The censors, on their part, appear to be quite happy to pass the average mainstream Hindi film which, in spite of its inanities and suggestive obscenities, yet keeps within the letter of the law while gravely violating its spirit. But our censors, being human too, are excited and disturbed and tend to overreact to a film like Such A Long Journey, which may appear to violate some of the Code's restrictions and yet upholds the spirit of the Code.

The major cuts imposed on Such A Long Journey illustrate how. The story is based on the notorious Nagarwalla case in which he was alleged to have imitated the Prime Minister's voice and withdrew Rs 60 lakh from a bank, wassubsequently arrested and put in jail where he died in mysterious circumstances. The insinuation made at the time was that he was allegedly used as a scapegoat by the then Prime Minister for her own purposes.

Now the censors have asked for two major cuts: To delete the dialogue ``Our wonderful Prime Minister uses the RAW like the KGB, to do all her dirty work'' and ``She, the Prime Minister chose me to train for supplying arms ... money for supplies re-routed by Prime Minister to her private bank account.'' Assume that these cuts are carried out. The cinegoer will see the villainy being perpetrated, but will be left in the dark about the reason for it and the identity of the perpetrator. It will be like the many unsolved Mumbai murders! Worse, the cinegoer will be left wondering why an actor of the calibre of Naseeruddin Shah (who plays Nagarwalla -- Jimmy Billimoria in the film) features in the cast, for his single major scene in the hospital when he confides in his lifelong friend Gustad (played by RoshanSeth) about the PM involvement, would have to be deleted.

Such A Long Journey is a Canadian/ British/Indian co-production. As such, the producer had necessarily to adhere faithfully to the script that was sent to and approved by the I&B ministry. Further, there was an official of the ministry who reportedly oversaw the shooting of the project. The conclusion is that the official was not doing his work or the censors were overdoing theirs! Apart from being conscientious, our censors are also highly bureaucratic and, accordingly, upholders of the Dynasty, and so naturally demand this cut. The reaction of the Censor Board chief was typical: ``There is a reference to Indira Gandhi accusing her of siphoning money. How do you expect us to pass such nonsense?''

Probably the good lady sees too many films to be able to read the newspapers. Had she done so, she would have known that the film was simply repeating the doubts expressed in leading newspapers. In any case, if a detailed mention of the Nagarwallaepisode and the PM's alleged role in it can be splashed in the press, on what ground can the same freedom be denied to films? The censor chief will no doubt quote the Code of Film Censorship. She needs to be reminded that it was found to be totally outdated by the government-appointed Khosla Committee on Film Censorship. But the government seems to have forgotten about that eminently sensible Report. In fact, the censor chief should take the lead in asking for the Code's revision according to the guidelines laid down in the Khosla Report.

This raises the wider issue of film censorship in India. To appreciate the worth of the Khosla Committee's recommendations, it needs to be stressed that these are based on certain wise principles laid down by the Supreme Court in a series of celebrated judgments beginning with K.A. Abbas's petition regarding his documentary film, A Tale of Four Cities.

Nothing more dramatically illustrates the failure of censorship than the umpteen instances of films passed by thecensors of -- I quote from the Khosla Report -- ``dances obviously libidinous and lesbian in character'', ``with very little relevance to the story''. It is not only that our producers are dominated by anatomical rather than aesthetic considerations -- they have also exploited violence for the sake of violence.

The Khosla Report very rightly points out ``if in telling the story, it is logical, relevant or necessary, to depict a passionate kiss or a nude woman figure, there should be no question of excluding the shot provided the theme is handled with delicacy and feeling...'' Similarly with violence. Violence as a deep-rooted problem of the adult world will always remain a valid subject of analysis. You can't have social transformation without frank discussion on what the ``transformation'' involves.

The briefly declared objectives of the American Production Code Administration could well serve as a model to censors all over the world: (1) To encourage artistic expression expanding creative freedom, and(2) to ensure that the freedom which encourages the artist remains responsible and sensitive to the standards of the larger society. Accordingly, the Khosla Report suggested general principles, instead of specific prohibitions. How something is shown, rather than what is shown, should be the determining factor.

Returning to Such A Long Journey, the film's strongest point is that it is faithful to the book. If the book's 339 pages have been successfully telescoped into a 1 hour, 40 minutes film, it is largely due to the craftsmanship of the screenplay writer Sooni Taraporevala and the film's editor, Jeff Warren. The delineation of a middle-class Parsi family and of the eccentric neighbours in Khodadad Building is done with considerable attention to detail and a touch of humour. All the performances are good to excellent. But Roshan Seth's rendering of Gustad is truly memorable.

For this reviewer the film was a moving and enriching experience. In his long career of writing about films he has rarelybeen as deeply moved. The question that troubled him as he left the auditorium was -- how can a body of normal, sensible men and women, sitting in judgment on a work of such astounding merit, find it in their hearts to deprive others of the same experience in all its emotional fullness?

The writer is a veteran film journalist