The cunning moves of a nanny state BY Pritish Nandy Last evening. I walked into the Jehangir Art Gallery Mumbai's most popular cultural space for cit­izens to get their weekly art fix. Sprawled across their three gal­leries was a show by one Sanjeev Khandekar with Vaishali Narkar called Tits, cuts & Elephant Dick. There, were paintings, sculptures, installations and the gallery was crowded with men, women, chil­dren-yes children-admiring the erotic Images. There were large sculptures of naked men with erect phallus. There were naked women as well, full breasted and lustful. Brochures of the show were being freely distributed. There was a long poem by the artist called In Search of the Best F***of His Lift, in both Marathi and English, peppered with four letter words you may not like me to repeat here. Frankly, it was no great show. The Art was puerile. The poems a were worse. But I was delighted to '~ see a local artist trying to break through the nonsensical moral code I that enslaves today's middle class fmindset where everyone wants to I censor everything. A code best per- sonified by people like Pramod I Navalkar who have held this city ransom to an anachronistic and thypocritical moral order first imposed on us by invading Mughals and then perpetuated by the East t India Company The purpose was c the same to colonise our minds. And, funnily, they succeeded. s 'Fake the example of Vishal a Bharadwaj's amazing film, t Omkara. Most people are disk a cussing it with outrage. No, not be- I cause Othello kills the beautiful t Desdemona-Kareena Kapoor looking her prettiest after Chameli-but because the film is full of ex- t~ pletives in the native dialect of I Western UP. I hear horror stories about critics who watched the film with their ears plugged and young girls who slunk out of the hail, em­barrassed by the profanities. The fact is that a producer has been brave enough to make such a film and mainstream actors like Ajay Devgan, Salt, Kareena and Vivek risked such roles, instead of doing the usual rubbish that most top ac­tors are condemned to do. But what amazed me most was that kids were strolling in and out of the Jehangir show, tits, cUts, -dicks, et al, while Omkara-an out­standing work of cinema-was re­stricted to adult viewers. No geni­tals were on display In the film. Just a few expletives that every child hears' on the streets every day and the film is banned from universal viewing, which, incidentally, also means no TV channel can carry It, despite It being a truly world class film, a home-grown take on Shake­speare, while an exhibition of erot­ic art can be seen by anyone. This is what happens when the state interferes in matters of cul­ture. The stupidest decisions are taken by the stupidest of people. There is no logic, no consistency no vision. The state is puritanical towards one art and liberal towards another. The legendary Ara spent all his life painting only big-bust­ed naked women and flower vases. COLONISING MINDS Sousa's nudes were grotesque and perverse. Bhupen Khakkar openly painted sodomy. The much ma­ligned M F Husain's nudes are com­paratively timid. But all of them are recognised as the great masters of Indian art and get top dollars in auctions worldwide. No one corn­pla1ns~ No one complains when nov­els are published which describe sexual acts in graphic detail. No law stops bookstores from selling them or allowing young children to browse through them. In fact, that's howl first learnt about sex. From Henry Miller's Tropic of Can­cer. This morning I picked up an­other classic, Deepak Chopra's ka­masutra which was displayed at Crossword. Again, lots of people were browsing through the book. So why are we so anal about sex in movies and songs? Why has the I&B ministry once again issued a directive that no songs, no trailers, no movies, no remixes can be shown on TV without a 'U' certifi­cate from the censors? Why can we read anything we want, watch any­thing we want in an art gallery but have restricted viewing in theatres and 'U' certified content on TV? Is there any sense In such a policy? Is it the contention of the I&B min­istry that art and literature deserve more artistic licence than cinema or TV content? What else could provoke such an idiotic law? Cinema is the most powerful and influential art form of our time. It is no less than literature and painting. If Ara, Souza, Khakkar and Husain do not need censor certificates, if Picasso does not need a censor certificate, if the great novelists of our time do not need censor certificates, why do we need censor certificates for movies and TV content? In the age of 3-TV homes, do we want everyone to per­force watch Mickey Mouse? Is that the level of intellect we want to in­culcate in our viewers? Do the peo­ple of India have no right to make an Informed, intelligent, adult choice? If we want our art, our cul­ture, our cinema, our theatre to grow and mature, we must allow free choice to our audiences, lathe theatres. On the TV set. That's what the remote is for. That's what the child lock is for. You cannot chain art and culture to obsolete notions of morality There's nothing called vulgarity in art. There's only good art and bad art. Good art enriches our lives. Bad art is forgotten. it does not have the power to corrupt. It never did. When good and bad art coexist, we acquire taste, val­use, knowledge and understanding. A law that bans any work of art, literature, cinema, theatre is vile and vulgar But what's as bad is the censorship imposed by-, nanny states. Our broadcasting laws bad as they are will get worse when the new Broadcasting Bifi comes in. So, If you value your rights, stand up and protest against censorship. For controlling obscenity is an ex­cuse. The real objective is to con­trol b~ormation, and thereby~ofl­trol minds. Often traveWng and not exactly net-friendly. So allow afew days for a response. ii you are in a hurry, contact Maria at marla@prUlsh­nandycom.com Sunday Times, August 6th 2006