Why MSG should be allowed to screen

Deciding what viewers are or aren’t allowed to take away from a movie is not the Censor Board’s job.

About a year ago, while flipping through the pages of India Today’s Hindi edition, I came across an advertorial that introduced me to Dera Sacha Sauda (DSS) chief Saint Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh Ji Insan – a man whose name, if mentioned repeatedly, could, on its own, escalate the word count of this article more rapidly than I care for. So, for the sake of simplicity and so that this article doesn’t explode from the awesomeness of such a grand name, I’ll just call him Singh.

This article is about his most recently displayed talent and the controversy it’s causing. In December, 2014, Singh followed in the footsteps of Himesh Reshammiya when it was announced that he would be making the transition from musical extraordinaire to thespian in his maiden directorial venture –MSG: The Messenger of God (MSG).

MSG, it’s being argued, like its namesake, Monosodium glutamate, is not good for people. Is it that bad? Maybe. But rejecting the movie, as announced by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), is not the way to go.

First, to address the public outcry against the movie. After the inevitable fallout and backlash against godmen in the wake of the recent Rampal saga, people pointed at the charges I’ve mentioned against Singh as reason enough to disallow the film. The argument that criminal charges should disqualify a person from producing, directing or starring in a movie flies in the face of current practices and would immediately put both Sanjay Dutt and Salman Khan, among some other Bollywood bigwigs, out of contention immediately.

It should also be noted that while Dutt was found guilty by courts, Singh has been exonerated of some charges and has not been found guilty of any charges levelled against him thus far. Sure, one could argue that the charges against Singh are varied and worrying, but, if people with criminal charges can run for public office, surely cinema is a more acceptable choice of profession.

The CBFC, which was praised by liberal voices for passing the controversy-dogged PK without any changes, has, with their initial rejection of MSG, taken a giant step backward. While one may have scores of issues with Singh, the exception that the CBFC has taken to the movie is strange.

A CBFC member is quoted to have said the board members have taken exception to both Singh depicting himself as god in the movie as well as the fact that he is shown curing terminal illnesses and performing miracles that “are not substantiated by logic”.

Apart from the fact that the movie is called “the MESSENGER of God” as opposed to just god and, as stated by the MSG spokesperson, that Singh calls himself an “insan” or human in the trailer itself, the grouse against a godman playing a godly character seems bizarre. It’s alright for Aamir Khan to play a godman-debunking alien, Hrithik Roshan and Shahrukh Khan can play superheroes and Akshay Kumar can play Krishna himself, but to be a godman playing a god man, THAT is a problem?

As for performing miracles that “are not substantiated by logic”, let’s look at the definition of the word miracle. According to the Oxford Dictionary a miracle is -An extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency. In other words, if you can explain it, it isn’t a miracle.

In times where we have the Indian Science Congress discussing Vedic era spacecraft and a Prime Minister talking about elephant-head transplant surgeryin ancient India, the CBFC taking exception to a godman character in a work of fiction performing miracles and curing illnesses is astonishing.

Will I be going to watch the movie? Probably not, but that doesn’t take away from my belief that the release of MSG should not be blocked for any reason, let alone the flimsy objections put forth by a censor board that seems intent on anchoring itself in the dark ages. (newslaundry.com)