’ locally remains a significant grey area, as reflected in the discussions around Apple’s plans for India. In November, the Centre eased the rules permitting 100 per cent FDI in ‘Single Brand Product Retail Trading’ subject to the sourcing caveat — the precondition being that companies with more than 51 per cent foreign ownership must source 30 per cent of the value of goods in India, preferably from medium, small or micro enterprises. In isolation, the requirement of a certain proportion of domestic content in the products has a socio-economic relevance, given its potential to create jobs and protect livelihoods. But the sourcing norm has inhibited FDI inflow; worse, it could fall foul of the WTO’s National Treatment norms. The Centre therefore amended this condition allowing for an exemption to entities selling “products having ‘state-of-the-art’ and ‘cutting-edge’ technology”, and even more ambiguously, in cases “where local sourcing is not possible”. Predictably Apple has sought waivers citing the exemption clause. Its case seems to have found support with Commerce Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, who said her Ministry was in talks with the Finance Ministry on allowing Apple to open company-owned stores in India and to explore whether there was a need for separate guidelines for sourcing waivers.

Rather than get into a potentially convoluted debate about when exemptions should be given, the best course, given the circumstances, is to drop the sourcing condition altogether. It is counterproductive and open to charges of arbitrariness. Allowing Ministry officials the discretion to decide on what constitutes ‘cutting-edge’ technology or whether local sourcing is possible or not opens the door for less-than-transparent outcomes and the possibility of litigation. A competitor that has invested in local manufacturing capacity would justifiably feel hard done by if a rival incorporating a similar level of technological advancement in its products were exempted. The Centre’s stated objectives for relaxing FDI norms — “improving the availability of such goods for the consumer” and “enhancing the competitiveness of Indian enterprises through access to global designs, technologies and management practices” — would be rendered fruitless if overseas companies, subject to the whims of interpretation, opt out of either entering the market or from making significant investment. Ultimately, keeping it simple works best, especially when it concerns investment rules

Date: 08-06-16

फिल्म नहीं, नशे को सेंसर करने से बचेगी प्रतिष्ठा