The biopic Satluj, directed by Honey Trehan and starring Diljit Dosanjh and Arjun Rampal, has been at the center of a contentious censorship battle in India. The film, originally titled Ghallughara, delves into the brutal legacy of the Punjab militancy era, specifically focusing on the abduction and murder of human rights activist Jaswant Singh Khalra. When submitted to the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) in late 2022, the board initially requested 21 cuts and a title change to Punjab '95. Over months, this number ballooned to 127 cuts, including demands to remove references to real locations like Tarn Taran, alter depictions of the Punjab Police, and delete shots featuring the Indian flag. Trehan reflects, 'I gave 1800 pages of the book to the revising committee and highlighted all the things they found objectionable. The head of the jury looked at me and said, “Mr. Trehan speaks the truth so loudly in today’s time.”' The film was also pulled from the Toronto International Film Festival lineup, with a source citing 'political forces at play.'
Trehan’s film is not just a historical account but a pointed critique of the misuse of power during the counter-insurgency operations in Punjab in the 1990s. Jaswant Singh Khalra, a former bank manager turned human rights activist, uncovered a series of extrajudicial killings and secret cremations by the Punjab Police, leading to his own abduction and murder in 1995. The film centers on this narrative, presenting a perspective that calls into question the actions of certain police officers who were later sentenced to life imprisonment for their crimes. Trehan emphasizes, 'I’m not talking about the entire community. I’m only talking about those policemen who have been sentenced to life imprisonment on abduction and killing of Mr. Jaswant Singh Khalra.' Yet, for the CBFC and government authorities, any portrayal of state excesses was deemed too controversial.
The government’s reluctance to approve the film highlights a broader pattern of censorship in India under the Modi administration. Recent examples include the 2025 International Film Festival of Kerala cutting screenings of Sergei Eisenstein’s 1925 classic Battleship Potemkin and the Spanish-Mexican film Beef about a teenager who turns to freestyle rap after her father’s death. These incidents have drawn international criticism and accusations of stifling artistic freedom. Trehan notes, 'Someone has also told me it’s a great film, but what is in it for us?' When pressed to identify who 'us' refers to, Trehan declined to name individuals but confirmed that such conversations occurred at high levels.
The concept of the Streisand effect—where attempts to suppress information only amplify its visibility—applies strongly to the Satluj case. After years without a certificate and no hope of a theatrical release, ZEE5 uploaded the film on July 3 without any announcement or marketing. Diljit Dosanjh, the film’s lead, later said in a livestream, 'If we had promoted it two days prior, it wouldn’t have been released at all.' The quiet release immediately triggered attention, with the film trending on social media and sparking discussions about censorship. The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting issued a statement claiming the release violated the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules of 2021, without specifying which provisions.
Honey Trehan’s career spans decades as a casting director and now director. Known for his work on films like Gangs of Wasseypur and Manto, Trehan brings a meticulous eye to Satluj. He insists the film is not one-sided, pointing to a scene where a senior police officer tells Arjun Rampal’s character that outsiders don’t understand the pressures faced by law enforcement during the militancy era. 'I’m not talking about the entire community. I’m only talking about my film again and again,' Trehan reiterates. The film’s nuanced approach aims to humanize both victims and perpetrators, yet the authorities saw it as a threat to the prevailing narrative.
Punjab’s history of militancy, spanning from the late 1970s to the early 1990s, remains a sensitive subject. The Indian government has consistently maintained a stance that any critique of the counter-insurgency operations undermines national security. Human rights organizations have documented numerous cases of enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings, many of which were brought to light by Khalra’s investigations. The CBFC’s demand for 127 cuts effectively gutted the film’s core message, reducing it to a sanitized version that would not reflect the harsh realities. Trehan’s decision to release the film unchanged on a digital platform bypassed traditional censorship but risked legal repercussions.
The Streisand effect has manifested in other high-profile cases globally. When Barbra Streisand’s estate attempted to suppress a photograph of her home, the image gained widespread attention. Similarly, the Indian government’s attempts to block Satluj from festivals and cinemas only heightened public curiosity. The film’s availability on ZEE5, despite the legal cloud, has made it a symbol of resistance against state overreach. Viewers have praised the film’s boldness, and critics have noted that the censorship battle itself has become part of the film’s narrative. Trehan remarked, 'This film does not serve their propaganda. It shows how people with extra powers misused them and made a business out of it.'
Trehan’s conversations with official figures led him to believe that the opposition came from police officers who feared being portrayed in a negative light. 'Those police officers might have an objection with the government, saying whatever we did, we did it on your instructions. Now when we are showing in a bad light, you have to block these kinds of subjects and the front could be anything. This is my conclusion,' he stated. This reflects a deep-seated anxiety within the state apparatus about accountability for past actions. The film’s release has rekindled debates about the need for institutional reckoning.
Diljit Dosanjh, a major Punjabi music and film icon, has been vocal in supporting the film’s message. His star power played a role in amplifying the film’s reach despite the lack of marketing. Dosanjh’s involvement also carried risks, as he faced potential backlash from authorities. Yet, his commitment to the project underscores the importance of artists in challenging censorship. The film’s journey from submission to quiet streaming has been documented extensively, with Trehan providing insight into the Kafkaesque process of dealing with the CBFC.
In expanding on the context, it’s worth noting that the CBFC operates under a legal framework that often lacks transparency. The provisions of the Cinematograph Act of 1952 allow the board to demand cuts for reasons of national security, public order, or decency. However, the application of these rules has been criticized for being arbitrary and politically motivated. The case of Satluj is a prime example where the board’s demands escalated without clear justification. Trehan’s persistence in keeping the film intact demonstrates a commitment to artistic integrity at the cost of commercial viability.
The film’s title itself carries significance: Satluj is a river that flows through India and Pakistan, symbolizing the division and continuity of the region. The original title Ghallughara refers to a massacre, but the board forced a change to Punjab '95, which then reverted to Satluj for the digital release. This tussle over nomenclature reflects the broader struggle over how history is told and who gets to control the narrative.
As of now, the government’s statement regarding the IT Rules 2021 has not led to any immediate removal of the film. The legal ambiguity underscores the challenges of digital content regulation in India. While traditional films face a rigorous pre-certification process, OTT platforms operate under a self-regulatory code that is still evolving. The ZEE5 release may prompt a review of the guidelines, especially as more filmmakers turn to digital platforms to bypass censorship.
Honey Trehan’s experience with Satluj is not isolated. Filmmakers across India have faced similar hurdles, from Padmaavat to The Kerala Story, with the state’s interference often politicized. The difference here is the quiet defiance: releasing the film without fanfare and letting the Streisand effect do its work. Trehan concludes, 'I’m not talking about the entire community. I’m only talking about those policemen who have been sentenced to life imprisonment.' The film exists as a testament to the power of storytelling even when faced with overwhelming institutional resistance.
Source:Forbes News