In a letter dated May 15 to Shantaram Nandgaonkar, Navalkar has accused them of ``going overboard'' even though directions to censor offensive public performances and acts were issued by him in the first place.

This volte-face has apparently been brought about by the adverse publicity that the minister and his morality brigade have been receiving, particularly the consistent reports in this paper. Describing The Indian Express as a trenchant critic of Shiv Shahi, Navalkar's letter says: ``I had a telephonic conversation with you (Nandgaonkar) regarding the news that appeared in The IndianExpress. Some newspapers are critics of the Shiv Shahi and they are always in search of something or the other (sic). We should take care that they do not get any chance to do so. Yesterday's Indian Express reported that you are going to initiate action over the incident of kissing at the Savage Garden show. But you must be aware of the rights of the Stage Performances Scrutiny Board. And there are certain limitations to these rights. According to these rights, the board has been empowered to scrutinise the scripts and cut them if necessary. However, if anything objectionable is going on at any public place, the board does not have any rights to initiate action or even direct the police to take action. (After seeing the photograph appeared in the newspaper, I have reached to a conclusion that such exceptional incidents of kissing which are beyond control, should be ignored.) But as ours is a Cultural Affairs Department, if there is any complaint from the public or social organisation about suchincidents, it should be forwarded to the police for further action. The police will take whatever action is to be taken and there is no need for you to follow it up.''

The letter goes on: ``The same newspaper says that you had authorised activists of some public opinion organisation to keep a watch at the Savage Garden show. You do not have any rights to authorise someone like this and it will be improper also to do so. To avoid any addition to the prevailing confusion in this issue, you should immediately send a clarification to The Indian Express and forward a copy of the same to me.''

Navalkar's letter, a veritable tongue-lashing, also asked the board to ``appropriately'' censor and approve the scripts of the six Hindi plays banned for their objectionable content and spare the artistes' from starvation. He writes: ``Your approach towards the Hindi sex comedies is welcome. They were certainly going overboard. I have noticed that you have successfully curbed them. In this situation, instead ofcompletely banning the play for once and all, permission should be given to them carefully after cutting objectionable sentences, changing their titles and taking a guarantee from the producer. This will save the artistes from starvation.'' News of Navalkar's reprieve spread quickly among the producers of these plays. For, the producers of Saali Poor Gharwali have already issued advertisements in the Press giving notice of future shows. Some of the members of the board are extremely cut up about the letter and has taken umbrage at Navalkar's latest stand. Nandgaonkar himself said that the letter was ``personal'', denying that it was an attempt to axe the board's rights. ``A minister can issue instructions to the board. However, I am going to meet him with the printed list of the board's rights and discuss it with him. We share a close relationship and Navalkar usually does not interfere in our work,'' Nandgaonkar said.