Pahlaj Nihalani Has A Surprisingly Mature Reaction To The Attack On Sanjay Leela Bhansali

AFP/Getty Images

The CBFC chairperson Pahlaj Nihalani is a rather unpopular man within the film industry.

Several actor-producers are routinely miffed with him as he is known to invoke a personal moral code on the films that are submitted to the Censor Board for clearance.

Case in point was Abhishek Chaubey's Udta Punjab which had to go through a stringent censorship process as Nihalani refused to clear the film unless the makers agreed to delete as many as 80 scenes.

If anything, he's not exactly the saviour of freedom of expression as he has proved himself to be pro-censorship

So when he was asked about his thoughts on the recent attack on Sanjay Leela Bhansali on the Padmavati sets by the Karni Sena in Rajasthan, reacted with uncharacteristic maturity.

In an interview with DNA, he said, "Everyone has a point of view and there are various historical versions and all of them claim that they are factually correct. Who is going to take the guarantee for this?"

He also added that filmmakers had the privilege to take cinematic liberties irrespective of the subject matter.

"Whether it is a historical (film) or otherwise, films have their own concepts. The writer and the director are free to exercise their creative imagination. After all, it is cinema," he said.

He also mentioned that it wasn't the duty of the Censor Board to verify historical facts and that their job was only to see if the film 'conforms to social norms.'

The Karni Sena objected to the depiction of a romance track between Rani Padmini and Alauddin Khilji. There was no evidence that there was a romantic track between the two in the first place. Bhansali later ensured the fringe group that no such sequence will be shown in the film.

Also see on HuffPost:

6 Times Anushka Sharma Nailed It While Speaking About Censorship

(01 of06)

Yeah… because ultimately you are making a film which is an honest rendition of something that exists in our society, and there is no glorification of anything that can be objectionable.

On being asked whether the censor troubles that NH10 went through worried her, as one of the producers of the film. (credit:Hindustan Times via Getty Images)

(02 of06)

There is rage. And that is the other thing. Our rage doesn’t unleash itself because we follow the system – judiciary, police etc. So our rage is directed at the systems that don’t work. We all talk about freedom of speech and having opinions. But what is happening is that there is moral policing and people saying that I am so convinced about my opinion that I will be pissed off if you don’t agree with me. That is why we are talking about bans, and taking out material from films.

On why she thinks 'moral policing' occurs in India (credit:Hindustan Times via Getty Images)

(03 of06)

I just think there is just complete lack of compassion. When you make a film and you are told to reduce the violence. What is happening in real life is much more brutal. What we are making is much milder, and then you tell us to reduce by 30 percent? What does that mean? How do you do that?

On how she feels about the Censor Board's approach to cuts. (credit:AP)

(04 of06)

Now I know when we are reading a script or making a movie, we are going to think “Is this going to get passed?” And that’s not how you want to make movies.

On how she feels rigid censorship will affect cinema (credit:STR/AFP/Getty Images)

(05 of06)

We are breeding a 'ban mentality'. You are irritating people to the degree that it's suffocating them. We are educated people, we know what's right and what's not. Let us think for ourselves than follow a particular ideology.

When asked to describe the current climate of censorship in India (credit:Hindustan Times via Getty Images)

(06 of06)

Believe in the certification. It's there for a reason. Films depict what's there in reality.

On how she would like audiences to approach movies (credit:BCCL)

From Our Partner