[ads1]
The feud between Pahlaj Nihalani, chairperson of the Central Board of Film Certification, and Alankrita Shrivastava, director of the film Lipstick Under My Burkha, continues.
Now, CBFC chief Pahlaj Nihalani hit out at her, calling her a liar. He told Hindustan Times, “These are tactics to draw attention to her film. You tell me, what’s the only point of curiosity about the film? That the [CBFC] Examining Committee rejected her film? She has been cashing in on that for months now.”
He also explained that the term “lady-oriented”, didn’t come from him. “It was [in the letter written] by the Examining Committee. I neither viewed nor expressed my opinion over the film.”
[ecp code=”4″]
Shrivastava, in that interview had said that “The Examining Committee was divided in its opinion, so we approached the Revising Committee. Nihalani, who was present at the screening, made me feel like a criminal.”
On this, Nihalani said, “She is a liar. I was never aloof, rude or uppity with her… I very clearly remember asking her to sit. She didn’t respond. I told her that her film was rejected by the Examining Committee. She said she knew that would happen. It was a civil, to-the-point conversation. How did it make her feel like a criminal? I fail to see why she continues to flog the CBFC and me to get her film noticed, rather than have people talk about it for its intrinsic merit. Does the film have anything else to recommend itself other than the fact that it was questioned by the Censor Board?”
Alankrita responded to this statement and chose to just ignore it. She said, “Let him say whatever he wants, as I have nothing against him. All I’m saying is that the whole idea and procedure of censorship should be thrown out of the window. In a democracy, the certification process can’t be a situation where you have to feel like you have to protect your film. It should just be a matter-of-fact procedure. There needs to be a situation where it’s a normal thing and not like you are constantly worried about what are they going to do to the film.”
She added, “I went to the screening theatre and there was the revising committee, who took the unanimous decision. It’s not about whether they offered me a seat or not; the place is such that there’s no space for [a] dialogue. So I felt that as a filmmaker, I was subjected to an unpleasant atmosphere.”
[ads2]