According to Trehan, the board demanded more than 120 cuts over multiple rounds of review. These included objections to references to Punjab, the use of Khalra’s name, the Indian flag appearing in the background, and even Gurbani, allegedly on grounds that such elements could ‘provoke emotions’.
Whether one agrees with every statement made by the filmmaker or every objection raised by the authorities is almost beside the point. When a work of art is made to shed so many of its historical markers that even its geographical setting appears fictional, censorship smacks of erasure.
The Union government’s explanation, however, deserves serious consideration. According to officials quoted by PTI, the producers never accepted the cuts suggested by the CBFC and instead quietly released the film directly on an OTT platform, where prior certification is not mandatory.
Once the government became aware of the release, ZEE5 was directed to remove the film, citing security concerns and obligations under intermediary guidelines. Officials argued that if the makers wished to release the film in theatres or on OTT without controversy, they should have followed the established certification process.
Supporters of the government’s position have advanced another rationale. Punjab continues to carry the scars of militancy, and with Assembly elections approaching, a film revisiting one of the darkest periods in the state’s history could potentially be exploited by separatist organisations seeking to revive old narratives.
Security concerns can never be dismissed casually. However, an instructive comparison can be found if we rewind to another film that dealt with the same historical landscape as Satluj.
In 1996, Gulzar’s Maachis portrayed how ordinary young Punjabis were drawn to militancy after police brutality. The wounds of terrorism were fresher then than today. Hundreds of police personnel, political leaders and innocent civilians had lost their lives. Yet, neither the government nor the CBFC sought to suppress the film.