Four Women, One City, And A Refusal Letter

Lipstick Under My Burkha, directed by Alankrita Shrivastava and produced by Prakash Jha, follows four women in Bhopal who seek freedom in small, secret ways. There is a college student, a beautician, a housewife and an older widow who reads erotic fiction. The film won the Oxfam Award for Best Film on Gender Equality at the Mumbai Film Festival in 2016 and the Spirit of Asia Prize at Tokyo. In India, it first met a wall.In January 2017, the Central Board of Film Certification refused a certificate. Its letter, later made public by the makers, said the story was lady oriented and that the women's fantasy was above life. It also cited sexual scenes, abusive words, audio pornography and a sensitive touch about one particular section of society. The letter cited CBFC guidelines and refused certification under those heads. Without a certificate, the film could not play in Indian cinemas.The phrase lady oriented did the damage. It suggested that a film centred on women was itself a problem, not just its scenes. Film makers, actors and writers criticised the wording in public. CBFC member Ashoke Pandit was among those reported to have condemned the refusal. Farhan Akhtar and Vishal Bhardwaj also spoke in support of the film, according to reports at the time. The board's chair at the time, Pahlaj Nihalani, defended the process in general terms, but the letter's wording stayed at the centre of the row.

Why The Wording Mattered More Than The Cuts

Censor rows often turn on cuts. This one turned on language. A board can ask for cuts to scenes. It is harder to defend a refusal that seems to object to a film's focus on women. Critics asked a direct question. If male centred films with strong language and sexual content could get adult certificates, why could a women centred film not get the same treatment with cuts? The makers argued that the refusal applied a double standard.It is worth noting what the letter did not do. It did not ban the film for all time. It refused a certificate at that stage, which left an appeal route open. The makers used that route. They did not release the film without certification. They went to the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal, known as FCAT, and asked it to review the decision. That legal path, not a street protest, is what changed the outcome.

The Tribunal Appeal And The July Release

FCAT viewed the film and raised concerns with the producers on 27 May 2017, according to the film's release history. The producers returned with a list of 16 voluntary cuts that addressed those concerns. FCAT suggested some further cuts and then directed the CBFC to issue an A certificate. The film released in India on 21 July 2017 with that adult rating.The release did not erase the earlier refusal. It showed that a second look could produce a different result. The tribunal process allowed cuts to be discussed scene by scene, rather than judged by a single phrase about the film's focus. Supporters of the film said that proved the first refusal was too broad. Supporters of the board's role said the final cuts proved the system worked, since the film reached screens after changes. Both readings use the same facts. They differ on whether the first letter was a mistake or a starting point for negotiation.Box office and press coverage after release helped the film. Its marketing leaned into the row, including a poster image that played on the refusal. That poster drew attention, but it also risked reducing a serious film to a slogan. Viewers who saw the film found a quieter story than the headlines suggested. It was about routine, work, marriage and small acts of choice, not only about the scenes that drew censor attention. That gap between headline and film is common in censor rows, and it was clear here.

What The Case Says About Women On Screen

Lipstick Under My Burkha arrived at a time when Hindi cinema was still testing how much space women's desire could take on screen. The film's four leads were not presented as perfect heroines. They made choices that clashed with family, faith and social rules. Some viewers found that honest. Others found it uncomfortable. The censor row made that discomfort official, at least for a time.The film also raised a question about community sensitivity. The CBFC letter mentioned a sensitive touch about one particular section of society. The makers did not accept that the film targeted any community. They said it told individual stories. That dispute was never settled by a court ruling on the film's meaning. It was settled, in practical terms, by cuts and an adult certificate. That is how many Indian censor cases end: not with a verdict on meaning, but with a negotiated version that can be shown to adults.For later film makers, the case became a warning and a guide. A refusal letter can be appealed. Publishing the letter can build public support, but it can also harden positions. Voluntary cuts can unlock a certificate, but they also mean the released version is not the festival version. Those trade offs are now part of the craft of making a film that deals with gender in India.

The Record, Stated Plainly

Claims that need care are about motive. Critics alleged a double standard in how women's stories were judged. That allegation is reported here as criticism, not as a proved finding about any official's intent. The board's letter gave guideline reasons, and the tribunal process, not a finding of bias, is what changed the outcome. No court in this row ruled that the CBFC acted with bias against women as a class. The closing point is therefore narrow and factual. A film refused for being lady oriented was later cleared for adults after cuts, and its release became a landmark in debates about gender, censorship and certification in India.

Sources and reporting

  1. Indian Express — 10 April 2017 · Verifies the lady oriented wording, the CBFC refusal letter and the producer's hope for reversal.
  2. Scroll — 2017 · Verifies the festival awards, the public reaction and the marketing effect of the refusal.
  3. News18 — 28 June 2017 · Verifies the January 2017 refusal, the A certificate and the 21 July 2017 release plan.