Indian censors refused to certify my film because it exposes sexism, says director

Alankrita Shrivastava's directorial Lipstick under my Burkha has come under the radar for its content: a film based on a teacher and student’s illicit relationship.

Indian censor board refused to certify the film stating that "the story is lady-oriented, their fantasy above life. There are contentious sexual scenes, abusive words, audio pornography and a bit sensitive touch about one particular section of society."

Speaking to Indian Express the filmmaker said she was "quite a shocked" to learn that her film would not be certified. "Previously films like Margarita with a Straw, Parched, Qissa, BA Pass, Fire had been certified. So I assumed Lipstick Under My Burkha also would be."

Also read: Indian censor board refuses to certify Prakash Jha's upcoming film, 'Lipstick Under My Burkha'

However, most films in India which centre around controversial topics are deemed inappropriate by their censor board and Shrivastava is aware that Lipstick under my Burkha is not the first film facing issues from the board.

"Haraamkhor too had a long drawn struggle. Udta Punjab was ordered to make a zillion cuts. So obviously the issue is with censorship as a whole. It does not tie with a democratic country where the freedom of expression is guaranteed by the constitution."

But Shrivastava believes the decision of the board has to do with other reasons. "The specific thing about the decision on Lipstick was that it exposed the sexism, the discrimination against a film with a female point of view. It revealed their insistence on propagating only a certain male-gaze dominant narrative in popular culture. And in a sense, their other decisions also reflect their narrow-minded approach to cinema and their discomfort with any alternative point of view."

As a woman and a filmmaker, Shrivastava is aware of the objectification of women in the industry, an example being item songs.

"I don’t believe in objectifying women. I am quite conscious of my female gaze. I would not make the camera go up and down a woman’s body for no narrative reason," she said.

"That does not mean that a woman cannot be sexual. But that she needs to be in charge of her own sexuality. This is the battle of the gaze in cinema. But I have no issues with any kind of content that is created. As long as the audience has choices. If we only feed the audience a certain kind of culture, then that becomes the dominant culture. People should be free to engage in all kinds of films, songs, books and decide for themselves."

The Turning 30 director added, "Feminism really does mean that women have the power to choose. And then they can choose whatever they like. Therefore, it is important to have a healthy cultural space with all kinds of points of view. I personally feel strongly about the representation of women in culture, so I will not perpetuate the objectification of women. But I know that it is not a cross for every woman in the industry to bear. Women cannot be burdened with challenging the status quo. If they feel strongly, they will do so. And they will do so in ways that are unique to them."

While Shrivastava sees the industry with an open mind, she has low tolerance for the hypocrisy because of which her movie is suffering. "The hypocrisy lies in the fact the CBFC refuses to provide a level playing field to all kinds of narratives and points of view. The hypocrisy is in the fact that sexual content – if it is created for the purpose of fulfilling male desire is alright. But the minute women have agency over their sexuality, it bothers the CBFC."

"Women, then, according to the CBFC should exist only to play the roles ordained for them by men. Aren’t women living, breathing people? With dreams, desires, flaws, depth, darkness and light?"

She thinks "it is easier to think of women as worship-worthy. The purity and goodness of women are considered sacred. They are then heroic, above censure, virginal almost. I think women who are real and grey are rarely portrayed in cinema.

"A woman having agency over her own life and body and desires threatens the male ego I think. She challenges the status quo. A “great” woman is above it all, so perhaps she doesn’t challenge the status quo. We need to see many more real, regular, ordinary women with their idiosyncrasies and vulnerabilities, on screen."

Shrivastava explained why CBFC's refusal to certify her film paints a larger picture for women.

"I am a woman who is a filmmaker. My first concern is the attack on women’s rights. My second concern is the attack on freedom of expression in general. I think for me it is more than just trying to get my film certified. I feel what is under threat is specifically the right of women to tell their stories. And that is very dangerous for any society."

"I want Lipstick Under My Burkha to set a precedent, that it is okay for women to tell their stories from their point of view. And that filmmakers can make films free from the fear of censorship."