‘The Kashmir Files’ Director Vivek Agnihotri recently talked about the controversy surrounding the film ‘Adipurush’, which is claimed to be an adaptation of Ramayana. The movie has drawn criticism for its dialogues, and various sections of society are even demanding a ban on this film. As a member of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), Agnihotri talked about the take of the film certification body regarding the film.
In a recent interview in Hindi, while talking about the outrage against the film, Agnihotri stated, “One has to be extremely sensitive and responsible while making a film about people’s faith. Your beliefs could be different from mine. Like if a mother believes that her child is the most beautiful child in the world, then I have no right to prove her wrong because it’s her faith and love. There’s no logic when it comes to the matters of faith and love. Trying to shake that faith, to hurt the sentiments and the belief of those people, is a sin in itself”.
While talking about the take of the CBFC committee during the certification process of the Adipurush and whether the board had any objection regarding the scenes and dialogues in the film, he stated, “I am part of the CBFC board. We don’t watch the film for certification. The film is watched by the common men and women. I don’t know what happened to the film at what stage and who watched it. I haven’t watched the film yet…So, I don’t know much about the movie. If you’d see my statements and comments from the past, I don’t generally talk about the other films”.
He added, “I never give an opinion on the films that others are making whether good or bad. However, I would say that matters of belief are quite sensitive”.
Since the film’s first teaser was dropped in October 2022, the film has faced criticism and litigation in various courts across the country. Since its release on June 16, the film faced a ban in Nepal’s Kathmandu and Pokhara.
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been moved in the Supreme Court seeking a ban on the movie ‘Adipurush’ for hurting the religious sentiments of Hindus. The PIL contends that the movie has depicted various deities by “destroying their fundamental values and characters” and modifying the basic structure of Valmiki Ramayana. The petitioner also objected to the movie’s dialogues, contending that only ‘gully boys’ use such ‘derogatory language.’
The PIL prays for the revocation of the censor certificate granted by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) on the grounds that it violates the statutory provisions u/s 5B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952.
The petitioner said, “The sacred fundamental texts and manuscripts are the basic spiritual and physical tenets of a cultured and civilized society which a common man of such a society relies [on] and lives [by]. A man becomes an orphan like a fallen leave from the branch of a tree without his culture and traditions,” before outlining her specific contentions.
The petitioner further claimed that the movie’s disclaimer was misleading. The petitioner further averred that various deities’ physical features and communication styles, including Bhagwan Ram and Bhagwan Hanuman, are complete distortions of “not only the characters but also the very fundamental values for which they are worshipped.” The petitioner also claimed that the depiction of Mata Sita in the movie is ‘inappropriate and vulgar.’
Notably, similar petitions have been filed before Allahabad, Delhi and Rajasthan High Courts as well. On June 27, the Allahabad High Court slammed the makers of ‘Adipurush’ for depicting religious characters, including Bhagwan Ram and Bhagwan Hanuman, in an objectionable manner, asking why tolerance of Hindus was being tested.
The court’s Division Bench, comprising Justices Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Shree Prakash Singh, said, “The one who is gentle should be suppressed? Is it so? It is good that it is about a religion, the believers of which did not create any public order problem. We should be thankful. We saw in the news that some people had gone to cinema halls (wherein the movie was being exhibited) and they only forced them to close the hall, they could have done something else as well.” The court added that the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) should have done something while granting certification to the movie.
