Source: “Detail from an image by AIB, courtesy Facebook.”

After being scathingly attacked from all possible fronts that don’t abbreviate to “SAD” or” BJP”, yesterday the Central Board of Film Certification informed Bombay High Court that it wanted not 89, but only 13 cuts from Abhishek Chaubey’s Udta Punjab. In exchange for those cuts, the film gets an Adult (A) rating and can release next week. Not just that, the film may even be able to keep “Punjab” in the title (or not). Just look at this magnanimity! Damn those Left-leaning ingrates on social media for not appreciating CBFC’s grace under fire.

The subtext here is that everyone who has criticised the CBFC and its chief Pahlaj Nihalani was overreacting. If it really is a good film, what difference would 13 teeny tiny ickle wickle snips do to its goodness? Right? The only problem is that the CBFC doesn’t actually understand the concept of counting. If it did, then it would realise that the number of cuts it’s asking for are way more than 13.

Here’s what the CBFC wants deleted from Udta Punjab.

1. Signboard showing “Punjab” at the beginning.
2. “Punjab”, “Jalandhar”, “Chandigarh”, “Amritsar”, “Tarantaran”, “Jashanpura”, “Ambesar”, “Ludhiana”, and “Moga” from background and dialogues
3. Two words from “song 1”.
4. “Offensive” words from “song 2”.
5. All “cuss words” from the movie.
6. All mentions of “election”, “MP”, “party”, “MLA”, “Punjab”, “Parliament”
7. Visuals of scratching/itching “side portion of Sardar”.
8. Close-up shots of “injecting the drugs”, wherever it appears.
9. Shot of Tommy (Shahid Kapoor’s character) urinating in the crowd.
10. The line “Jamin Banzar te Aulad Kanjar“.

Leaving aside the minor details that the CBFC has concocted a place called “Tarantaran” — surely the board, with its burgeoning passion for Punjabi honour would not misspell Tarn Taran? — and has repeated “Punjab” be deleted from dialogues twice, surely point number two qualifies as more than one deletion? In fact, given the film is set in Punjab, the deletions of those city names from dialogues probably raises the number of cuts to way past 89. The same applies to points numbered five and eight.

Also, what is a “side portion of a Sardar”? Curious minds need to know.

Aside from the above, the CBFC wants the following changes:

1. The name of the dog should not be “Jackie Chan”.
2. The text of the first disclaimer should read: “The film focusses on the rising menace of drugs and war against drugs and is an attempt to show ill-effects of drugs on today’s youth and the social fabric. We acknowledge the battle against drugs being fought by the government and the police. But this battle cannot be won unless the people of India unite against the menace.”
3. Second disclaimer of fiction to be “increased according to audio/video.”

First of all, let’s take a moment to appreciate how awesome it is that our CBFC is looking out for Jackie Chan. The dog in the movie is named “Jackie Chain” but because our CBFC is oh-so-smart and respectful of the Hong Kong actor, they’ve caught the joke and want the name changed. Hindi-Chini bhai bhai indeed.

Now about that first disclaimer. A film needs to pat the government on its back in order to be released? Is this special honour accorded to Punjab because it’s currently governed by Shiromani Akali Dal and Bharatiya Janata Party? Let’s not forget that this is a government that has failed spectacularly in the battle against drug addiction. A government whose deputy chief minister has claimed incorrect figures to downplay the problem of drug abuse in Punjab. But never mind whether the SAD-BJP alliance deserves praise or brickbats. Why should a commercial film be expected to give the government a vote of approval, that too with state elections coming up next year?

Udta Punjab is about a social issue that has taken on monstrous proportions in the state. It was not a political film, but thanks to Nihalani and CBFC, it’s been made political. There are now rumours about Aam Aadmi Party funding it (untrue, as producers Phantom Films and Balaji Motion Pictures will tell you) and CBFC raising objections because of the SAD-BJP government in Punjab (unsubstantiated). With the first disclaimer that CBFC is insisting upon, the board is attempting to turn the film into a political vehicle and to use it as a platform by which the government’s efforts can be applauded. How is this acceptable?

Leaving politics aside for a moment, consider this: the 13 changes that CBFC has demanded won’t give Udta Punjab a U/A rating, which requires parental guidance for children in the audience who are below the age of 12. Udta Punjab is A-rated, which means only adults can watch it. So according to the CBFC, those who are old enough to drink, drive, marry, have consensual sex and vote (not necessarily in that order) cannot be trusted to not be ‘corrupted’ by cuss words and the sight of drugs being injected. They’re not mature enough to not react like Pavlov’s dogs and will therefore go out and shoot some heroin or pee on a crowd because Tommy Singh did so in Udta Punjab. Considering how many adult men can be seen peeing in public anyway, just what is CBFC afraid of? Or perhaps being adult is not old enough to see a bad situation as it really is, which is why all references to real places must be removed.

Is this how CBFC sees adults in India? As malleable, immature masses who can’t be trusted to watch a film without cuts? To rate a film “adult” and then to make cuts — whether they involve harmless words like “kanjar” or the sight of Willem Defoe’s testicles being smashed with a block of wood in Antichrist — is to essentially tell us that as far as this body, appointed by the Central government is concerned, we’re not really adult. Or at least we won’t be treated as such.

In the age of the internet, all that the CBFC achieves by censoring films is encourage piracy and add to Netflix’s fan base. However, by virtue of it being under the central government and with its chairperson openly saying he’s “proud to be a Modi chamcha“, the CBFC is an indicator of how we’re seen by the leaders we’ve elected.

If CBFC is a mirror to the government — surely Nihalani would have been removed by now if he was not carrying out an agenda approved by the Centre — it makes perfect sense that an adult be treated like a child, that what they’re exposed to be carefully regulated and monitored. It’s a long-term plan that seeks to ensure control remains tight and populations remain tame.

Fortunately, for now at least, “tame” is not a word that applies too neatly to India. #UdtaFantasyland indeed.