Veteran filmmaker Ram Gopal Varma on Wednesday launched a sharp public attack on film censorship in India, calling it an insult to adult audiences and demanding that the censor board be abolished. Posting at length on X, Varma argued that in an age of smartphones, global streaming platforms, and borderless internet, a government-appointed committee had no legitimate role in deciding what citizens could watch.

The Core Argument

'Censoring films actually is an insult to the audiences,' Varma wrote. 'In an era of smartphones, global streaming, and access to infinite information, to pretend that a government appointed committee (What is the qualification of its members?) can shield adults from the film makers' perspective of any truth is not only outdated, but it's also idiotic.'

The director drew a pointed contrast between civic trust and cultural gatekeeping. 'Here's the fundamental hypocrisy… If an adult is mature enough to vote for the leader of the country, raise families, run businesses, why the hell can't they decide for themselves what to watch?' he asked. He argued that the state was simultaneously trusting citizens with the ballot — a decision that shapes the future of over a billion people — while treating a scene in a film as potentially corrupting.

Censorship as 'Infantilising' Society

'That's not safeguarding society but infantilizing it,' Varma observed. He noted the contradiction that an 18-year-old could choose the country's leader, yet required a 'random committee member' to decide whether hearing a cuss word or watching a scene was harmful. He described a film as dramatic storytelling from a filmmaker's perspective, with the viewer holding the prerogative to agree or disagree.

Varma also pointed to the practical futility of cuts in the streaming era. 'Cutting a scene for theatrical release is laughable because the uncut version will hit torrents, Telegram, and all international platforms within hours,' he said. He cited a specific example: the head-banging scene in his film OBSESSION, which — after censors excised it — was reportedly viewed by ten times more people on Instagram Reels than watched the film in theatres. 'Censorship doesn't hide content, it creates demand,' he argued.

The Broader Creative and Democratic Cost

Varma contended that forcing trims on language, sensuality, violence, or ideology reduced cinema to what he called 'dishonest and hypocritical slop.' He questioned why cinematic moments triggered bans when children could freely consume brutal news coverage and extremist content online. Censorship, he said, was not about protecting values — cinema's role was to reflect a filmmaker's perception of reality, which in turn generated debate, 'the foundation of democracy.'

He called on producers and directors to stop, in his words, 'crawling on their knees before a non-thinking, uncreative agenda oriented bureaucracy that understands neither art nor audiences.' He argued that every time the industry accepted cuts or self-censored to avoid trouble, it emboldened the gatekeepers and made the entire ecosystem a soft target.

Call for Industry-Wide Legal Challenge

'I think it's time for the industry to come together to challenge the very existence of the censor board in its present form, both in courts and public discourses,' Varma wrote. He concluded by arguing that democracy demanded free expression, and that 'isolating and mutilating cinema' in a connected world was 'suicidal for our growth,' signing off with the hashtag #BanTheCensor. His position: what audiences need is not cuts but clear content disclosures, followed by respect for their right to choose.