Queer Film Festival Kathmandu organised an interaction programme on festival censorship at Airavat Picture House in Thapathali on Friday.

A group of over 50 filmmakers and queer culture workers came together to deconstruct the dilemma posed by the recent censorship directive issued in early December, which requires censoring all moving images, including films screened at festivals. Presenting their opinions were festival programmer Saroj Sapkota, Human rights campaigner and Lawyer Dikshya Khadgi, queer filmmaker Pranay Shakya and Samipya Raj Timalsena, chairperson of the Film Critic Society. The discussion was moderated by Reena Moktan.

During the interaction, the speakers echoed that censorship has traditionally been a mechanism which divides the state and the people. Film critic Samipya Raj Timalsena was optimistic about the recent change in the censor board directive that now mentions censorship as ‘classification of cinema, and it is no longer as threatening’.

Lawyer Dikshya Khadgi said filmmakers would remain at a disadvantage, as those overseeing censorship or classification often represent specific communities and interests that do not align with those of creative makers.

Khadgi added, “In the current context, filmmakers do not have legal mechanisms that can help them in the course of censorship.” She also expressed concern about the judiciary, noting that many within the courts come from privileged backgrounds where minority issues and discussions of sex and sexuality remain taboo. While the Constitution guarantees freedom of expression and creative freedom, she warned that vague censorship laws could allow courts to override these fundamental rights.

Queer filmmaker Pranay Shakya said the challenges facing queer cinema are rooted in society itself. He said, “Our understanding of queer identities and the society’s willingness to see us as the underclass is problematic, and our challenges with working creatively in cinema do not start or end with the censorship act/directive”.

This understanding, according to him, underlines how the classification of cinema will impact not just the final product but also how filmmakers rationalise cinema and their approach to politically isolated topics.

On the issue of film festival censorship, film programmer and festival organiser Saroj Sapkota, who has worked with the Nepal Human Rights International Film Festival, said that cinema has long been controlled at multiple levels, not just the censor board. He noted that the police and local administrations often act as the first barriers to screening films at the community level, where permission to showcase creative work is still subject to approval and widely seen as normal.

A directive issued by the Film Censor Board of Nepal states that all moving images must be censored, including films screened at festivals. Reflecting on this, Kshitiz Adhiraj, co-director of Queer Film Festival Kathmandu, said that censorship is a socio-political construct created by the ruling class during the Panchayat era, and that little has changed since then.

He added that this mindset of controlling creative expression is unlikely to end anytime soon, and stressed that filmmakers need to work collectively and support one another, as collective action may be the only way to continue making films that matter.

Adhiraj also said that festivals like the Queer Film Festival, which address taboo subjects such as gender identity, sexuality and bodily autonomy, cannot operate with ease at present, and that the censorship of festival programmes remains unavoidable.

Following pressure from filmmakers, the Film Censorship Board and the Ministry of Information and Communication reached an agreement on January 15 to keep the December directive dormant for the time being. However, the agreement is not legally binding and can be enforced at the board’s discretion at any time.