In 1968, Khwaja Ahmad Abbas completed Chaar Sheher Ek Kahani (Four Cities, One Story), a documentary that explored the hopes and heartbreaks of Indian youth. Despite being about the dreams and dilemmas of young people, the film was denied a U (unrestricted) certificate by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC)바카라the reason being that it depicted themes like poverty, social unrest, and sexual violence. Even though these were realities young Indians continue to live with to this day, they were deemed too 바카라immature바카라 to watch it on screen. Abbas fought the decision all the way to court and won. But the battle exposed a deeper contradiction바카라in India, films about youth have rarely been considered suitable for its youth if, it does not involve son paris and laal paris (golden fairy and red fairy) to boot.
More than half a century later, the problem persists. Whether it is women (both young and old) exploring desire in Lipstick Under My Burkha (2016), or children facing caste-based violence in Bhonsle (2018), the CBFC has often wielded its scissors and its age ratings, less as tools of classification and more as instruments of control. And now the CBFC has introduced new age-based categories in its film certification system. Can it bring in welcome change or cause more trouble?
Initially, the CBFC only had broader classifications of U (unrestricted), UA (parental guidance for children under 12), and A (adults only). The new system will further subdivide the UA category into three distinct age brackets: UA 7+, UA 13+, and UA 16+. According to the Information and Broadcasting Ministry, this approach 바카라will play a crucial role in balancing the need to protect vulnerable audiences, such as children, with the principles of freedom of expression and consumer choice.바카라
On the surface of things, this might seem like an upgrade that is more aligned with global standards. After all, similar age-specific classifications exist in the UK (BBFC) and the USA (MPAA). However, in a country where censorship is already frayed with moral policing and creative strangulation, this might cause more problems than provide easy solutions.
Film certification systems across the world have long had their share of paradoxes, none more glaring than the case of Franco Zeffirelli바카라s 1968 adaptation of Romeo and Juliet. Starring Leonard Whiting and Olivia Hussey바카라who were 16 and 15 at the time of production, according to BBC바카라the film controversially included nude scenes involving the underage actors. Ironically enough, at that time Hussey was legally too young to attend the premiere of the film that featured her own nude body on screen.
Decades later, in 2023, Hussey and Whiting sued Zeffirelli바카라s estate, alleging they had been manipulated into performing the nude scenes under false pretenses. They claimed they were initially assured they would be dressed in skin-coloured clothing and positioned in such a way that no nudity would be filmed. However, on the day of the shoot, they were told to wear only body makeup, and the final film included brief scenes showing Whiting's buttocks and Hussey's breasts. The case moved forward after changes in California law temporarily lifted the statute of limitations on child sexual abuse claims.
The case underscores the inadequacy of rating systems that are reactive rather than preventive. And this brings us back to India, where certification is often the very same as censorship and moral gatekeeping. The CBFC has long behaved less like a certifying body and more like a censorial watchdog. Films like Lipstick Under My Burkha, Udta Punjab (2016), Haider (2014), and recently Sister Midnight (2024) and Santosh (2024) have all had to battle absurd cuts, bans, or conditional approvals. The fact that all these films have artistic merit and public interest has been of little consequence.
The introduction of UA 7, UA 13, and UA 16 could help categorise content more appropriately for different age groups. For instance, a film dealing with adolescent themes, light swearing might sit better in UA 13 rather than being arbitrarily pushed into a more restrictive UA or A slot. This nuance could, theoretically, grant filmmakers greater freedom without the fear of an 'A' rating slashing their audience potential. But this assumes a functioning system. In practice, India lacks any real enforcement mechanism for such ratings. Most theatres do not check age IDs, and OTT platforms바카라while requiring declarations of viewer age바카라rarely implement hard stops. How do you enforce a UA 13 rating in a country where even A-rated films are often watched by minors with a simple click?
Moreover, will the CBFC apply these new age bands consistently, or will the old, opaque patterns of decision-making persist? It바카라s not hard to imagine a film critical of the state receiving a stricter rating, not because of its content, but because of its politics.
There is also the risk of over-classification. With more categories to choose from, the CBFC could err on the side of caution, or worse, bias, and slot films into stricter age groups unnecessarily. This can have very real impacts on the business side of things, from box office performance to deterring OTT deals. It can further discourage investment in more daring or nuanced storytelling, especially from small or independent creators. Filmmakers in India already have to tiptoe around the ever-changing goalposts of India바카라s censorship landscape. Only time will tell, if this new strategy is of actual help or if it is going to merely add more barriers without transparency or accountability. It could be more red tape in disguise in an already restrictive environment. Unless there is clarity and consistency in implementation, this too risks becoming merely bureaucratic make-up on a fundamentally flawed face in much need of rejuvenation.
Debiparna Chakraborty is a film, TV, and culture critic dissecting media at the intersection of gender, politics, and power.
