|
First:
a general comment on Anupam Kher's view that TV programmes need
censorship. Whereas there is a need for a standardised Code of Conduct
for TV channels, this is difficult to implement:
 Not
all channels uplink from India. Codes of Conduct tend to be geographical
and therefore, if you uplink from Hong Kong, you will follow its
Censorship/Codes. If you do from India, you will follow ours. To
that extent, standardisation is not possible and therefore, it could
turn out to be unfair. One has to be careful that the Code is therefore,
inclusive, and is done after a review of practices in other countries.
One that tries to include the best features of others and covers
all nature of channels/programmes in India.
-We
need a Code of Conduct from an independent Regulatory Authority
specific to Television. It should not be the CBFC (Central Board
of Film Certification). You cannot mix channels - otherwise, you
will get a 'khichdi' that will serve neither Cinema nor TV. This
Regulatory Authority is in the Broadcast Bill, the Convergence Bill
but since both have been held up, there has been no action in this
regard.
This
Regulatory Authority would not simply look at programme do's and
don'ts, but also technical specifications, right practices etc.
Since TV is essentially dictated by technology, any programme codes
have to be based on that reality. For example, if TV allows for
24-hour transmission then, programmes with adult content tend to
be repeated in non-adult viewing hours. This kind of problem will
have to be addressed.
TV
channels loosely follow self-regulatory codes, or those of the country
which they uplink from. The programme codes are normally general.
They are not specific to a genre of programming, like just TV soaps.
Having
said that, there are certain specific norms related to advertising
and films. Doordarshan has a specific code for advertising. All
foreign movie channels have film codes based on the country of origin
or uplinking. So, Star Movies and HBO will carry an age limit certification
before each film. The loophole here is that since these channels
are 24-hour movie channels, they repeat an adult film in an afternoon
slot - which it has not been certified for.
Music
videos: I am not aware of any regulation specific to these. There
are codes specific to depiction of women, nudity, pornography, violence,
etc. Music videos would fall under these codes.
Indian
serials are a curious mix of Indian and foreign, like our films.
Many serials have taken their inspiration from American and British
serials, some are direct copies and others are franchised shows
bought by a producer or channels and replicated with their permission.
 |
|
The
cast of The Bold and the Beautiful
|
The
Bold and The Beautiful is
certainly the inspiration for our daily and weekly soaps. It is
basically about a family and there is the saas-bahu angle to it.
Beyond that, Indian soaps have moved in many directions and Ekta
Kapoor's serials are very Indian and original in treatment and themes.
Kehta
Hai Dil began as Picket Fences before going its own way
in the saas-bahu genre. This was a direct lift but not acknowledged.
So are many other serials: Krisshna Arjun was based on Remington
Steele, Jeet is a loose version of Boston Public -
and so on and so forth.
Jassi
Jaissi Koi Nahin gives copyright to the Colombian original.
So did KBC. University Challenge, Mastermind....
As
far as women are concerned, this is difficult to answer. In foreign
serials, a daily soap in America is normally in the afternoons when
only women and retired people watch TV (or so we like to believe!).
Coronation Street and Eastenders, the two top rated
shows on English TV, are prime time shows also, but the male characters
are equally important as the women.
Indian
soaps, working on the assumption that women are the primary target
for drama, tend to favour very strong - positive or negative - female
characters. The men are by and large, secondary. All the top shows
across channels reveal this bias. There's no point getting into
the debate on whether women are regressively portrayed or progressively.
It is unfair, because there is a blend of the two - traditional
women who very often espouse modern values and positions.
Obviously,
the foreign female characters are much bolder in their professional
portrayals and in the articulation of their sexuality and romantic
inclinations. This is primarily because marriage is treated as a
love relationship between the sexes whereas in India, it is still
primarily treated as a family affair.
 A
serial like Astitiva (Zee) is one of the few which tries
to blend the two - it treats marriage and the relationship between
the man and the woman both romantically and as a union between two
families. Perhaps that is why so many of us have praised it.
 Music
Videos:
Must admit I do not watch too many of these. But I have watched
enough to know that many remixes are semi pornographic and tend
to exploit women. However, this is also true of many foreign videos
and it is difficult to see how you would regulate this because then
you would have to throw out 80 per cent of the music videos or Hindi
film songs. (What is the Hindi film song but a music video?)
Some
norms on vulgarity and portrayal of women might be applied, but
it is always difficult because once you start censoring, there is
no end to it.
What
effect this has on the younger generation?
Tough. At one level, you can say they are more liberal and accepting
of their bodies and sex is not a hidden act in the dark. On the
other hand, given the violence against women, we should have serious
concerns about this impact. Especially on the male viewer who watches
these. We can possibly draw a connection between the depiction of
women on TV and the violence and sexual assault on them. Even the
women in our TV serials, though clad in sarees are done up in an
overtly sensual manner be it in their blouses, or the tight wrap
of their sarees which accentuate their vital statistics.
News
channels: We tend not to show mutilated bodies of our security
forces but those of terrorists, victims in that order. In general,
showing is unnecessary. But this is difficult to answer: BBC and
CNN do not show violent death in say WTC, or Iraq. However, when
reporting on Palestine and Israel, they do not show the same sensitivity.
There should definitely be a warning that the 'following visuals
are brutal and disturbing' and there should be every effort made
to minimise airing of mutilated bodies.
Same
goes for fiction.
During
the coverage of communal riots, greater care should be taken. The
lessons of Gujarat have been learnt to a large extent- in the recent
Mumbai blasts, you did not see as many terrible sights. Of course,
it was a one-day, two attack affair.
There
is a case for showing some violence, otherwise it becomes rather
like the coverage of the Iraq war in which we saw troops, aeroplane
attacks, tanks and lots of smoke and fire but none of the dead or
injured or indeed, of the extent of the damage to cities. This was
a sanitised picture of the war and robbed it of its brutality and
awfulness. If we do not see how awful war is - how can we oppose
it?
(The
views expressed here are those of the author and indiantelevision.com
need not necessarily subscribe to the same).
Also
read:
"Censorship
in India is an eyewash" - Vinta Nanda
|
