GagWatch

It looks like Mike Myers’ flop comedy The Love Guru may not see an Indian release after religious leaders decided to object to the film’s storyline.

The film, in which an American raised outside his country by gurus, returns to the States in order to break into the self-help business, was boycotted by religious leaders because they objected to the actor’s portrayal of a guru of unspecified faith. Eight months after its release in America, the film has been submitted for certification in India and a decision is pending, according to officials at the country’s Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC).

Indo-American Hindu statesman, Rajan Zed has been campaigning to ban the film in the country, claiming that it violates various CBFC guidelines. He claims India’s cinema laws stipulate a film has to be certified keeping “morality” in mind, as well as anything else he manages to think of.

The Goa unit of Hindu organisation, Hindu Janjagruti Samiti (HJS) has demanded that Danny Boyle’s Slumdog Millionaire be banned on the basis that they have decided to take offence at it.

HJS spokesman, Jayesh Thali said a delegation had met Central Board of Film Certification officials in Mumbai, demanding a ban on the film.

The High Court in Delhi has overturned a government ban on showing smoking scenes in films saying that the ban violated the fundamental right of film-makers to freedom of speech and expression.

“The director of films should not have multifarious authorities breathing down their necks when indulging in creative art,” Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul said.

Film-makers had condemned the ban when it was instigated in 2005 as an absurd infringement of artistic expression.

Mr Justice Kaul passed the order to revoke the ban after a junior court had earlier given a split ruling on efforts by Bollywood director Mahesh Bhatt to challenge curbs on scenes of smoking in films and on television. The judge agreed that a blanket ban on films that showed smoking scenes was a direct encroachment on the creativity and free artistic expression of the film-maker.

The Times of India reports that film makers – especially those working with short films and documentaries – have responded angrily to the withdrawal of the M F Husain film, Through the Eyes of a Painter from the Short Takes section organised by the Films Division of India alongside the 39th International Film Festival of India (IFFI).

“I can’t understand why the film was withdrawn. This is a democratic country and everyone has a right to see the film. I have seen ‘Through the eyes of a painter’ several times. This is ridiculous,” said Jahnu Barua, president of the Indian Documentary Producers Association (IDPA).

“Any civil society group can protest and for political reasons, the government of the day is going to listen. There are always going to be groups from civil society who will oppose a work of art. But who will arbitrate this?

“This is extra-legal censorship and we condemn it,” said Rakesh Sharma, a documentary film director whose film ‘Final solution’ on the politics of hate — which was set in Gujarat — had been banned in India before a campaign forced the ban to be lifted.

According to Kuldip Sinha, director of the FDI, “the film has been deferred. It has not been withdrawn. We’ll see whether it can be shown later as that will depend on the schedule.”

The deferrment follows a protest letter from the Hindu Janajagruti Samiti (HJS) claiming that Hussain, through his paintings, had “hurt religious and national sentiments of scores of Hindus and Indians… and has been accused of outraging religious sentiments.”

People in the film industry though are not too happy with the decision. “They have been targeting Husain. He is the most senior and outstanding artist of India. Who has given them the right to make such a demand?

“The government should have defied them. How can the government allow itself to be dictated to by such groups?” questioned Rinki Bhattacharya, vice chairperson of the Children’s Film Society, India.

Similar views have been echoed by many other film producers and directors, including Onkar Lal Sharma, film writer, producer and executive committee member of the Film Federation of India who said: “There is nothing objectionable, it has a censor certificate and is a work of art. Hussain is a great artist and the country is proud of him.”

Way back in 2004, the Indian government announced plans to ban all images of smoking in Bollywood films and television shows. The ban was originally planned to take effect in August 2005, but was stalled following protests from both the information and broadcasting ministry and the film industry. It eventually took effect on January 1, 2006.

The ban is still being challenged, however, most recently by director Mahesh Bhatt, and others, who are seeking to end the ban after an earlier two-judge bench arrived at a tie.

One of the two judges, Justice Mukul Mudgal, had said a blanket ban violated Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution that safeguards freedom of expression. Such a ban would proscribe the portrayal of an act that happens in real life, curbing artistic expression and creative freedom.

He cited the TV serials on the Mahabharat and the Ramayan which showed gambling, kidnapping and deceit, and said such depictions cannot be banned to promote a morally idealistic society.

“Imagine a movie where all is well and every character is moral and obeys the laws and is happy and content. Such a script, apart from being very boring, also necessarily has to be very short,” he had said. But his fellow judge did not agree and the case was referred to the larger bench.

Bhatt’s claim is that the ban is in direct conflict with the Cinematography Act of 1952. The original notification insists distributors and TV channels blur smoking scenes in existing films, bans such scenes in new films and requires old films to carry a health warning. The ban applies to both domestic and foreign films.

Indian artist MF Husain had been accused of offending Hindus with a painting in which he represented India as a nude goddess. However, the country’s Supreme Court has refused to launch criminal proceedings against him, and has upheld a lower court ruling in May that dropped legal proceedings in three cases against the painter and cleared him of obscenity charges.

The court said Mr Husain’s paintings were not obscene and nudity was common in Indian iconography and history.

In its ruling, the court pointed out that the nudity portrayed by Mr Husain had a long history, saying: “There are many such pictures, paintings and sculptures and some of them are in temples also.”

Husain, who has been living in the Middle East, welcomed the court’s decision and said he was looking forward to returning home.

Sikhs in Bangalore have been protesting (via) against a restaurant in the city because the menu included some pictures which they decided had hurt their feelings.

Over 50 Sikhs, who clearly had nothing better to worry about, gathered in front of the restaurant, tore up and set fire to a menu card and then marched off to the local police statement to file a complaint.

Gurudwara Committee president, Gursharan Singh claimed that some of the pictures on the menu – including a Kirpan (sword) and turban kept along with the footwear – somehow “humiliated” members of the community. He then went on to issue the inevitable threat:

“If the hotel management fails to tender a public apology through media or send a written apology to the Gurudwara, Bangalore’s Sikh community – comprising 8,000 members – will stage a massive dharna to prevent them from carrying out their business,” he warned.

Almost a year ago, Richard Gere embraced and kissed Bollywood actor Shilpa Shetty during an AIDS awareness concert. Predictably enough, the easily offended started jumping up and down and an Indian judge issued arrest warrants for both Gere and Shetty for contravening the country’s public obscenity laws.

India’s Supreme Court has finally thrown out the case.

“Richard Gere is free to enter the country. This is the end of the matter,” a two-judge bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, KG Balakrishnan, said.

The judges said the court believed that such complaints (against celebrities) were “frivolous” and filed for “cheap publicity”.

Quite.

It’s not often that I mention athletes on this blog and I have to admit that my knowledge of tennis is so sketchy that when this story popped up on my RSS feed, the name Sania Mirza meant nothing to me.

However, it appears that the 21 year old tennis player has been offending local Muslims… by dressing as a tennis player. This has led to her finding herself at the centre of a series of disputes involving her dress and disrespecting India’s national flag, cumulating in an announcement that she will no longer appear in tournaments in her home country.

Mirza revealed she had come close to quitting the game after she was accused of disrespecting India’s flag during the Hopman Cup in Australia last month.

She was pictured sitting with her feet resting on a table next to an Indian flag.

Although Mirza said the pose was accidental, a private citizen filed a complaint with a court in the central Indian city of Bhopal under the Prevention of Insult to the National Honour Act.

Whichever idiot filed this complaint really does need to reacquaint himself with reality.

XBiz (via) reports that an Indian judge has ruled that obscenity charges may be prosecuted without requiring the court to actually review the materials in question.

The case stems from allegations by a local cyber cafe owner that Mayur Vihar resident Sanjay Gupta was playing a pornographic CD, potentially within view of other patrons.

The court ruled that the magistrate was not required to view the CD in order to verify its contents as being “obscene” as a prerequisite for proceeding with the obscenity charges against the defendant.

Gupta challenged the order, claiming that the magistrate was wrong for proceeding with charges against him without knowing what was actually contained on the CD he was charged with viewing at the time of his arrest — allegedly the only incriminating evidence against him.