Diljit Dosanjh’s ‘Satluj’ Withheld by Indian Censors After Four Years of Appeals

The film stars one of India’s most prominent actors. While production lasted roughly a year, the certification process dragged on for about four more years.

“Satluj” stars Diljit Dosanjh and examines police abuses during the violent insurgency in Punjab during the 1980s and 1990s. After the Central Board of Film Certification repeatedly demanded cuts, the filmmakers pursued legal recourse, but ultimately released the film online—a platform exempt from the board’s review—on Friday.

Within 48 hours, Zee5 removed the film from its platform.

Zee5 issued a brief statement saying the film would no longer be available in India “in light of current developments.” Although the government has not issued an official comment, unnamed officials told local media that the removal was ordered on security grounds and because the content could be exploited by “anti‑India forces.”

The film’s journey exemplifies what creators and advocates describe as a pervasive censorship regime under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, where works that deviate from official narratives face severe obstacles.

“What is happening with this movie has chilling effects,” said constitutional lawyer Navroz Seervai, who has litigated censorship cases. “It conveys to producers and distributors that if they make a film we may not like, we will have the last laugh.”

“Satluj” focuses on the life of the human rights activist Jaswant Singh Khalra.

Khalra documented police abuses—including the disappearance of thousands of individuals and extrajudicial killings—during a government crackdown on the separatist insurgency in Punjab. The film was originally titled “Punjab ’95,” referencing the year Khalra was abducted and murdered by Punjab police.

The documented abuses depicted in the film occurred while the opposition Congress party was in power, yet allegations of mistreatment of minorities continue under Mr. Modi’s government.

Following its removal on Sunday, the film has gained traction through bootleg copies online and impromptu public screenings in villages and temples across Punjab.

“The story has been delivered, and today Jaswant Singh Khalra is being talked about in every home,” Diljit Dosanjh said in a video chat with fans. “The more you try to stop it, the more it is being discussed.”

According to court documents, the film—directed by Honey Trehan—had a production budget of roughly $4.5 million.

The certification authority asked for 127 cuts, the director said.

Director Honey Trehan said the board demanded 127 cuts after each revision, still refusing to approve the film. The requests included changing the title, altering character names, removing references to the state, India’s flag, and historical events such as the assassination of Indira Gandhi, who was prime minister during the Punjab crackdown. (The board has not commented on the film.)

“I am waiting for the day when they will give us the script and say, ‘Here’s the script, why don’t you direct?’” Trehan remarked in an interview with film journalist Sucharita Tyagi.

Mr. Modi’s ruling party has rewarded art that promotes its ideology.

Films such as “The Kashmir Files” have highlighted selective chapters of Indian history, prompting critics to label them as propaganda for the Hindu nationalist government. These works received censorship clearance, official endorsement—including public support from Prime Minister Modi—and tax incentives from states governed by his party.

In recent years, this cinematic style—characterized by graphic violence, overt nationalism, and religious chauvinism—has dominated mainstream Indian cinema.

The slick action film “Dhurandhar” featured extensive violence and glossed over policy shortcomings of Mr. Modi’s administration, casting the leader and his chief security officer as heroic figures confronting rival Pakistan. The movie and its sequel emerged as some of India’s highest‑grossing productions, generating more than $300 million combined.

Films that veer from the prevailing political narrative face pressure from officials and vigilantes.

Numerous films have encountered obstacles with India’s censorship board, and the subjects deemed taboo continue to expand. Works addressing caste discrimination, police brutality, or significant governmental failures have found it difficult to reach audiences.

Filmmakers express frustration over the lack of transparency in the certification process, noting that demands from the authority are often communicated verbally and that films are effectively blocked through bureaucratic stonewalling. Threats of violence from right‑wing vigilant groups compound these pressures, and streaming platforms frequently avoid hosting such content.

The pervasive fear has led to extensive self‑censorship, according to filmmakers. Projects that reach preproduction must undergo rigorous vetting by lawyers, who often remove references to prohibited topics, resulting in formulaic content.

Those who nonetheless attempt to release such films, like Trehan, confront the same outcome.

Source link