Nukes set to fall into terrorist hands

If the fear that weapons of mass destruction should fall into ter-rorist hands be the rationale for the destruction of the Baathist regime headed by Saddam Hussain in Iraq, the US needs to act more swiftly and with greater precision in its targeting if it is to prevent Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal falling into the hands of Islamist terrorists. It is now clear that they are set to remove President-General Pervez Musharraf as is evident in the bomb-blast under the bridge in the high-security zone between Chaklala airbase and the Corps Headquarters in Rawalpindi.

DAWN in its Internet Edition has quoted Interior Minister Faisal Saleh Hayat as saying: "People responsible for providing security to the President are being questioned. The main focus of the investigations is how the explosives were placed under the bridge and if there were any security lapses.

"Official spokesman Abdul Rafur Chaudhury said that some people who were on duty and some other people were under questioning. Information Minister Shaikh Rashid Ahmed said this type of highly sophisticated device was never used in the country in the past and they were planted by the most expert people.

" The Interior Minister cited opponents of peace moves with India and ‘terrorist, extremist and fundamentalist threats; the recent developments and peace moves with India could be an eyesore to certain elements.

"Separate police-civilian and military teams are investigating the blast and President Musharraf’s security officers are being questioned."

In a separate report with a joint Washington/Islamabad dateline DAWN said: "US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage telephoned Foreign Minister Khursheed Kasuri and expressed concern over the attack. In reply to a question the State Department official said ‘we are prepared to assist Pakistani authorities in investigation if they so desire’.

"Yesterday’s failed assassination attempt targeting President Pervez Musharraf near the Chaklala air base in Rawalpindi is a reminder once again of the very real threat the country faces from growing religious militancy and sectarianism. This was the second attempt on the president’s life in less than two years, and the second act of terrorism in the twin cities in two months, the earlier one having resulted in the killing of Maulana Azam Tariq in Islamabad on October 6.

"The bomb blast that the president’s motorcade escaped by a few seconds and which ripped apart a bridge in front of the Rawalpindi corps headquarters was so powerful that the explosion was heard miles away. That the blast occurred in the sensitive and generally heavily-guarded cantonment area should also be a matter of concern for the law enforcement agencies now investigating this latest act of terror.

"By the president’s own admission, the terrorists are targeting him because they are unhappy with his policy aimed at rooting out religious extremism from society and for Pakistan being an active ally in the US-led war on terror. Soon after the blast, the president reiterated his resolve to continue with this policy, which enjoys broad popular consensus. That said, the country’s intelligence agencies cannot possibly be unaware of the identity of groups and their ring leaders, especially those who actively pursue the course of violence."

DAWN remarked: "Merely banning a number of extremist parties and groups over and over again will not rid the country of these dangerous elements, nor will it make Pakistan a safer society. It is time a few heads rolled for their criminal excesses in the name of religion. The culprits must now be unmasked, arrested and tried in a court of law for holding the vast majority of moderate people to ransom, and also for bringing a bad name to the country.

"Authorities in Islamabad have said that the attack on General Musharraf will cause them to further tighten security for the SAARC summit to be attended by leaders of seven countries including Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee. They urged India and other participants not to reconsider their decision to attend the summit scheduled to be held in Islamabad on Jan 4-6."

The NEWS in an editorial said: "The dastardly attempt to assassinate President Pervez Musharraf needs to be condemned in the strongest terms possible by all people. It could only have been the work of those who did not have the good not only of Pakistan but the Muslim world at heart.

"They are those extremists who seek short- term solutions to their wild ambitions without realising the far-reaching damage they cause to themselves and to others by their irresponsible acts. The history is full of such mad men whose shortsighted actions plunged the world into destructive wars and brought about ruination and death. Only the fullest investigation would be able to unveil the hands behind the failed assassination attempt.

"However, regardless of whatever critics say about President Musharraf, there can be no doubt that his services are most needed at a time when Pakistan requires more time to not only overcome the accumulated problems of the past but to lead the country to stability and peace. The President’s leadership has already achieved much by way of strengthening the economy and providing the country with a clear direction in all fields of human endeavour."

NEWS added: "But his greatest success was in leading Pakistan through the formidable challenge created by the events of 9/11 when virtually every Muslim country became suspect in the eyes of United States and rest of the western world. Those were testing times and only wise tutelage could have guided not only Pakistan but other Muslim states through the difficult period. It were the timely decisions that the President took at a critical time that saved this country from a terrible fate. History will remember that crucial moment when only shrewd measures made all the difference between survival or failure as our finest hour.

"It is the President’s determined struggle against terrorism and all kinds of extremism that has brought him bitter enemies whose main aim lies in spilling innocent human blood. It was necessary to nip this evil in the bud if Pakistan was to live among the comity of nations as a peace loving and responsible state. It could not have achieved this had not a halt been called to the mindless acts of a few misguided people. It Pakistan occupies a position of respect in the international community today it is mainly because it has shown to be a responsible state. (ADNI)

Film censorship- The "scissorian operation"

By Aparna Mohile

Censor's scissors were com-pared by eminent film - mak-er K A Abbas to the barber's - the only difference between the two being that while excessive use of the latter would result in a lot of bloodshed, in the case of the former it is the sparing use that would do it. Censor's scissors, the way they are wielded and the lack of uniformity, perceived or real, in their application have always been a hot topic of debate involving a lot of controversy. No session of Parliament is ever complete without there being a long and bitter debate on censorship.

Wielding these notorious scissors for over five years as Regional Officer in Bombay office and as officiating Chairman of the Central Board of Film Censors was quite an experience for me. The scissorian operation that would see the birth of censored films was performed in the White House the headquarters of the CBFC-White House, not in Washington but in Walkeshwar as our friends in Bollywood used to say with a lot of derision.

The period, 1978 to 1983 when I was in the CBFC was indeed a glorious era for Indian cinema in which several masterpieces in the mainstream as also in the parallel cinema were produced. It was the period of Aakrosh, Arth, Trishul, Ek Bar Phir, Silsila, Satyam Shivam Sundaram 36 Chowringhee Lane, Kalyug, Katha. It was also a momentous period for censorship before the advent, in a real sense, of video and cable TV and the offensive entertainment which through them directly entered your bedrooms, making mockery of censorship.

Censor board itself had in it several gems, David, Madhuri Ben Shah, B Nagi Reddy, L V Prasad, Bhupen Hazarika, Saryu Doshi and others. That was also when the phenomenon of enormous significance, of having a filmmaker at the helm of the censorship organisation was introduced for the first time, with the appointment of Hrishida, Hrishikesh Mukherjee, as Chairman of the CBFC.

The tradition of having an eminent personality from the film world as Chairman of the CBFC has continued ever since, the latest one being the recently appointed Chairman, Anupam Kher. In my time, the advisory panels, particularly the one attached to the Bombay office, also had quite a few great names from the field of poetry, art and theatre-Vijaya Mehta, Shanta Shelke, Jagmohan, Khalid Ansari, Vikram Singh to name a few. Interacting with all these great personalities was a great experience.

Censorship indeed has a unique and dubious distinction of being criticised simultaneously for being too strict and too liberal, too rigid and too slack. Not only that, most of the time, the same decision involving certification or category of certificate ''U'' or ''A'' (not to forget the somewhat recently introduced ''UA'') or cuts in a film is criticised by different groups as being too restrictive or too permissive and Censor Board labelled as too rigid or too liberal at the same time. This is not surprising, given the vast multitudes of viewers a film is exposed to and difference in their educational, cultural and economic background, upbringing and perception.

Also, unlike other Government decisions and the processes leading to them, which lie buried in the obscure files, the outcome of the Censors' decision, the film passed or songs and visuals permitted, are seen or heard by millions of people across the length and breadth of the country, who compare these with other films they have seen earlier and come up with caustic comments on what the censors have done or failed to do, the sins of omission and commission. This is indeed what makes a censor's job very difficult literally tight rope walking but very interesting at the same time.

While at one end of the spectrum, we have self proclaimed moralists who perceive the films and other visual media as the root cause of the moral decline of the society and all the rot that stems from it, at the other end are those who question the very basis of censorship. If people can choose their own government, why can't they choose their entertainment? And why let a bunch of self styled puritans decide what can be seen by society and what should be kept away from it?

Given this vast diversity perceptions, combined with the cultural, ethnic and linguistic diversity in this big and beautiful motherland of ours, there is no wonder that censor board always finds itself at the centre of controversy or the other and always at the receiving end. In fact a colleague of mine from the media, used to jokingly call it ''Censured Board''. How True !

During every debate on censorship there are mentions of censorship guidelines having become very old and needing a change. In fact, however, these guidelines merely paraphrase provisions of Article 19 (2) of the Constitution, which lists ''reasonable restrictions on the freedom of expression''. The Indian Constitution, surely among the most liberal and progressive constitutions in the world, guarantees freedom of expression as a sacred right of the citizen. No freedom is, however, absolute or else it will impinge on others' freedom.

Hence the concept of reasonable restrictions in the society's ultimate interest- are spelt out in Article 19 (2). The restrictions imposed on any communication medium have to be within the ambit of these, or else they would be unconstitutional and liable to be thrown off. The restrictions for audio-visual media like films or theatre are identical to those for the press, or the written word, the only difference between them being that the films ad plays are subjected to pre-censorship. This is indeed a tribute to the phenomenal power of the audio-visual medium.

The reasonable restrictions on freedom of expression envisage, besides emphasising that nothing should compromise sovereignty and integrity of the country, jeopardise its security, strain friendly relations with the foreign countries, and endanger law and order, that human sensibilities are not offended by vulgarity, obscenity and depravity. The last indeed is the most critical, crucial and difficult parameter. ''Therein lies the rub'' for the concepts of social acceptability are highly subjective and time and location related. What is perfectly okay for a metropolis like Mumbai or Delhi is frowned upon in the serenity of a sleepy village in the snow clad Himalayan ranges.

What was a total taboo yesterday becomes perfectly acceptable today as community's value systems and more undergo a change. Censorship is, thus not a static but a dynamic phenomenon. Some 50 years ago, a shot of Vijayalaxmi Pandit, then India's envoy wearing a sleeveless blouse in a film division documentary was cut by the censors. ''What will the rural India think if they see the Prime Minister's sister wearing such a blouse?'' was their logic. Today , even in the most conservative and rigid censor would surely laugh at this.

Censorship is also not mathematics, where two and two are four, irrespective of whether you do the calculation or somebody else. The whole thing is in the nature of a value judgement and is highly subjective. Also like any work of art, any film or a scene therein has to be seen in the light of total impact and censorship cannot base its decisions on fragmented scenes and visuals. Readers would recall at this point a scene in ''Siddhartha'' showing Shashi Kapoor and Simi Garewal . I have myself experienced the beautiful spectacle of the entire auditorium witnessing the scene showing nudity in a spellbound state; it was so ennobling and aesthetically done.

To reduce the element of subjectivity in the application of censorship yardsticks and bring in uniformity, a film is seen during the censorship process- in the examining as well as revising committees by a group of people. Any censorship decision, this unlike most other government decisions is not an exercise of power by a single individual holding authority but a collective decision.

The examining committee and revising committee members are drawn from the advisory panels attached to the various regional offices. These are constituted by the government and comprise of the people drawn from diverse fields-- educationalists, journalists, teachers, housewives, sociologists, psychiatrists who are, in the opinion of the government, capable of assessing the impact of films on impressionable minds. This, of course, is the ideal situation.

In actual practice, however, pressures by various groups, political affiliations and other issues come into play. It is significant that censorship is operated, at least theoretically, not by bureaucrats, but by socially responsible private individuals of eminence merely assisted by a skeletal official apparatus.

Certification of a film is not any comment on its quality, nor is it an endorsement of the views expressed in it, by the censors. It only means that the film is not likely to have, in the opinion of the board, any potentially dangerous impact on the viewers. In a lighter vein, mere absurdity and foolishness are beyond the reach of the censor's scissors. Having said this, however, let he hasten to add that innuendoes and racist and sexual bias bordering on depravity have to be objected to.

As to the impact of films, or any powerful art form for that matter, there are several theories. What appealed to me most was the ''threshold theory'' put forth by H J Eysenck, which I heard for the first time at the first ''Conference on Film Classification and Control'' organised in London in 1982 by the British Board of Film Censors. This theory states that any viewer group consists of three segments. The first are those who are the strong people, whose behaviour will not be influenced by whatever stimuli they are exposed to. The second are those who do not need any stimuli for committing untowards acts. They will commit them anyway.

The third group is called the ''threshold'' group. This group is the most important to all film certification authorities all over the world, and provides the raison de etre for all censorship activities. People belonging to this category are sensitive and vulnerable and react to the stimuli they are exposed to particularly to the audiovisual media. They are prone to committing a theft, robbery, or rape if it is presented in an attractive form on the screen. This ''threshold'' or ''twilight'' group roughly constitutes 60 per cent of the population.

Film violence, especially emanating from a position of authority, a hero who is inevitably glorified or a glamorous villain, does result in desensitisation of viewers, who would otherwise act in a sensible way. Violence by the hero does make it seem an attractive and acceptable proposition, even a good weapon of social change.

The process of education in the modern age is mostly not through personal experience, but through the script we receive. In these days of explosion of information and communication technology, the script a youngster receives is mostly through TV, films, video, cable and of course the Internet. Things have become very critical in the last two decades, as the offensive visuals have now directly entered our drawing rooms for daily viewing by the entire family. The latest technology also provides a potential ''threshold' wrongdoer reinforced stimuli by offering him a chance to see a particularly offensive film or portion again and again at his will, a facility not available normally in the case of screenings in the bygone era.

Experiments and research by eminent scientists have proved that while pure pornography may not be very harmful, aggressive pornography a combination of sex and violence certainly did do immense damage and influenced people to commit sexual crimes.

How women are treated in the films or other art forms is an indication of any society' culture. The concept of dignity of woman as a woman is central to the censorship which has to guard against any attempt towards exploitation of female sexuality or showing a woman as a mere tool of man's pleasure. While on this subject I recollect that during 1981-82, censor board sought to prohibit anything that has an impact of glamorising ''ignoble servility'' of women. Incidentally we used to cut shots in the inevitable climax of several films in which the righteous husband brings his errant wife to senses by use of the whip.

Freedom of expression is a necessary tool for a creative thinker and an artist and is meant for the exposition of new ideas, thought- even anti-establishment and critical of status quo but creative which take society forward. But this freedom cannot be confused with the exploitative licence, for commercial purposes, of playing upon the basic instincts of the country's innocent and sensitive millions and feeding them with sadistic and masochistic pieces or large chunks of sex or violence in the garb of entertainment.

Such sadistic pieces ultimately lower the taste and value fibre of the society something that sets out a negative process and ultimately destroys it. The real problem faced by the cinema regulation authorities all over the world is not, therefore, ''whether such regulation is legal and constitutional'' but ''whether it is reasonable?'' So long as restrictions are reasonable and levied not in a dictatorial manner but by a set of responsible, liberal minded and sensible people held in high esteem by society and ultimately accountable to it, there is nothing wrong with censorship. But the moot question is ''does our censor board pass this test ?''

I would compare censor board with Shabari of Ramayana. She tested the fruits, removed the undesirable, bad portions and served them to Lord Rama. The censor board seeks to do the same for it seeks to serve ''society''. It is, of course, a different matter that a viewer has great attraction for this juicy, uncensored part itself. PTI Feature