Satluj: A Trojan Horse for Anti-National Narratives

The abrupt removal of ‘Satluj’ from ZEE5 within 48 hours of its release has, as anticipated, triggered complaints of “censorship” from the customary sources. However, removing the artificial indignation reveals a more fundamental reality: national security and social stability must not be compromised in the pursuit of “creative freedom.”

Satluj, previously known as Punjab ’95, was never merely a biographical film. The central character was a prominent supporter of Khalistan, serving as the overt representative of the clandestine movement. Similarly, the protagonist of this film embodies these traits. His repeated actions have been unequivocally characterised as anti-India and anti-national.

The film revisits one of the most sensitive and painful chapters of Punjab’s militancy years — a period during which Indian security forces dedicated decades to painstakingly stabilising the region following a brutal separatist insurgency that resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands, including numerous innocent Hindus, Sikhs, and security personnel.

The Central Board of Film Certification didn’t arbitrarily require 127 cuts; the decision was due to concerns that films about this era could reopen old wounds, distort history, or be exploited by anti-India groups domestically and abroad with separatist ties.

Critics may regard this as an overreaction. They have previously expressed similar sentiments regarding restrictions on films and content associated with Khalistani sympathisers, who employ a “human rights” narrative to rehabilitate a movement responsible for significant bloodshed. The recurring pattern involves constructing a narrative around a singular sympathetic figure, simplifying historical context into a straightforward villain-versus-martyr story, and subsequently exporting the content globally.

It is worth considering why a platform would approve an unfiltered, unedited release through OTT, bypassing the theatrical certification process meant to prevent such content from reaching a wide audience. This does not show artistic bravery but a strategy to circumvent review mechanisms. The quick withdrawal suggests ZEE5, albeit late, recognised the potential risk.

None of this constitutes an “anti-Punjab’ stance or an attack on Sikh identity, despite claims by the film’s advocates. Punjab’s peace was hard-won and remains fragile. Past administrations and Punjabis who faced militancy have reason to be cautious of content that could be exploited by separatist networks, regardless of filmmakers’ intentions. Protecting this peace isn’t censorship but responsible governance.

The individuals most vocally supporting the unrestricted release of Satluj are seldom the ones who will bear the consequences if its narrative is exploited by adverse parties. That responsibility ultimately rests with Indian security forces and the residents of Punjab. Pic source: NDTV