Open house: Has the ban helped ‘Satluj’ gain wider attention and reach?

Films are mirror of society

Films are a mirror of society. It is the responsibility of producers and directors to exercise restraint and avoid including scenes that may place audiences in a dilemma or create unnecessary tension. The recently released film Satluj has generated concern among the masses because it revisits the troubled decades of the 1980s and 1990s, when Punjab was passing through one of the darkest phases in its history and militancy had reached its peak. The saying, "Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it," remains relevant. While the producer and director have attempted to revisit those difficult years, reopening memories of militancy can also revive painful emotions. The horrors of that period are well known to the older generation, which lived through the days when Punjab virtually came to a standstill after sunset. The scenes portrayed in the film revive memories of a time when late-night bus services were suspended and the schedules of night trains had to be rescheduled because of security concerns. Revisiting the past may help people remember history, but it can also unsettle the future if handled without adequate sensitivity. In 1996-97, the film Machis, based on Punjab's militancy, was released in cinemas. Since then, several films, including The Kashmir Files, The Kerala Story and The Bengal Files, have also dealt with controversial and emotionally charged subjects, leaving a significant impact on public opinion. The Censor Board, which is entrusted with certifying films, is best placed to identify and remove any scenes that may create unnecessary discord. Earlier, films were primarily a source of entertainment when television was not widely available. Today, however, the revolution in communication, information and technology ensures that any controversial content spreads rapidly through social media. Although Satluj has been halted on the Zee5 OTT platform, it remains available on YouTube. Ironically, the restriction has increased public curiosity, resulting in a manifold rise in viewership and an even greater craze among the masses to watch the film.

Rajat Kumar Mohindru

History should strengthen peace

The new film by Diljit Dosanjh, popularly known as Satluj or Punjab 95, seeks to depict the condition of Punjab during the mid-1990s. Against the backdrop of the events of 1984, the film portrays how the atmosphere in Punjab had become volatile and how, according to its narrative, sections of the police and the government exploited the prevailing tensions for political gains and vested interests. Although the film eventually reached OTT platforms, it was removed almost immediately after its release. However, online campaigns and widespread anticipation surrounding the ban only helped the film gain a larger audience and greater public attention, bringing it into focus not only across India but also internationally. Before its release, the film had already undergone several modifications after intervention by the certification authorities and faced numerous hurdles in reaching viewers. The widespread support and debate generated by the film through social media and other public platforms should be viewed as a healthy democratic exercise. Such discussions encourage society to reflect on history, reassess the lessons of the past and understand the importance of ensuring that such painful chapters are never repeated. Ultimately, meaningful engagement with history should strengthen peace, mutual understanding and harmony among all sections of society.

Lakshit Jindal

Film reopened debate on sensitive subject

The film Satluj has sparked a major controversy not only in political circles but also among the general public. It revisits one of the darkest chapters in Punjab's history—the turbulent period from 1980 to 1995, when the state witnessed prolonged militancy, violence and deep social trauma. While the younger generation has only limited knowledge of those grim years when killings dominated newspaper headlines, the film attempts to portray that painful era from a historical perspective. It was perhaps the first time that the long-standing harmony between Punjab's two major communities—Hindus and Sikhs—came under strain despite their deeply rooted social and cultural bonds. The period was marked by widespread militancy, when law enforcement agencies were granted extraordinary powers to restore order. Although many officers discharged their duties under extremely difficult circumstances, there have also been documented allegations that some personnel exceeded the limits of the law by resorting to brutal torture, fake encounters and other serious human rights violations in pursuit of rewards, recognition or promotions. The suffering of those years was borne by people of all communities until normalcy returned. By depicting the campaign of human rights activist Jaswant Singh Khalra and the alleged excesses committed during the counter-insurgency period, Satluj seeks to present a painful yet significant chapter of Punjab's history. Whether one agrees with its interpretation or not, the film has reopened a debate on a sensitive subject that continues to evoke strong emotions. The film has been screened in several countries through different platforms, but restrictions on its release in India and its withdrawal from an OTT platform have generated sharp reactions, both in support of and against the government's decision. The controversy has further intensified public curiosity, with many people now eager to understand the realities of that turbulent period. Yet political parties continue to interpret the events surrounding 1984 and the subsequent years through their own ideological lenses. A subject of such historical sensitivity deserves thoughtful and responsible discussion rather than political polarisation. Notably, the film had received certification from the censor authorities after certain modifications to its content and nomenclature. However, the treatment meted out to Satluj has drawn comparisons with films such as The Kashmir Files and The Kerala Story, which were released in theatres despite dealing with equally sensitive subjects. This has raised questions about the consistency of the approach towards films based on contentious historical events. Ultimately, every society must find a balance between artistic expression, historical inquiry and social harmony, while excessive politicisation often serves only to amplify public interest. In an age of instant communication and widespread public awareness, attempts to suppress sensational works may unintentionally generate even greater attention than their release itself.

Nirmaljit Singh Chatrath

Citizens must remain vigilant

The banning of the Diljit Dosanjh-starrer depicting the life of Jaswant Singh Khalra, a prominent human rights activist during Punjab's militancy years, has triggered a controversy with several important dimensions. Two fundamental questions arise and deserve serious consideration. First, is our justice delivery system and police administration incapable of handling extraordinary and emergent situations that arise in any part of the country? Second, is the constitutional right to freedom of expression guaranteed to citizens only a relative right? Both these issues are interconnected and require examination in a broader perspective and in the true spirit of the Constitution. Any attempt by political parties to derive short-term political advantage from such sensitive circumstances is deeply unfortunate and contrary to the larger interests of the nation and society. Citizens must remain fully aware and vigilant to resist any anti-social or anti-national tendencies that threaten the country's existence as a sovereign, secular and democratic republic governed by the supremacy of the Constitution.

Jagdish Chander

Govt is responsible to ensure justice

The sudden release and equally abrupt removal of the film Satluj from an OTT platform has triggered a flood of podcasts and interviews across social media featuring survivor testimonies. Nearly all of them have affirmed the veracity of the events depicted in the film while adding even more harrowing details from their personal experiences. It is therefore not surprising that the state appears uneasy with the widespread debate and discussion surrounding the film, particularly as attention remains focused on the role of the State and the Punjab Police during those dark years. Hence, the ban. With an eye on the 2027 elections, it appears that the government is attempting to avoid controversies that could adversely affect its political interests. Instead, the restrictions have only heightened public curiosity. Mass screenings are now being organised in villages across Punjab, demonstrating that the ban has failed to prevent people from accessing the film, which is now available widely in the public domain. While the controversy has reopened old wounds, the families of many victims continue to await answers even after all these years. It remains the government's responsibility to ensure justice in this matter. Otherwise, Punjab will continue to bear the weight of its troubled past.

Sameena Chaudhary

Film screened in villages across state

The removal of the film Satluj from the Zee5 streaming platform reflects an apparent attempt to control the narrative surrounding allegations of police excesses and human rights violations during Punjab's troubled years. Ironically, however, this act of censorship has only expanded the film's reach and amplified public interest. Despite the ban, Satluj is being watched widely across different platforms. Based on the life and work of human rights activist Jaswant Singh Khalra, the film has evolved from being merely an OTT release into a powerful symbol of grassroots resistance and freedom of expression. Today, it is being screened in villages across Punjab, including at Gurdwara Sahib premises, while political parties continue to issue conflicting statements over its release. Censoring the truth does not conceal it; instead, it only encourages more people to seek it out and watch the film.

Sucha Singh Sagar

Preserve harmony, encourage dialogue

The decision to ban Satluj reflects the continuing sensitivity surrounding the events of 1984, which remain an emotional and politically significant chapter in India's history. Governments have a responsibility to maintain public order and communal harmony while taking decisions on matters of public interest. At the same time, democratic societies benefit from informed discussion and responsible artistic expression, provided such expression does not incite violence, hatred or social discord. Difficult chapters of history are often better understood through balanced dialogue, responsible filmmaking and critical reflection rather than through attempts to suppress discussion. Public debate surrounding a restricted film can also generate greater curiosity and wider public engagement. In that sense, the controversy over Satluj has attracted considerable attention and prompted renewed discussion about a sensitive period in the country's history. Ultimately, preserving public harmony while encouraging informed dialogue, historical understanding and respect for democratic values remains the most constructive way to engage with contentious historical issues.

JP Singh

History offers valuable lessons

Almost every year, films are made on the events of 1984 and their aftermath during the 1990s. Satluj is not the first film to generate controversy on the subject. However, it is perhaps the first to focus exclusively on the life and work of Jaswant Singh Khalra. The ban imposed on the film reinforces the perception that governments, instead of reconciling with and addressing difficult chapters of the country's or a state's history, often choose to suppress them. Ironically, Satluj might have attracted far less controversy and a much smaller audience had it not been banned. The restrictions propelled the film into far greater public prominence. It has now entered homes through downloads and reached villages and gurdwaras through special screenings, whereas earlier it might have remained confined to a limited OTT audience. History offers valuable lessons, but only if society is willing to confront and learn from it. Such lessons must be understood so that the mistakes of the past are not repeated in the future.

Sukhchain Singh

Allow filmmakers their say

While films have a responsibility to present both sides of a narrative with fairness and sensitivity, Satluj portrays an era that left deep scars on the collective psyche of Punjabis. Over the years, numerous films have depicted the trauma of Partition as well as the years of militancy and the post-militancy period in Punjab. These remain subjects that continue to resonate with people and are therefore still watched, discussed and debated. Although the responsibility of filmmakers to avoid partisanship should certainly remain open to public scrutiny, banning a film is not an appropriate response. This becomes even more difficult to justify when many films containing graphic violence, gore, misogyny and nudity continue to remain available on public platforms without attracting similar restrictions. The public response in Punjab following the ban itself reflects the prevailing sentiment on the issue. A film centred on Punjabis and the disappearances of thousands of young men occupies an important place in the state's historical memory. Filmmakers should be allowed the freedom to present their perspectives, while audiences should be trusted to engage with them responsibly.

Arshi Kataria

Citizens can make informed choices

The ban on Satluj has, in many ways, worked to the film's advantage. Many people who might otherwise have ignored the film have now become curious enough to watch it simply because of the controversy surrounding it. History has repeatedly shown that banning creative works often generates greater public interest rather than suppressing them. Artists should have the freedom to present their perspectives. Freedom of expression is one of the fundamental values of a democratic society. If the government believes that citizens are capable of making informed choices, audiences should be allowed to watch the film and form their own opinions. Several films with clear political or ideological messaging have been released without objection. Therefore, banning this film on the grounds that it is allegedly propagandist raises questions about consistency in decision-making. Such selective action creates the impression of double standards and unnecessarily fuels controversy, giving rise to concerns about the health of democratic values in the country.

Simran Kaur

Issue extends beyond single film

The issue extends beyond a single film and touches upon the larger question of how society chooses to confront difficult chapters of its history. The events of 1984 continue to remain deeply emotional for many families, and films dealing with that period naturally evoke strong reactions. However, banning a film may not be the most appropriate response to such concerns. If there are objections to the content of a film, they can be addressed through informed public discussion, critical reviews or established legal processes rather than by preventing people from watching it altogether. Citizens should have the freedom to engage with different viewpoints and arrive at their own conclusions. Open and informed discussion enables society to understand the past more comprehensively, encourages critical thinking and strengthens democratic values by promoting dialogue instead of silence.

Navneet Kaur