There’s a predictable “oo-la-la” over the telecast of “The Dirty Picture.” Far from being the victim, Sony Entertainment is the biggest gainer. The mere telecast of a movie whose DVD is freely available in the market is getting them crores worth of publicity. I assume their advertisers aren’t impetuous either. They will wait and rake the moolah as and when the movie is telecast.

Two key arguments are being made against the government:

First, despite some 60 cuts to the original, they are pushing a film to watershed timings (what these timings are is undefined so far, but the informal consensus among government and stakeholders in the Indian Broadcasting Foundation-IBF, of which Sony is a member is 11 PM). The cuts, critics of the government are arguing, have been administered by the Central Board of Film Certification-CBFC, who have thus downgraded the film’s rating from “A” to “U/A” now, which makes the film eligible for viewing under adult supervision.

The second argument is that government gave a national award to the film. How can it now treat the movie so shabbily?

Having worked somewhat closely with both IBF and the Ministry of Broadcasting in an earlier position, I think both arguments defy the social contract that Sony and its esteemed advertisers, presumably have. There is nothing wrong in the aforementioned movie, granted an “A” certificate, to be shown in movie halls. We assume here that the halls have some mechanism in place to control those below 18 to sneak in. Similarly, there is every reason for the national awards jury to find merit in the film.

But “downgrading” the same movie to U/A after 60-something cuts and then allowing its exhibition to universal audiences on cable networks and DTH is wrong.

For sake of brevity, here are three key points to ponder in bullets:

a)  can the core theme of Vidya Balan using the casting couch to get her way with Naseeruddin Shah, Tushar Kapur and Emraan Hashmi be diluted despite any number of cuts?

b)  can the “authentic” dialogue, risqué/filmy/aimed-to-shock, ever be shorn of double meaning? I could give examples, but wouldn’t this column be riding on them in exactly the same way as the broadcaster is attempting to do?

c)   can anyone say for sure that children and similarly vulnerable people can be kept off TV at 1.30 PM (the original time marketed by Sony) or even 9 PM or, I daresay, 11 PM?

Agree/disagree as we might with the film maker’s creative licence, the distasteful confusion is happening because there’s a wonderful “no-man’s-land” among five stakeholders a) CBFC, the censor, b) government, the licensor and quasi-regulator for licensees such as IBF members, c) Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, which is supposed to regulate the cable operator, d) the IBF, which has a self-regulatory disputes settlement body under Justice AP Shah, but Shah is paid for by members thus having inherent conflict of interest, e) non-IBF entertainment and cable channels.

Ironically, this “no-man’s-land” suits all five, as well as advertisers who come in through their own regulatory outfit, AAAI. Each of these honourable folks extract control premium as best as they can in any given situation. Nothing suits them better than ban/court cases/media mileage. The logic extends to our worthy news channels, organised as they are under the News Broadcasters Association-NBA. They have a story there and who is to deny them “fair use” of the film’s clips and beat them to death?

So, here’s the moral of the story with apologies to P Sainath’s formulation regarding droughts, “everyone loves a dirty picture.” Any guesses why the much-maligned Broadcast Regulatory Authority, comprising common ground rules and civil society participation, is always on the backburner?