Cinema is the highest combination of imagination, freedom of expression, art and modern technology. Due to this strong aspect, cinemas around the world today have been able to take their viewers on a journey from the awe-inspiring past to the imaginative future. Although the purpose of cinema is generally to entertain, its scope extends to contemplation, awareness and warning.

From pure commercialism to cinema where abundance of art can be found, its own edge has been created. There has been a wide expansion in the platforms where movies can be watched. Although the cinema industry has spread as much as it has, it has not spread without hindrance, it has spread with the scissors of liberal rulers and power centers. There is still a tendency to block cinemas that do not serve their interests and interests on various pretexts. The 'Bill to Amend and Consolidate Film Laws', which was registered in the National Assembly by the government on May 14, is the latest reference to such a trend. If several provisions of the Bill are continued in the Act, the cinema sector will be hit by bans and retaliation. Therefore, the government should be ready to reconsider the disputed provisions of the bill. MPs and cinema industry stakeholders should take initiatives for that. There are some clauses in the

bill, which are controversial and also reflect the controlling mindset of the government. Section 5 (4) of the Bill states that the Chairman of the Film Development Board can be removed by the Government of Nepal and the members by the Ministry at any time with some conditions. Similarly, in 6 (2) it is said that "the board shall take the consent of the ministry before approving the long-term plan, annual program and budget". Rather than developing, expanding, promoting and regulating the film sector, such a board is more likely to become a guardian as a branch of the Ministry of Communications. In sub-section 1 of section 17 of the bill, it is provided that 'to display films or film-related materials through digital platforms, such platforms, individuals or bodies must obtain a license from the Film Development Board'. In sub-section 3 of section 43, there is a provision of a fine of up to 10 lakh rupees if a film or film-related material is exhibited through a digital platform without obtaining a license. It is clear that the government is trying to control not only the movies, but also the global platforms available with the development of technology.

The Bill has also made censorship compulsory in the background of the dissatisfaction of the filmmakers towards the censorship being practiced in Nepal. In section 27, it is stipulated that the film should be checked by the screening committee before screening. Section 28 provides for an inquiry committee. The committee will be chaired by the joint secretary of the Ministry of Communications. Similarly, the members will include a representative of the Ministry of Home Affairs, an experienced person in the film industry (two people), a representative of the board. The representative member of the Ministry of Communications will be the Secretary. Thus, according to Section 30 (4) of the Bill, the government authorities will have the right to not allow any film to be shown. There is a provision in the bill that even the union or state government can ban the screening of films. The

bill does not show the natural generosity of cinema as a creative force. Rather, there is a fear of disturbing the peace and security, being adverse to morals or ethics, defaming, contempt of court, encouraging violence, encouraging crime. On the other hand, the viewer's discretion is not respected. Instead, it seems that the provisions of the ban have been drawn up with the mindset of 'watching movies will spoil you'. Any person is ready to watch a movie based on many aspects such as faith in the movie maker, favorite actor's performance, movie story and reviews. The act of watching movies is one's own choice. Adults are responsible for their own choices. Here, the government's search for its decisive role is irrelevant. Instead of facilitating the dual relationship between the creator and the beneficiary, the government should move away from obstruction and mistrust. The biggest fear of

filmmakers is the censor board. Because, when the Censor Board shows its power, many important scenes or dialogues of the movies have been forced to be removed. It is not even found that there is an argument to establish the justification in a public way for doing this. Instead, the political leanings of the members of the Censor Board and poor understanding of the global trends of cinema are often expressed. Because of this, the rhythm of many censored movies has been broken. Alternatively, a debate can be held after the cinema has been screened. If it is bad, it can be criticized. Evaluation by a large number of viewers is objective. The range is also wide. But analysis by a small group that reaches the censor board based on staff or political proximity can be narrow and biased. Therefore, if the Censor Board is made an organization of people who understand films or are involved in this field, it can be improved to a large extent. In many countries that respect freedom of expression, films are classified based on age. Such practice can be adopted in Nepal as well.