The script had all the elements that had made previous Sunny Deol-starrers runaway hits-a daredevil turbaned Sikh playing a muscled Rambo and also sometime befuddled romantic. But his latest comic thriller, oddly titled Jo Bole So Nihaal, witnessed more action-packed sequence off-screen. Following a week of protests by Sikh organisations and a ban by the SGPC, there were bomb blasts at two cinema halls in Delhi this past week. Both the theatres were showing Jole Bole So Nihaal, a fact the media immediately pounced on even as the Delhi Police tried to grapple with an alternative theory: that the blasts were the work of Pakistani militants. The explosions left one dead and 50 wounded, capping a tirade spearheaded by the opposition Shiromani Akali Dal (sad)-controlled Shiromani Gurdwara Prabhandhak Committee (SGPC) which dubbed the film an "insult to the Sikh slogan and sensibilities".

PICTURE SPEAK
GHASTLY ATTACK: The scene at the Liberty cinema after the blast	IN A TIGHT SPOT: Sunny Deol as Nihal Singh in Jo Bole So Nihal

It led to director Rahul Rawail's immediate counter-offensive: "The film's lead star, Sunny Deol, director and lyricist are all Sikhs. There is no way we would do anything to hurt Sikh sentiments." No one could argue with his broader principle. Does any organisation have the right to ban a film? And if it does, would it not set a bad precedent in a nation where there are as many sensitivities as there are communities? The movie, which was only falteringly funny, would not have set the box office on fire but its north India distributors, Wave Cinemas, decided to pull the plug on 115 prints of the Rs 20 crore project, first in Punjab and then in Delhi and Uttar Pradesh. This, after the producers had done everything by the book: had the film vetted by a panel of the Akal Takht and a review panel of the Central Board for Film Certification (CBFC), which included a Sikh member.

SGPC'S OBJECTIONS

1 THE TITLE: The film is not religious but draws its title from the Sikh holy slogan which is both the concluding part of their daily ardas (prayers) and a Sikh battle cry. 2 DEROGATORY REFERENCES: The mother of the film hero is shown as a baptised Sikh. But her conduct, according to the SGPC, is unbecoming of an Amritdhari Sikh. 3 THE HOLY BOOK: The Guru Granth Sahib has been portrayed against the Sikh code of conduct. A scene shows people wearing shoes around the holy book. 4 MALIGNING SIKHS: The film's hero is shown as part of a conspiracy to kill the US president, which is offensive given the large number of diaspora Sikhs. 5 DISTORTIONS IN THE GURBANI: Verses of the Gurbani have been uttered out of context. For instance, a verse goes like this "Huma ghar sajan aayo, sache mel milayo". 6 THE HERO: The Sikh character has not been portrayed in the right perspective. He is shown as a half-mad person flirting with the semi-clad woman.

At the heart of the SGPC's objections is the title, a Sikh slogan uttered in prayer and in battle which means "he who takes the Lord's name will be blessed". Equally objectionable for the apex Sikh religious body and a band of radical Sikh organisations was the "offensive portrayal of the Sikh image" by Deol who plays a bumbling Punjab Police constable Nihal Singh who flirts with guns, girls and high crime in New York. The producers who apparently anticipated trouble had tried to take precautions: Akal Takht jathedar Giani Joginder Singh Vedanti had set up a panel, comprising little known Sikh leaders, to examine the complaint he had received against the film. The panel flew to Mumbai, previewed the movie and submitted a report, saying there was nothing that could hurt the Sikh sentiments. The report not only hailed Rawail for portraying the Sikh character in good light, but it also extolled Deol for "growing a real beard".

The Takht-stamped report was made public a day before the Punjab and Haryana High Court was to take up a petition against the film and it was used by the film producer as clearance by the highest temporal seat of the Sikh faith. But far from clearing the air, the report acted as a red rag for the radicals who denounced the jathedar for giving a clean chit to the film. Vedanti came under fire for the manner in which he had set up the panel and the hurry in which he had accepted the report. There were allegations that his action was at the bidding of the president of Chief Khalsa Diwan, an Amritsar-based Sikh organisation, who is closely related to film distributor and liquor baron Ponty Chadha, something that Chadha denies.

PICTURE SPEAK

PASSION PLAY: Soon after the distributors withdrew the film, common men like this rickshaw puller (above) in Amritsar tore down its posters

Caught in a tight spot, Vedanti sought to wriggle out by asking SGPC chief Bibi Jagir Kaur to set up another panel to examine the film and the objections to it-even though a 10-member review committee of the CBFC had given its go-ahead to screening the movie after a preview ordered by the high court. Kaur set up a panel which censured the film's title and also its contents for "distorting the Sikh maryada and religious verses". She then declared the entire movie "polluted" and used the row to lay down an SGPC-mandated code for the film and serial makers on casting Sikh characters and practices. She also asked the film's director and producer to change the title and delete the objectionable scenes or withdraw the movie throughout the country. "The title and theme of the movie are blasphemous," Kaur said. Rawail insisted that his film was pure entertainment and that it was "too late to change the title as the Censor Board has already cleared it". But Chadha's Wave Cinemas decided to cut its losses and run, saying it had "miscalculated the extent of the sentiment against the film". Chadha, who says he suffered a loss of Rs 1.5 crore, said it was "in deference to Sikh sentiments".

OTHER MOVIES

FIRE 2000: Shiv Sena objects to the lesbianism portrayed in the film and the names given to the lovers Sita (Nandita Das) and Radha (Shabana Azmi). SINS 2005: Roman Catholic organisations demand a ban on the Vinod Pande film because it depicts a priest having a sexual relationship with a young girl. WATER 2000: Shooting of the Deepa Mehta film, based on the exploitation of widows in Varanasi, is disrupted by the Kashi Sanskriti Suraksha Samiti (KSSS). BOMBAY 1995: Shiv Sena objects to the depiction of the Mumbai riots and prevents its screening in the city. It is released only after clearance from the party supremo, Bal Thackeray.

Could the SGPC's stance have anything to do with politics? Chadha, known to be a supporter of the ruling Congress in Punjab, controls 40 per cent of Punjab's Rs 1,500 crore liquor trade. He made his first foray into Punjab soon after the Amarinder Singh Government took over in 2002. His entry into the state liquor trade was reportedly facilitated by the state Government to break the monopoly of Ludhiana-based liquor baron-turned-Akali politician Jagdish Singh Garcha. His substantial victory in the auction for the state's liquor vends even caused the Akalis to demand a CBI probe.

The blasts also triggered a political salvo, with the sad accusing the Congress of not banning the film despite its provocative content. As if on cue, Kaur, who had initially blamed the film producer for ignoring the SGPC resolution, trained her guns on the Congress, alleging that the blasts were a conspiracy to defame the Sikhs. Predictably, the SGPC commandments on the portrayal of Sikhs and their religion has raised the hackles of artists, who have described them as "retrograde diktats". The code lays down that only a baptised Sikh can be cast as an Amritdhari Sikh, and that Sikh characters should not be shown drinking liquor or committing a crime. It also bars the parkash (recital) of Guru Granth Sahib in the films/serials and depiction of caste classification among the Sikhs. It mandates the SGPC approval for showing the Sikh way of life. All this, says prominent theatre director Neelam Man Singh Chaudhry, "is quite absurd. Such religion-inspired interference must be stemmed before it becomes uncontrollable". Even within the SGPC, there is no unanimity. Senior SGPC leader and progressive voice, Manjit Singh Calcutta insists the SGPC cannot enforce its code.

Where will it stop? Writer-director Anurag Kashyap, a veteran of bans (five years ago, an organisation called the ksss sprang up overnight during the shooting of Deepa Mehta's Water in Varanasi, a film for which he had written the dialogues) has a point: "Everybody wants to use cinema and glamour as a platform. They don't file PILs against the corrupt, but they will file PILs against films at the drop of a hat." Er, should it be a turban?

Index