Diljit Dosanjh in a still from ‘Satluj’
The abrupt removal of Satluj from an OTT platform barely two days after its release marks a troubling moment for freedom of expression in India. If a film that survived years of censorship scrutiny can disappear overnight without a convincing public explanation, it raises fundamental questions about artistic freedom and the public’s right to engage with difficult chapters of history.
The controversy has only amplified interest in the film. Across Punjab, Satluj is being screened on large screens set up by village committees, outside gurdwaras and in open grounds after dusk, with audiences turning to unofficial channels after its removal from the streaming platform. Even the Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee has organised public screenings in the national capital, underscoring the irony that efforts to suppress the film have only expanded its reach.
Based on the life of human rights activist Jaswant Singh Khalra, Satluj revisits one of Punjab’s darkest periods, when allegations of extrajudicial killings, fake encounters and illegal cremations cast a long shadow over the state’s counter-insurgency campaign. Khalra, who documented alleged illegal cremations before being abducted and murdered, remains one of the most significant and consequential figures of that era.
The film quotes Khalra as saying that 25,000 innocent people were killed. Whether one accepts Khalra’s claims or official figures, the film has reopened unresolved questions about accountability, justice and the cost of restoring peace during Punjab’s militancy years. If there were concerns that the Diljit Dosanjh-starrer could be exploited by anti-India or pro-Khalistan elements ahead of the 2027 Punjab Assembly elections, critics ask why it was cleared for release in the first place. Dosanjh’s own remark that the “ban” was inevitable has become a telling reflection of an environment in which artists increasingly anticipate suppression. Yet, in the digital era, censorship often achieves the opposite of its intended purpose, fuelling curiosity and driving audiences towards unauthorised platforms.
The controversy has also drawn Union Minister Ravneet Singh Bittu into the debate. The grandson of assassinated former Punjab Chief Minister Beant Singh, Bittu broke his silence after the ruling Aam Aadmi Party accused him of influencing the film’s removal from ZEE5. While he did not directly respond to the allegation, he mounted a robust defence of his grandfather’s legacy, arguing that Satluj presents only one side of Punjab’s violent past. “Punjab deserves the whole truth, not half the story,” Bittu said.
A third-generation Congressman who joined the BJP before the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, Bittu argued that the film overlooks the brutality unleashed by militant groups during the 1980s and early 1990s. Referring to Jaswant Singh Khalra, whose disappearance forms the emotional core of the film, Bittu questioned why Khalra was able to continue his work and travel abroad during Beant Singh’s tenure if dissent was being systematically crushed. “That question also deserves an honest answer,” he said. Bittu stressed that militancy should never be associated with any religion or community. “Militancy has no religion. Violence should never be associated with any faith or community,” he said. “
Defending his grandfather’s tenure, Bittu said Beant Singh inherited a Punjab devastated by years of bloodshed and that restoring peace was his government’s foremost priority before governance could resume. “Beant Singh inherited a Punjab that was bleeding. His government’s stated objective was to restore law, order and normalcy so that ordinary people could live without fear,” he said, adding that the administration simultaneously revived democratic institutions through panchayat and local body elections.
On allegations of widespread human rights abuses, including atrocities against women, Bittu maintained that such claims should be judged on the basis of verifiable evidence. “History should be discussed with facts, not assumptions,” he said.
He concluded by cautioning against romanticising the past. “It is easy to romanticise those years now that peace has returned. But those who lived through that period remember the fear, uncertainty and daily violence,” he said. For Bittu, Punjab’s true tribute to its past lies not in dramatising conflict but in ensuring that such a chapter is never repeated.
The debate surrounding Satluj has ultimately become larger than the film itself. It has reopened enduring questions about who gets to shape public memory, how history should be represented, and whether difficult truths should be confronted or suppressed. The controversy also illustrates an enduring paradox of the digital age: attempts to silence a story often ensure that it reaches an even wider audience.
