Ban on century-old Andhra play may open a pandora’s box
The hijab controversy may have hit the headlines, but in Andhra Pradesh, a ban on the exhibition of a century-old play by the Jagan Mohan Reddy government hasn’t garnered the attention it deserves. Chintamani, penned by Kaallakuri Narayana Rao in 1920, has been outlawed based on a representation by a community that it depicts them in a poor light. The same is under judicial review.
There can be instances where censorship, however anathema it is, becomes inevitable. Chintamani definitely doesn’t fall into any such category. It is both a morality play and a cautionary tale, and an immensely popular one at that. It was written against the evils of prostitution and explains how the main protagonists—Chintamani and Bilvamangala—attain salvation by conquering themselves.
Reading it is in fact an ennobling experience. Objections have been raised against the character of Subbi Shetti, a merchant who loses his all due to his infatuation with Chintamani. The character offers comic relief but deviating from the original, over the years, it has been degraded in the name of artistic liberty for cheap entertainment. The artistes themselves admit that.
However, should it be reason enough to ban the play altogether? Drawing a parallel, by this logic, one could seek a ban on The Merchant of Venice by Shakespeare! The play has to be looked at from a sociological perspective reflective of the times and depriving people of the benefit of this wonderful play is tantamount to blacking out our social history. It is also pertinent to note that the author exemplified the ideals he had advocated, marrying into a caste derisively referred to as one of prostitutes at the risk of excommunication.
As for the objections to the character of Subbi Shetti, we agree depraved depictions and distortions must be stopped. The government must see how it can do so since films have a censor board but not plays. Placing a blanket ban is violative of Article 19(1) (a) and Article 29(1) of the Constitution. Besides, it may open a Pandora’s box with every other section seeking a review of literary works. Importantly, decisions of this sort may end up handing over to the judiciary what is essentially an executive power.