A Malayalam film has ruffled feathers with the censor board in Mumbai after naming its protagonist ‘Janaki’. While the film was certified by the regional board in Kerala, its release has been halted following CBFC‘s (Central Board for Film Certification) objection to the character’s name – citing that it refers to Goddess Sita, who is deeply revered as the ideal wife in the epic Ramayana.

The incident draws an immediate parallel with the censor board passing the 2001 Bollywood film, which starred the biggest names in the Hindi film industry and featured not one, but four characters named after Goddess Sita. ‘Lajja’, directed and written by Rajkumar Santoshi, wasn’t a box office success but gradually became known for using cinema as a tool to highlight women’s rights and the systemic oppression they face.

Back then, ‘Lajja’ was certified U/A, despite featuring brutal scenes of violence and sexual assault. Its four leading women – Manisha Koirala, Madhuri Dixit, Mahima Chaudhary and Rekha – were all named after Sita, and told stories of individual trauma at the hands of a society that ironically worships Goddesses like Sita and Durga for their resilience, virtue and power.

The film’s narrative follows Vaidehi (Koirala), a pregnant domestic violence survivor, who escapes her abusive husband. During her journey to self-discovery, she meets other women – each fighting their own battle in a patriarchal world.

Chaudhary’s character, Maithili, raises her voice against dowry. Dixit’s Janki confronts the society that forced the Goddess herself to undergo the humiliation of Agni Pariksha – to prove her purity, even after enduring captivity and harassment under Ravana. Rekha’s character, Ramdulari, is a Dalit woman who is gang-raped and murdered.

‘Lajja’ was a haunting portrayal of female persecution and a symbolic tribute to the Goddess who herself had to prove her honour to the world in front of her husband.

Now, in ‘Janaki vs State of Kerala’, the film currently denied certification – the protagonist is a woman fighting a legal battle after being assaulted. Malayalam director B Unnikrishnan revealed on June 23 that the board demanded a name change, saying, “The story is about the legal fight carried out by an assaulted woman against the state. It is said (by the board) that Goddess Sita’s name cannot be given to the woman character who suffered assault.”

But, isn’t Janaki the most appropriate, even symbolically brilliant, name for a woman who’s fighting back? Goddess Sita, too, resisted – mentally, emotionally and spiritually – when abducted. Yes, the scriptures say Ravana never touched her. But did the emotional torment, the psychological captivity, not amount to assault?

As described in Valmiki’s Ramayana, she used a blade of grass as a symbolic barrier to rebuke Ravana’s advances. She endured duress for years, fending off his pressure, alone in a foreign land.

Revered Sanskrit scholar, Hara Prasad Shastri, in his English translation of the Ramayana, wrote: “With his left hand he (Ravana) grasped the hair of the lotus-eyed Sita, and with his right hand, he grasped her thighs. Then, suddenly, the great chariot belonging to Ravana appeared, and addressing Sita in harsh tones, he lifted her up and, clasping her, ascended the car (sic).”

There she was. Forcibly abducted and held against her will.

Centuries later, a film shows another Janaki – this one, too, a survivor fighting back. But, a panel of censor board officials – whose role is to certify a film, not to dictate creative choices – decides that a woman who has been assaulted cannot carry the name of a Goddess who herself was subjected to trauma, humiliation and isolation.

If there’s a name that suits such a character, it is Sita. And if there’s any hypocrisy louder than silence, it is this: worshipping a Goddess for her grace under fire – while denying the same grace to a woman who dares to reclaim her story.

If a film merely using that name as a symbol for artistic expression becomes the victim today, maybe the fight for justice and dignity that Goddess Sita stood for… still continues.

– Ends