Why removal of Diljit Dosanjh's film has reignited India's debate on free speech

By Mohd. Ziyaullah Khan 

For nearly four years, filmmaker Honey Trehan fought to bring his film to Indian audiences. Originally titled "Punjab '95" and later renamed  "Satluj", the film chronicles the life and sacrifice of human rights activist Jaswant Singh Khalra, whose investigation into thousands of alleged illegal cremations and enforced disappearances during Punjab's militancy era made him one of the country's most courageous whistleblowers. When "Satluj" finally premiered on ZEE5 on July 3, 2026, it seemed as though one of Indian cinema's longest censorship battles had come to an end. It hadn't. 

Within two days, the film disappeared from the platform for Indian viewers. ZEE5 issued a brief statement saying the film would remain unavailable "until further notice" because of "current developments," while adding that it was exploring legal avenues to restore the film for Indian audiences. No detailed explanation accompanied the decision. 

Its sudden removal has triggered widespread debate, not merely about one film, but about artistic freedom, historical memory, and whether uncomfortable truths still have a place in Indian cinema.

"Satluj" is based on the life of Jaswant Singh Khalra, a human rights activist who uncovered evidence suggesting that thousands of unidentified bodies had been illegally cremated by Punjab Police during the insurgency years of the late 1980s and early 1990s. 

Khalra's investigations attracted international attention. In 1995, he was abducted and later murdered. Years later, several police officials were convicted in connection with his kidnapping and killing, making his case one of the most significant human rights cases in modern Indian history. Rather than presenting fiction, the film attempts to dramatise one of the darkest chapters in Punjab's recent history. That, perhaps, explains why it faced extraordinary hurdles on its way to release.

Before reaching audiences, the film reportedly remained stuck with the Central Board of Film Certification for years. According to the filmmakers, the board demanded more than 120 changes, including the removal of references to Punjab, political figures, institutions and historical details; reports have variously cited demands ranging between 120 and 127 cuts. 

Honey Trehan refused to dilute the film. The makers challenged the certification process in court rather than accepting extensive alterations, and Trehan has publicly argued that many of the objections lacked legitimate justification, describing the certification process as politically influenced.

Realising that the theatrical route had become virtually impossible, the filmmakers adopted an unusual strategy. Trehan has revealed that only a handful of people, including Diljit Dosanjh, knew the exact release date before "Satluj"  quietly appeared on ZEE5. His reasoning was simple: if the release became public beforehand, fresh attempts might have been made to stop it. He also noted that streaming releases are governed differently from theatrical releases, which allowed the makers to finally release the uncut version. Ironically, the secrecy worked, but only briefly.

Barely 48 hours later, Indian subscribers discovered that  "Satluj" had disappeared, though international viewers continued to have access. ZEE5 did not accuse the filmmakers of any wrongdoing; instead, the platform stated it remained committed to the film and hoped to restore it through due legal process. Importantly, no public government notification declaring the film banned has been released. As of now, the platform has only cited "current developments" without further explanation, and that ambiguity has fuelled speculation and criticism.

Diljit Dosanjh has consistently stood behind the project despite years of uncertainty. Before the release, he said that had even a single cut been imposed on the film, he would not have promoted it. After the removal, he shared a message declaring that he challenges the darkness. In another interaction that quickly went viral, he remarked that people had already downloaded the film, suggesting that stories cannot simply disappear once they reach the public. His response has been interpreted by supporters as a defence of artistic freedom rather than merely the promotion of a film.

The controversy has inevitably revived comparisons with politically charged films such as "The Kashmir Files" and "The Kerala Story". Both remain available on streaming platforms despite allegations of being propaganda films, and both received extensive theatrical exhibition despite criticism over their historical interpretations. Supporters of  "Satluj" argue that if films presenting one political or historical perspective are permitted wide circulation, works exploring alleged state excesses should receive the same opportunity. Their argument is not that every film is beyond criticism, but that similar standards should apply regardless of ideology. 

Whether one agrees with  "Satluj's" interpretation or not, critics argue that audiences should have the right to watch it and make up their own minds.

Indian cinema has a long history of confronting uncomfortable realities. Films like "Bandit Queen", "Black Friday", "Aandhi", "Parzania" and "Final Solution" have all faced censorship, delays or bans before eventually finding recognition as important works of cinema. History suggests that suppressing controversial films rarely ends public debate; often, it intensifies it. Critics of the current government's approach argue that dissent and difficult questions have increasingly been treated as suspect, and that filmmakers are not exempt from this pattern.

Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression, while Article 19(2) permits reasonable restrictions under specific circumstances. The debate surrounding "Satluj"  therefore extends beyond entertainment, raising larger constitutional questions about whether historical narratives should be subjected to extensive censorship, who ultimately decides which stories deserve to be seen, and whether democracy can remain confident if uncomfortable histories are consistently delayed or removed. These are questions that deserve thoughtful discussion regardless of one's political beliefs.

The removal of  "Satluj" has sparked criticism from journalists, authors, civil liberties advocates and many viewers across social media, with numerous voices calling for greater transparency about the decision. Many argue that the public deserves a clear explanation rather than vague references to "current developments." At the same time, others maintain that content platforms must comply with applicable legal requirements and due process, and the absence of a detailed public explanation has left room for competing interpretations.

Whether one ultimately agrees with  "Satluj" or disagrees with its portrayal of history is almost beside the point. A mature democracy should possess enough confidence to allow competing versions of history to be examined, debated and challenged through evidence, not silence. Cinema has always reflected society's triumphs and failures; if films celebrating power deserve space, films questioning power deserve it too. 

The disappearance of  "Satluj" within 48 hours has ensured that the conversation is no longer just about one movie. It has become a conversation about memory, accountability, artistic freedom, and the limits of censorship in the world's largest democracy. Perhaps the greatest irony is this: the attempt to make Satluj disappear has only made more people determined to ask why it was made so difficult to watch in the first place.

---

Mohd Ziyaullah Khan is a freelance content writer and editor based in Nagpur. He is also an activist and social entrepreneur, and cofounder of the group TruthScape, a team of digital activists fighting disinformation on social media