On August 25, 2024, life was good for Kangana Ranaut, as it had been for the last decade (barring the recent slap). She had won several awards, directed and produced films, gotten Y+ security cover, become the Member of Parliament (MP), continued to rain fury on social media, and on and on. The next 10 days promised acche din as well: Her directorial drama, Emergency, where she plays Indira Gandhi, was about to release on September 6. A movie uniting her artistic and political preoccupations: essaying a complex role and attacking the Congress party.
She shared a video on X the next day, suggesting the farmers바카라 protests could have caused a 바카라Bangladesh-like situation바카라 in the country, had the 바카라top leadership바카라 not been 바카라strong바카라. The bodies 바카라were hanging바카라 during the protests, she said, and 바카라rapes were taking place바카라. She identified the villains, too: 바카라Foreign forces, such as China and America, colluding with the insiders바카라. She had insulted the farmers several times before, but this time, her actions had consequences. 바카라Kangana Ranaut is neither permitted nor authorised to make statements on the party바카라s policy,바카라 the BJP said. 바카라She has been directed not to make such statements in future.바카라
And then, Ranaut went from commenting on a story to becoming a story. Four days later, she posted another video on X, saying the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC)바카라or the Censor Board바카라hadn바카라t certified Emergency. 바카라It was ,바카라 she added, 바카라but the certification has been put on hold as the Censor Board is receiving death threats.바카라
This case, though, shares no similarity with the censorship controversies of the past (such as Bandit Queen, Paanch, Udta Punjab, and many more) where the CBFC imposed draconian cuts, and the miffed directors appealed the decisions. Such a process usually comprised three tiers: A filmmaker first showed the movie to the Examining Committee. If dissatisfied with the cuts, she could approach the Revising Committee and, if that didn바카라t solve the problem, then the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT, abolished in 2021)바카라and, finally, the courts.
But, according to Ranaut, the CBFC didn바카라t object to the film but recognised the varied groups바카라 complaints. Emergency has indeed courted several controversies바카라some even before her incendiary comments. On August 21, the Akal Takht, the Sikhs바카라 highest temporal seat, and the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC) demanded a ban on the film for trying to 바카라character assassinate바카라 Sikhs. The SGPC chief, Harjinder Singh Dhami, called a press conference, seeking an FIR against Ranaut. The movie, he added, could 바카라cause anger and resentment in the Sikh community바카라.
A week later, the Shiromani Akali Dal (or, well, SAD) issued a legal notice to the CBFC, demanding that the Censor Board revoke its certificate. It said Emergency distorted historical events and figures, especially Sikhs, 바카라inciting communal tensions바카라 and 바카라spreading misinformation바카라. Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee, too, sent a similar letter to the censor board. Around the same time, Telangana Sikh Society바카라s 18-member delegation met the Adviser to the Telangana Government (SC, ST, OBC & Minorities), and raised concerns about the movie. On August 29, the Chief Minister, A Revanth Reddy, said his government would consider banning the film.
And it went on: The month changed, but the controversy didn바카라t. A few days later, the Jabalpur Sikh Sangat and the Shri Guru Singh Sabha filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Madhya Pradesh High Court, wanting the CBFC to revoke its censor certificate and demanding an unconditional apology from Ranaut.
The protesting parties have, of course, not seen the film. Their objections arise from a three-minute trailer. It바카라s long enough to reveal the movie바카라s story and intentions. Devoid of any nuance, and following the rulebook of recent Bollywood propaganda films, it vilifies Gandhi (and the Congress) and extols Atal Bihari Vajpayee (and the BJP). It바카라s in the last 25 seconds, though, that Emergency twists the dagger, killing a new villain. Here, the separatist leader Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale says, 바카라You want votes, we want Khalistan.바카라 Several Sikh groups have protested the depiction, saying the leader made no such demand. In another scene, some Sikh men gun down unarmed civilians.
Ranaut, who suffers from foot-in-mouth syndrome, has found out that the shoe is on the other foot. Because, this time, she isn바카라t supporting but opposing the establishment. It바카라s not as if such controversies haven바카라t happened before: The Kashmir Files (2022) and The Kerala Story (2023) also saw huge protests but they passed the Censor Board certifications without a peep, enjoyed tax-free status, and earned shitloads. To deny the censor certificate to the documentary En Dinon Muzaffarnagar (2014), the Home Ministry sent an 바카라input to바카라 the CBFC in March 2015, via a letter, calling the movie 바카라highly provocative바카라 that바카라d 바카라instigate communal disharmony바카라. But for a change, Ranaut will get no such help. She바카라s truly on the other side바카라all alone바카라the proud nationalist has gotten the 바카라anti-national바카라 treatment.
