Shyam Benegal: ‘The government of the day cannot assume that it has created the CBFC’

The filmmaker spoke about the status of his committee’s report, which has not yet been implemented by the Information and Broadcasting ministry.

The replacement of Pahlaj Nihalani with Prasoon Joshi as the chairperson of the Central Board of Film Certification has been widely welcomed. But is that reason enough to rejoice? And what of the fate of the committee set up to reform the certification process and revamp the board’s functioning?

The committee was appointed by the central government in 2016. It was headed by Shyam Benegal, and its members included Kamal Haasan, Rakeysh Mehra and Piyush Pandey. Among the recommendations were the introduction of categories such UA12+, UA15+, A and AC (Adult with Caution) to ensure that films do not get unduly cut and instead reach the intended audience of their makers. The report clearly defined the role of the CBFC chairperson as the board’s “guiding mechanism”, who would not be involved with the day-to-day job of certifying films. The Information and Broadcasting Ministry has not yet acted on the recommendations. In an interview, Shyam Benegal said he would be speaking to Information and Broadcasting Minster Smriti Irani to get an update on the committee’s report.

Pahlaj Nihalani is out. Any thoughts?

I have no comments to make on Pahlaj Nihalani or about the government’s decision to retire him. That said, Prasoon Joshi is a good choice as the CBFC chairman. He is a very fine poet in Hindi, he is a well-known lyricist, he has been heading one of the finest advertising agencies in the country. He has great knowledge of media, cinema, and the arts. He is also a literary figure.

Many, many filmmakers had complained about the workings of the CBFC, and as you well know, the media itself carried reports too. The latest was this gentleman, [Kushan] Nandy, who was asked to make 40 cuts or something in his film. I have read reports about several filmmakers being unhappy with the CBFC’s decisions, but I cannot comment on that because it did not happen to me.

Have you heard back from the Information and Broadcasting Ministry after your committee submitted its report?

Our report was given in 2016 in two parts, April and October. We haven’t heard from the Information and Broadcasting Ministry officially in any manner. I have asked them a couple of times and they said that things are happening. I have decided that I will speak to the correct people at the ministry on Wednesday and if I don’t get a satisfactory answer, I will seek an appointment with Mrs. Irani and find out.

Nihalani had said that he would take the “strictest action” against filmmakers screening their films uncensored at film festivals in “exotic locations”. Film festivals do not come under the censor board’s jurisdiction. Will this change?

I don’t believe so. What happens is that international film festivals recognised by the International Federation of Film Producers Associations do not recognise or accept films that are censored. The International Film Festival of India or the Mumbai Film Festival is FIAPF-recognised. Here, they want films the way they were originally designed.
Since FIAPF itself does not want to encourage the idea that someone else can interfere with the content and the creative intent of a film, films cannot be censored before they are taken to international festivals.

If censor board members are selected by the Information and Broadcasting Ministry, do you think that they can act independently, at all, ever?

It’s a constitutional requirement for the Information and Broadcasting Ministry to choose the CBFC members. The CBFC is a State institution. It has nothing to do with the government in power. A state is forever, like the nation. Governments come and go.

Who represents the people? The legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. The government is the executive and it cannot take over the powers of the legislature or the judiciary. These distinctions need to be made. The government of the day cannot automatically assume that it has created the CBFC.

Your report says that films will continue to be refused a certificate if they fail to comply with Section 5B(1) of the Cinematograph Act. This section deals with films threatening the sovereignty of the Indian nation, its national interest, decency and morality. Don’t you think that this section can be interpreted in several ways?

We created the several sub-categories to cover the whole gamut between the Universal (U) and the Adult (A) certificate. The Cinematograph Act was passed in 1952, and things have changed since that and it requires amendments. The problem with amending an act is that it needs to be tabled in the Parliament and debated and so on. That is the law.

It is not so difficult to interpret that section. If somebody is against the constitution of India or if somebody is threatening the country through a film, it cannot be allowed. No country will allow such a film. You cannot challenge the sovereignty of a country, no?

We welcome your comments at
Sponsored Content BY 

Behind the garb of wealth and success, white collar criminals are hiding in plain sight

Understanding the forces that motivate leaders to become fraudsters.

Most con artists are very easy to like; the ones that belong to the corporate society, even more so. The Jordan Belforts of the world are confident, sharp and can smooth-talk their way into convincing people to bend at their will. For years, Harshad Mehta, a practiced con-artist, employed all-of-the-above to earn the sobriquet “big bull” on Dalaal Street. In 1992, the stockbroker used the pump and dump technique, explained later, to falsely inflate the Sensex from 1,194 points to 4,467. It was only after the scam that journalist Sucheta Dalal, acting on a tip-off, broke the story exposing how he fraudulently dipped into the banking system to finance a boom that manipulated the stock market.


In her book ‘The confidence game’, Maria Konnikova observes that con artists are expert storytellers - “When a story is plausible, we often assume it’s true.” Harshad Mehta’s story was an endearing rags-to-riches tale in which an insurance agent turned stockbroker flourished based on his skill and knowledge of the market. For years, he gave hope to marketmen that they too could one day live in a 15,000 sq.ft. posh apartment with a swimming pool in upmarket Worli.

One such marketman was Ketan Parekh who took over Dalaal Street after the arrest of Harshad Mehta. Ketan Parekh kept a low profile and broke character only to celebrate milestones such as reaching Rs. 100 crore in net worth, for which he threw a lavish bash with a star-studded guest-list to show off his wealth and connections. Ketan Parekh, a trainee in Harshad Mehta’s company, used the same infamous pump-and-dump scheme to make his riches. In that, he first used false bank documents to buy high stakes in shares that would inflate the stock prices of certain companies. The rise in stock prices lured in other institutional investors, further increasing the price of the stock. Once the price was high, Ketan dumped these stocks making huge profits and causing the stock market to take a tumble since it was propped up on misleading share prices. Ketan Parekh was later implicated in the 2001 securities scam and is serving a 14-years SEBI ban. The tactics employed by Harshad Mehta and Ketan Parekh were similar, in that they found a loophole in the system and took advantage of it to accumulate an obscene amount of wealth.


Call it greed, addiction or smarts, the 1992 and 2001 Securities Scams, for the first time, revealed the magnitude of white collar crimes in India. To fill the gaps exposed through these scams, the Securities Laws Act 1995 widened SEBI’s jurisdiction and allowed it to regulate depositories, FIIs, venture capital funds and credit-rating agencies. SEBI further received greater autonomy to penalise capital market violations with a fine of Rs 10 lakhs.

Despite an empowered regulatory body, the next white-collar crime struck India’s capital market with a massive blow. In a confession letter, Ramalinga Raju, ex-chairman of Satyam Computers convicted of criminal conspiracy and financial fraud, disclosed that Satyam’s balance sheets were cooked up to show an excess of revenues amounting to Rs. 7,000 crore. This accounting fraud allowed the chairman to keep the share prices of the company high. The deception, once revealed to unsuspecting board members and shareholders, made the company’s stock prices crash, with the investors losing as much as Rs. 14,000 crores. The crash of India’s fourth largest software services company is often likened to the bankruptcy of Enron - both companies achieved dizzying heights but collapsed to the ground taking their shareholders with them. Ramalinga Raju wrote in his letter “it was like riding a tiger, not knowing how to get off without being eaten”, implying that even after the realisation of consequences of the crime, it was impossible for him to rectify it.

It is theorised that white-collar crimes like these are highly rationalised. The motivation for the crime can be linked to the strain theory developed by Robert K Merton who stated that society puts pressure on individuals to achieve socially accepted goals (the importance of money, social status etc.). Not having the means to achieve those goals leads individuals to commit crimes.

Take the case of the executive who spent nine years in McKinsey as managing director and thereafter on the corporate and non-profit boards of Goldman Sachs, Procter & Gamble, American Airlines, and Harvard Business School. Rajat Gupta was a figure of success. Furthermore, his commitment to philanthropy added an additional layer of credibility to his image. He created the American India Foundation which brought in millions of dollars in philanthropic contributions from NRIs to development programs across the country. Rajat Gupta’s descent started during the investigation on Raj Rajaratnam, a Sri-Lankan hedge fund manager accused of insider trading. Convicted for leaking confidential information about Warren Buffet’s sizeable investment plans for Goldman Sachs to Raj Rajaratnam, Rajat Gupta was found guilty of conspiracy and three counts of securities fraud. Safe to say, Mr. Gupta’s philanthropic work did not sway the jury.


The people discussed above have one thing in common - each one of them was well respected and celebrated for their industry prowess and social standing, but got sucked down a path of non-violent crime. The question remains - Why are individuals at successful positions willing to risk it all? The book Why They Do It: Inside the mind of the White-Collar Criminal based on a research by Eugene Soltes reveals a startling insight. Soltes spoke to fifty white collar criminals to understand their motivations behind the crimes. Like most of us, Soltes expected the workings of a calculated and greedy mind behind the crimes, something that could separate them from regular people. However, the results were surprisingly unnerving. According to the research, most of the executives who committed crimes made decisions the way we all do–on the basis of their intuitions and gut feelings. They often didn’t realise the consequences of their action and got caught in the flow of making more money.


The arena of white collar crimes is full of commanding players with large and complex personalities. Billions, starring Damien Lewis and Paul Giamatti, captures the undercurrents of Wall Street and delivers a high-octane ‘ruthless attorney vs wealthy kingpin’ drama. The show looks at the fine line between success and fraud in the stock market. Bobby Axelrod, the hedge fund kingpin, skilfully walks on this fine line like a tightrope walker, making it difficult for Chuck Rhoades, a US attorney, to build a case against him.

If financial drama is your thing, then block your weekend for Billions. You can catch it on Hotstar Premium, a platform that offers a wide collection of popular and Emmy-winning shows such as Game of Thrones, Modern Family and This Is Us, in addition to live sports coverage, and movies. To subscribe, click here.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of Hotstar and not by the Scroll editorial team.