Between Certification and Censorship: Kamal Haasan’s Call for Transparency Rekindles a Global Debate on Artistic Freedom
By Tanveer Zaidi
In the bustling heart of one of the world’s most prolific film industries, a quiet but consequential battle over creative freedom is gathering momentum.
At its centre stands veteran actor-filmmaker Kamal Haasan, a living legend of Indian cinema, who has openly questioned what he describes as an “opaque and obstructive” film certification process.
The immediate trigger has been the prolonged delay in certifying high-profile films such as Jana Nayagan and Parasakthi, both reportedly held up at the Central Board of Film Certification.
Yet Haasan’s intervention goes far beyond individual projects. It taps into a larger, global question confronting democracies worldwide: how does a society balance cultural sensitivities with artistic liberty, and what does a fair, modern film certification system truly look like?
Filmmakers argue that the current Indian framework suffers from three chronic flaws—lack of transparency in decision-making, vague guidelines that invite arbitrary interpretation, and a censorial mindset that often feels punitive rather than protective.
Haasan’s criticism strikes at the heart of this problem. Unpredictable delays, he says, not only suffocate creative expression but also destabilise the economic ecosystem of cinema, affecting release schedules, investor confidence, and thousands of livelihoods tied to each film.
“When institutions tasked with safeguarding culture become gatekeepers of constraint, we must question the process,” Haasan recently remarked, urging the industry to engage collectively with the government.
“The audience and the artist both deserve openness and respect. Our constitutional values must be reflected in our artistic freedoms.”
A Global Lens on Regulating Cinema
India’s dilemma is far from unique. Around the world, film certification systems vary widely, offering instructive contrasts.
In the United States, the Motion Picture Association’s voluntary rating system—G, PG, PG-13, R, and NC-17—functions as an advisory tool rather than a censor’s blade. Its purpose is to inform audiences, especially parents, without mandating cuts.
The United Kingdom’s British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) provides another benchmark. Its detailed, publicly accessible guidelines, clearly defined timelines, and regular public consultations exemplify procedural transparency.
Germany, too, maintains a robust youth-protection classification system, underpinned by legal safeguards and a clearly defined right to appeal.
At the other end of the spectrum lie countries such as China, where films are scrutinised for ideological conformity, often resulting in extensive edits or outright bans. Iran and Singapore enforce similarly strict moral and political filters.
The difference is stark: systems designed to inform versus systems designed to restrict.
Haasan’s proposed reforms—time-bound certification, transparent evaluation criteria, and written explanations for any suggested changes—would bring India closer to global best practices that emphasise accountability over arbitrariness.
What’s at Stake Beyond the Edit Table
The consequences of an unclear certification regime extend well beyond artistic frustration. Delays and excessive cuts can function as indirect censorship, financially crippling projects and discouraging narrative boldness.
In an era of global streaming platforms, such uncertainty also weakens India’s cultural “soft power,” as international audiences increasingly seek authentic, unfiltered stories.
Economically, the stakes are enormous. Cinema remains a major contributor to India’s creative economy.
Unpredictability at the certification stage unsettles investors, disrupts theatrical and digital release plans, and sends ripples through allied industries—from exhibition chains to streaming partnerships.
Towards a Modern Certification Framework
Haasan’s appeal is not for the abolition of regulation, but for its reform. His vision is of a certification board rather than a censor board—one that classifies rather than curtails.
This would mean clear, published standards addressing specific concerns such as violence, language, or political context; professionally trained examiners; and a constructive, credible appeals mechanism.
As media consumption habits evolve and audiences become more discerning, a regulatory system grounded in trust and clarity would empower filmmakers while enabling viewers to make informed choices.
It is a balance many democracies strive to achieve—and one that India, with its vibrant and diverse cinematic tradition, is uniquely positioned to lead.
The curtain is now rising on this debate. Its resolution will shape whether Indian cinema can fully assert itself on the global stage—confident, uncut, and unafraid.
Tanveer Zaidi is an Actor, Author, and Educationist.
#KamalHaasan #CreativeFreedom #FilmCertification #CBFC #FreedomOfExpression #ArtVsCensorship #IndianCinema #CinemaDebate #ArtisticLiberty #FilmIndustry
