Vi segnalo l'articolo An insider's view of the Film Censor Board, di Mayank Shekhar, pubblicato il 19 giugno 2012 da The New York Times. Il noto critico cinematografico racconta la sua esperienza in qualità di consulente del famigerato Central Board of Film Certification dal 2007 al 2009. L'ente preposto alla censura vaglia ogni anno 13.500 (!) pellicole, compresi trailer, corti, documentari e spot pubblicitari per il circuito cinematografico. Circa 1.200-1.300 sono lungometraggi. L'ente ha sede a Mumbai, ma opera anche in altri otto centri distaccati: New Delhi, Chennai, Kolkata, Bangalore, Hyderabad, Thiruvananthapuram, Guwahati and Cuttack.
'The chairperson, appointed by the government, is usually a known figure from arts and entertainment. (...) About 500 citizens, 150 of them in Mumbai, are entrusted with the task of certifying films during their terms, the lengths of which can vary. (...) An identity card given by the Censor Board allowed them free access into any cinema in India, so they could check and report to the police if films were being played without the suggested cuts. Some of the members claimed that they had even got theaters shut down. Many spoke at length on the declining morality of Indian films. Going through the attendance roster of those members now, I realized that a majority of them had listed “social service” as their profession. Board officials told me that it’s a euphemism for political activist. They are mostly appointed on recommendation of their local legislators or politicians. (...) Arguably the Censor Board film classifications have been more lenient toward violence than toward sexual content. (...) Over the years, the focus of the Censor Board appears to have shifted from sex and violence to people’s “hurt sentiments” - some of it possibly real, but much of it imagined. (...) I sat through another B-grade film for the Censor Board. This time it was an excessively violent flick. (...) Yawning panelists at the preview granted it an “A” [solo per adulti] certificate, without any cuts. The film’s producer walked into the screening room. “No cuts at all?” he asked. “It’s so violent, you must give cuts. (...) Come on, how will people know this film exists? I’ve made a very violent film. How will I publicize it?”.'
