Thursday,
September
06,
2007
There
are
quite
a
few
channels
dedicated
to
animal
life
on
television
today.
The
animals
are
shown
baring
their
teeth,
charging
at
the
television
crew
shooting
them
and
even
being
killed
by
poachers.
Millions
across
the
globe
watch
these
channels
and
the
message
that
goes
out
to
them
is
to
protect
and
save
animals.
But
if
you
are
a
Bollywood
film-maker
who
wants
to
show
a
pigeon
being
freed
or
an
actor
petting
a
horse,
you
are
in
for
serious
trouble.
For
there's
an
Animal
Welfare
Board
in
Chennai
that
will
not
be
convinced
of
your
intentions
come
what
may.
Animals
have
been
an
integral
part
of
Bollywood
for
long.
From
Haathi
Mere
Saathi
to
Sholay,
animals
have
played
important
roles
in
hit
movies.
But
not
anymore,
says
Shankar,
the
man
who
is
usually
contacted
by
film-makers
whenever
they
have
roles
for
animals
in
their
scripts.
The
last
film
Shankar
worked
for
was
the
multi-starrer
Kaal.
"In
Kaal,
even
though
the
scenes
comprising
animals
were
shot
on
foreign
soil
and
the
animals
used
were
also
from
abroad,
still
the
movie
faced
a
lot
of
problems.
The
law
says
that
showing
Indian
animals
as
cruel
beasts
is
objectionable.
But
the
tigers
used
in
"Kaal" were
not
Indian
at
all.
I
understand
that
showing
cruelty
towards
animals
should
not
be
entertained
on
screen.
But
what's
the
problem
if
they
are
shown
in
good
light?"
Another
movie
that
was
blocked
by
the
Animal
Welfare
Board
was
Dhaamal.
The
Board
delayed
clearing
the
film
to
an
extent
that
its
release
had
to
be
postponed.
Interestingly,
not
a
single
scene
in
the
film
which
shows
animals
was
shot
by
the
film-maker.
They
were
all
stock
shots,
or
shots
taken
from
television
channels
or
other
movies.
Sadly,
the
officers
of
the
Animal
Welfare
Board
were
not
even
aware
of
the
term.
So
the
director
had
a
trying
time
explaining
it
to
the
officials.
When
nothing
worked
out,
the
producer
and
director
decided
to
remove
the
scenes
all
together.
Even
in
Rang
De
Basanti,
the
scene
which
shows
Aamir
Khan
riding
a
horse
had
to
be
edited.
Shankar
says:
"Mr.
Mehra,
the
director
of
the
film,
had
to
release
it
without
the
full
scene.
He
preferred
to
steer
clear
of
an
issue
which
would
unnecessarily
complicate
matters.
Leave
alone
getting
permission
from
the
Board,
meeting
the
officials
itself
is
a
Herculean
task.
Either
the
officials
are
not
in
the
office
or
they
don't
turn
up
for
the
meeting
with
the
film-maker.
I
guess,
it
was
because
of
these
that
Mr.
Mehra
simply
edited
the
scene
despite
knowing
very
well
that
the
scene
was
in
no
way
objectionable."
Another
recent
flick
which
faced
the
wrath
of
the
Board
was
Mahesh
Bhatt's
Awarapan.
Director
Mohit
Suri
wanted
to
show
the
heroine
buying
caged
pigeons
and
releasing
them.
"Bhatt
had
himself
gone
to
Chennai
to
convince
the
officials.
Even
though
the
theme
of
my
scene
was
freedom
of
birds,
the
officials
just
wouldn't
understand.
I
am
an
animal
lover,
too.
I
was
also
ready
to
abide
by
a
rule
which
says
an
animal
welfare
officer
has
to
be
present
on
the
sets
when
the
scene
is
being
shot.
Anyways,
I
don't
want
to
talk
much
on
this
topic,"
Suri
says.
Shankar
had
suggested
to
Bhatt
that
he
could
use
a
net
instead
of
a
cage
as
showing
caged
animals
on
screen
is
objectionable.
But
that
would
have
robbed
the
scene
of
its
authenticity.
Such
is
the
terror
of
the
Board
that
some
film-makers
avoid
commenting
on
the
issue,
fearing
bottlenecks
if
they
were
to
make
film
with
animals
in
the
future.
When
contacted
for
his
comments
on
this
issue,
director
Inder
Kumar
said:
"Can
we
talk
later
about
this?
My
movie
is
all
set
for
release
and
I
don't
want
to
comment
on
any
controversial
issue."
Perhaps,
it
is
this
apprehension
on
the
part
of
film-makers
that
is
making
matters
worse.
Shankar
finds
some
of
the
rules
of
the
Board
unreasonable.
"A
rule
says
that
projection
of
the
jaws
of
animals
is
barred
as
it
portrays
the
animals
as
a
threat
to
mankind.
However,
if
such
scenes
are
shot
abroad
then
it's
acceptable.
What
difference
does
it
make?
Aren't
animals
the
same
every
where,
be
it
India
or
Africa?
Such
a
rule
only
limits
the
boundaries
of
a
film-maker.
Today,
a
movie
like
Junoon
cannot
be
thought
of,
that
too,
for
very
shoddy
reasons."
Perhaps,
it
is
high
time
film-makers
challenge
such
baseless
rules.
At
the
same
time,
it's
the
duty
of
the
Animal
Welfare
Board
to
give
the
film-makers
a
good
hearing
and
valid
reasons
for
refusing
approval
to
a
scene.
Not
only
would
it
give
the
film-makers
a
clear
picture
of
the
rules
and
regulations
with
regard
to
use
of
animals
in
films,
it
would
also
make
them
more
aware
of
their
responsibility
in
preserving
animal
life.
Instead
of
wasting
time
in
rejecting
film
scenes
without
valid
reasons,
the
Animal
Welfare
Board
should
pay
more
attention
to
cruelty
to
animals
in
our
society.
After
all,
when
sports
like
derby
and
polo
are
still
considered
elitist,
how
could
a
scene
of
an
actor
riding
a
horse
amount
to
cruelty?