A film pulled from India's ZEE5 streaming platform two days after its debut is now playing in Sikh temple courtyards and village halls across Punjab, as residents use online copies to circumvent what they view as government censorship of their history.
"Satluj," originally titled "Punjab 95," tells the story of human rights activist Jaswant Singh Khalra, whose investigation into alleged extrajudicial killings during Punjab's violent insurgency led to his abduction and murder in 1995. Several police officers were convicted in connection with his death. The film's journey to audiences has been anything but straightforward—it was stalled for three years after India's censor board demanded more than 120 cuts, blocking any theatrical release.
The Censorship Battle
After failing to secure approval for theaters, the film debuted on ZEE5 streaming platform last week. It was removed in India two days later. Officials haven't publicly explained the takedown, though local media were told it was pulled on security grounds. ZEE5 said in a statement the film would no longer be available for viewing in India "in light of current developments" and that it would explore "every appropriate avenue through due process" to restore it.
The lack of transparency has fueled suspicions about government overreach. The film addresses one of the darkest episodes in Punjab's history—the conflict that pitted Sikh militant groups seeking an independent Khalistan against Indian security forces decades ago. The insurgency claimed thousands of civilian, militant and police lives. Rights groups documented allegations of enforced disappearances, custodial killings and secret cremations. Khalra's investigation alleged that thousands of people who had disappeared were cremated anonymously by police without informing their families or keeping official records.
Grassroots Screenings Spread
Villagers aren't waiting for official permission. Residents arrange projectors, audio speakers and power generators while volunteers spread the word from one household to the next. In Gurdaspur district, Inderjeet Singh Bains helps coordinate the screenings. He said the effort is meant to create spaces where people can watch together and reflect on a period of Punjab's history that still resonates across generations. "When we screen the film, we see our elders and mothers, many of them 60 or 70 years old, crying because they have lost their sons. Our people have endured immense suffering," Bains said.
Gurmukh Singh, who attended a screening, said the film gave voice to stories the young in Punjab had heard only in fragments. "After watching the movie, there is a feeling of the grief our earlier generations had to bear," he said. Balwinder Singh, a Sikh religious leader, said, "Everything happened right before our eyes, so what is there to oppose? The truth is coming to light, and people should be allowed to see it."
Diljit Dosanjh, who plays Khalra, said he was unconcerned about whether the film remained online because once audiences had seen it, "it cannot be erased." Pawan Deep Kaur said, "It made us cry endlessly."
Broader Questions About Free Expression
The screenings have reopened debate over artistic freedom in India, where films have increasingly run into censorship battles under Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Hindu nationalist government. Critics say such cases have become more frequent and accuse Modi's government of promoting films that align with its nationalist narrative. The government says movie certification decisions are made independently under the law.
The question isn't whether the insurgency happened—rights groups documented the allegations, courts convicted officers in Khalra's murder, and the historical record is established. The question is whether a democratic government should decide which historical narratives its citizens can see, and whether demanding 120 cuts and pulling a film without public explanation serves legitimate security interests or simply shields institutions from uncomfortable scrutiny.
Why This Matters:
This case tests the boundaries of state authority over artistic expression and historical memory in the world's largest democracy. When governments block films without transparent justification—particularly films documenting documented abuses by state actors—they risk appearing to prioritize institutional reputation over accountability and free inquiry. The grassroots response in Punjab demonstrates what happens when citizens believe official channels have failed: they create their own. The spread of underground screenings raises practical questions about the effectiveness of censorship in the digital age and legal questions about where legitimate security concerns end and suppression of inconvenient history begins. For a government that says certification decisions are made independently, the lack of public explanation for the film's removal undercuts that claim and fuels perceptions of political interference in cultural expression.