A film that holds up a mirror

Director Sandhya Suri, speaking to The Guardian, expressed her deep disappointment and frustration with the CBFC’s decision, calling it both “surprising and heart-breaking.” She pointed out that Santosh does not introduce new or unheard-of themes in Indian cinema—misogyny, caste-based violence, and police brutality have been explored before. However, the film’s raw and unflinching approach to these issues, particularly the intersection of caste and gender violence, appears to have made it a target.

The CBFC demanded extensive and widespread cuts that would have rendered the film incomprehensible. Suri explained that she had attempted to navigate the censorship process to ensure the film’s Indian release but found the demands too severe. “It was just too difficult to make those cuts and have a film that still made sense, let alone stayed true to its vision,” she said while speaking to The Guardian. This reflects a troubling trend where artistic expression is curbed when it critiques systemic issues, particularly those involving state institutions and caste oppression.

Santosh follows a young widow who joins the police force and investigates the murder of a Dalit girl, confronting the deep-seated biases within the police system. The film does not glorify violence or sensationalise its themes; instead, it holds up a mirror to the harsh realities of policing in India. This realistic depiction, however, seems to be what makes it “too dangerous” for Indian audiences in the eyes of the CBFC.

The selective policing of cinema

The timing of the CBFC’s decision is particularly alarming. India’s cultural sphere is increasingly policed, with politically sensitive films often facing severe pushback. Filmmakers have been subjected to hate campaigns, police cases, and even pre-emptive censorship by streaming platforms. The suppression of Santosh is part of this larger trend, where narratives that expose systemic issues—particularly caste and gender-based oppression—are stifled under the pretext of maintaining public harmony.

Meanwhile, films that align with ultra nationalist narratives receive not just clearance but state-backed promotions. On the same day Santosh faced rejection, the Parliament is set to host a special screening of Chhaava, a film that delves into the life of Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Home Minister Amit Shah, and other key ministers will attend the screening, demonstrating the state’s endorsement of historical narratives that serve its ideological positioning.

This brazen double standard is not new. The Kashmir Files, a film widely criticised for its Islamophobic propaganda, was not only approved but personally endorsed by the Prime Minister and made tax-free in multiple BJP-ruled states. At government-organised screenings, officials and ministers publicly praised its narrative, weaponising cinema to push a divisive political agenda. Similarly, The Kerala Story, which fabricated and exaggerated figures on religious conversions to stoke anti-Muslim paranoia, received aggressive state backing, with leaders openly promoting it as “eye-opening” despite fact-checkers exposing its falsehoods.

Beyond mere approval, the state has actively turned these films into ideological instruments, using public resources and platforms to amplify their reach. Theatres were pressured to increase screenings, school and college students were urged to watch. Meanwhile, independent and critical films face endless scrutiny, unreasonable censorship demands, and outright bans, ensuring that only narratives serving the ruling dispensation’s interests dominate public discourse.

This isn’t just about film censorship—it’s about manufacturing consent. While Santosh and other politically inconvenient films are silenced, those that reinforce majoritarian victimhood, vilify minorities, and sanitise state violence are rewarded.

Notably, Chhaava has already been referenced in recent political discourse, particularly by Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, who linked the film to the recent Nagpur violence. The said communal clash erupted on March 17 after right-wing groups, including the VHP and Bajrang Dal, called for the removal of Aurangzeb’s tomb—a demand seemingly re-fuelled by the film’s narrative. The state’s willingness to amplify such sentiments while silencing a film that critiques police violence and caste oppression exposes the glaring hypocrisy in India’s censorship policies.

The real threat to public discourse

The CBFC’s actions reveal an unsettling reality: films that challenge power structures and expose systemic failures are deemed threats, while those that reinforce dominant historical and ideological narratives are promoted. If Santosh had glorified police violence rather than critiquing it, or if it had focused on a sanitised version of reality, it would likely have faced no resistance. Instead, it’s honest and necessary portrayal of caste-based and gender violence has led to its suppression.

Suri, while acknowledging that she had anticipated challenges in securing an Indian release, remains committed to making the film accessible to Indian audiences. “It was vitally important for me that the very people affected by these issues were able to see it,” she said, reflecting on how the 2012 Nirbhaya case had initially inspired the film. However, with no appeals process available within the CBFC, the only recourse is legal action—a costly and time-consuming battle.

Santosh represents everything that the ruling party fears; that’s why they banned this film. https://t.co/9l5mUzmq6F pic.twitter.com/FqfjMfgJpC

— Nakshatra (@ghalibkakhayal) March 27, 2025

A disturbing pattern

The double standard is glaring. While Santosh is barred from Indian screens, Chhaava receives a state-endorsed platform. The former critiques state institutions and highlights marginalised voices; the latter reinforces a narrative that conveniently aligns with contemporary right-wing politics. The choice of which stories are allowed to be told—and which are deemed too “controversial”—reflects the increasingly constrained space for critical discourse in Indian cinema.

This is not just about one film. The suppression of Santosh signals a larger, more disturbing pattern: the systematic silencing of voices that challenge power while elevating narratives that serve ideological interests. If Indian cinema is to remain a space for artistic expression and social critique, these barriers to free expression must be challenged. Otherwise, India’s cultural landscape will continue to be shaped not by its artists, but by censors who fear the truth.

Related:

Fiction as history and history honestly portrayed: a tale of two films and a documentary

Congress Radio, the power of revolutionary change: Lessons from ‘Ae Watan Mere Watan’, the film

Films building up  a majoritarian narrative: Swatantraveer Savarkar

Déjà vu, a film that depicts the chilling effects of corporate-contract farming, resonates with Indian farmer’s protests

The post India’s Censorship Hypocrisy: Ban on Santosh and promotion of Chhaava appeared first on SabrangIndia.

                                                                    Image Courtesy: First Post

 
In yet another incident of curbing of the freedom of speech, this time by a ministry of the government itself, two films were removed from the list of screenings at the ongoing 48th International Film Festival of India (IFFI).

The Information and Broadcasting (I&B) Ministry, in an unprecedented move, decided to drop two films—a Malayalam film, S Durga, by Sanal Sasidharan; and a Marathi film, Nude, by the national award winning director Ravi Jadhav—which were scheduled to be screened at this year’s IFFI in Goa. In fact, Nude was meant to be the opening film of the Indian Panorama section. Neither of the directors was given prior notice or intimation of any kind before the decision. The films had already been cleared by a 13-member jury of the Indian Panorama section of IFFI.

S Durga has been screened in several international film festivals, has garnered critical appreciation, and also won the Hivos Tiger Award at the International Film Festival of Rotterdam. However, this isn’t the first time that the film has run into trouble in the country. The Jio MAMI Mumbai Film Festival refused to give censor exemption to the film. Then, the film was only given a U/A certification by the regional office of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), despite 21 audio mutes and a change of the title from Sexy Durga to S Durga.

Sujoy Ghosh, head of jury of the Indian Panorama section, which had cleared the two films according to the Indian Panorama Regulations, tendered his resignation on 14 November 2017, ostensibly to protest against the I&B Ministry’s decision. Following this, another jury member, scriptwriter Apurva Asrani, also resigned.

Six members of the jury also wrote a letter expressing their “[distress] that the two films were removed without any intimation, discussion or recourse to the jury which has the final say, according to the Indian Panorama Regulations.” The letter was sent to Smriti Irani, the I&B Minister, with a copy also sent to the Secretary of the I&B Ministry. They stated that the films were “relevant in terms of a larger conversation on gender, as well as on women’s empowerment.” The six jury members who signed the letter were Hari Vishwanath, Satarupa Sanyal, Ruchi Narain, Suresh Heblikar, Sachin Chatte, and Gopi Desai.

Sanal Sasidharan responded to the I&B Ministry’s decision by filing a writ petition in the Kerala High Court, which over-ruled the I&B Ministry’s decision on Tuesday, 21 November 2017. The Ministry argued that the movie “was objectionable and offensive to religious sentiments.” Justice K Vinod Chandran, who gave the Order directing the I&B Ministry and the Directorate of Film Festivals to screen the certified version of the movie at the ongoing 48th International Film Festival of India, noted that “The jury has included the film for screening in the festival after viewing the un-censored version itself. When even the un-censored version was found to be worthy by the jury for presentation, there can be no objection raised as to the certified version being screened.” 

Sasidharan welcomed the decision, saying in a statement to The Hindu, “It’s not my victory or the victory of S Durga but in these dark times it’s a victory for cinema, for freedom of speech and for democracy.” However, it is still too early to celebrate, because even after two days of the Kerala HC’s Order, there is still confusion over the screening of S Durga at IFFI.  

For director Ravi Jadhav, however, there has been no such good news. As of now, his film, Nude, will not be screened this year at IFFI.
 

The post A Victory for ‘S Durga’ but ‘Nude’ Still in the Dark appeared first on SabrangIndia.