Alankrita Shrivastava’s “Lipstick Under My Burkha” is an award-winning film about women reclaiming their freedom through small acts of resistance. Unfortunately, as Deadline details, India’s Censor Board of Film Certification (CBFC) believes the film — written by Shrivastava with an assist from Suhani Kanwar and dialogue from Gazal Dhaliwal — is not “clean and healthy entertainment.” As a result, the Board has deemed this story about female empowerment unsuitable for theatrical release.
According to Deadline, the CBFC refused to certify “Lipstick” due to its “lady oriented” (WTF does that mean?) story that places “fantasy above life.” The organization also cited the movie’s “sexual scenes, abusive words, audio pornography,” and “sensitive touch about one particular section of society” in its verdict.
Shrivastava is fighting back against this censorship. “I believe the decision to refuse certification to our film is an assault on women’s rights,” she told the Hindustan Times. “For too long the popular narrative has perpetuated [the] patriarchy by objectifying women or minimizing their role in a narrative. So a film like ‘Lipstick Under My Burkha,’ that challenges that dominant narrative, is being attacked because it presents a female point of view. Do women not have the right of freedom of expression?”
“Lipstick Under My Burkha” won the Audience Award at the Glasgow Film Festival last night. It has also received the Oxfam Award for Best Film on Gender Equality at the Mumbai Film Festival and the Spirit of Asia Prize at the Tokyo International Film Festival.
Women and Hollywood reached out to Shrivastava (by email) about the CBFC’s decision and her plans to appeal. You can read the interview below.
W&H: Was the film censored because it is about women?
AS: The film has been denied certification for exhibition by the Censor Board of Film Certification, which essentially means that the film cannot be exhibited in Indian theaters or on television in India. This is an outright refusal. [It’s not] like they have censored a few scenes.
The first letter of refusal we received from the Censor Board says that the main reason for refusal is that the film is “lady oriented.” Whatever that means. I believe the film has been refused certification because it has a strong feminist pulse. The film explores the lives of women in a way that has perhaps not been done before in India. And confronting those stories and that perspective has somehow rattled them. The Censor Board, it seems, is more comfortable dealing with popular mainstream cinema. Cinema that is more often than not created through a male gaze, where women are objectified and play very peripheral roles. But more than anything the Board is not used to dealing with films where women want to have agency over their own bodies and their own desires.
W&H: Because it has female sexuality?
AS: Yes, I think the exploration of sexuality, where women are concerned with their own sexuality, when the characters think about their sexuality themselves rather than [serve as] sexual beings only for the purpose of fulfilling the desire for men. I think women being in charge of their own sexuality is perhaps what is bothering them.
W&H: Is this common in India? How many films are censored each year?
AS: It is not common for films to be refused certification outright. Films are often asked to make a list of cuts. And sometimes bleep certain words. But outright refusal, though it has happened in the past, is not common. The common procedure is for filmmakers to make the requisite cuts and get the certification, or sometimes to contest the cuts if there are too many. India is one of the largest producers of cinema in the world. All these films get certified. The procedure of certification followed in India means that the Board asks for cuts and bleeps before certifying a film.
W&H: Why do you think they focused on your film?
AS: Maybe it made them uncomfortable. They are not used to films that speak so honestly about women’s lives. They perhaps have a very patriarchal mindset and are used to only the regular popular cinema narrative maybe. But I think confronting honest thoughts, perspectives, and an intimate telling of female stories through a female point of view is something they were not prepared for. Maybe the idea that women can have desires too is a thought that unnerved them. That women are not there just to fulfill the needs of men.
W&H: How do you plan on getting it out?
AS: Luckily in India, there is a way forward. We will be applying to the [Film Certification Appellate] Tribunal (FCAT) in New Delhi to appeal against the refusal. Hopefully, the film will get cleared at that level. After that, one can also go to court. I am determined to fight this out till the end. I really want the Indian audience to be able to watch this film in theaters.
W&H: What is the message you would like to send to other filmmakers about this censorship?
AS: As artists, as storytellers, we need to make films without fear and with courage. That perhaps may mean different things in different countries. Let’s fight to reform the system of censorship in countries where it is possible. And of course there are countries where it is impossible to do so, and people are still making beautiful films in those countries. I’m really moved by the joint statement that the Best Foreign Language Film Oscar nominees have put out. I think it’s wonderful to have a robust collaboration of filmmakers from across the world. I think our voices will be much stronger if we watch out for each other.
W&H: Is there anything else you think we need to know?
AS: In India, the filmmaking community is quite keen to get rid of the concept of censorship itself. Everybody really just wants the Board of Film Certification (commonly known as the Censor Board) to just do its job of certifying films rather than cutting, banning, and censoring films. The film industry at large is quite united about this opinion. Now it is for the government to take this opinion into view and act upon it.
Also, I feel that the refusal by the CBFC to certify “Lipstick Under My Burkha” for exhibition in India is very telling of a society that is not interested in women’s voices. In a country where there is so much violence against women, and so much discrimination against women, rather than encouraging a culture where there is more space given to female points of view and their stories and their perspectives, we are being told to shut up. That is how I am experiencing this decision.
Also, this decision is an attack on the freedom of expression of us as citizens, as women, and as filmmakers. Adult Indian citizens are being denied the right to choose the films they want to watch, even though they have the right to vote. These kinds of decisions are very patronizing towards the audience. The Board is basically saying that Indians don’t have the capacity to engage with a certain kind of cinema.
This decision is a definite attack on the rights of women. Because stories that are told from the male perspective are absolutely okay. Films that are actually quite offensive towards women get [a pass]. It is important for there to be a level playing field. Where no films are banned, so the audience can choose to engage with the kind of content they like. Right now, by silencing a film with a female perspective, in effect the Board is saying that voices of women do not count. And should forever remain silent.
This decision is a clear attack on filmmakers. It implies that filmmakers are in fact not free to make the films they want [to make]. Even though “freedom of expression” is guaranteed by the Constitution of India.
