Opinion Phule, Dhadak 2 and Santosh: Fight for creative freedom is inseparable from fight for social justice

First, the release of Phule, a chronicle of the lives of social reformers Jyotirao and Savitribai Phule was delayed due to the cuts suggested by the CBFC. The film, directed by Ananth Narayan Mahadevan, faced objections from certain Brahmin organisations, who argued that it promotes casteism and defames their community. Such opposition suggests a fear of exposing the historical and ongoing privileges associated with the “upper caste” status. Sanitisation of Phule reflects a broader trend in Indian cinema, where historical narratives are altered to avoid offending powerful social groups, raising questions about the extent to which censorship undermines the ability of art to engage with uncomfortable truths about India’s caste system. Kashyap’s remarks about the CBFC’s upper-caste bias rightly amplify this critique, pointing to an institutional resistance to narratives that challenge the status quo.

Second, Dhadak 2, a remake of the Tamil film Pariyerum Perumal directed by Mari Selvaraj, also has faced significant hurdles in obtaining CBFC certification. Initially slated for release in November 2024 and later postponed to February 2025, the film remains unreleased even in April 2025. Pariyerum Perumal has a powerful anti-caste narrative that explores the repercussions of a romantic relationship across caste lines, drawing inspiration from the life and philosophy of Babasaheb Ambedkar. The film’s unflinching portrayal of caste brutality and systemic discrimination appears to have made it a target for censorship.

Produced by Karan Johar and directed by Shazia Iqbal, Dhadak 2 follows Johar’s earlier production Dhadak (2018), a remake of Nagraj Manjule’s Sairat. Dhadak faced criticism for sanitising the original’s raw depiction of caste violence to cater to “upper caste” sensibilities and Bollywood tropes, ensuring a smooth release. However, Dhadak 2 was believed to remain faithful to Pariyerum Perumal’s narrative integrity. But the CBFC’s reluctance to certify Dhadak 2 suggests that its honest portrayal of caste dynamics perhaps poses a challenge to dominant social narratives, much like Phule.

Third, the outright ban of Santosh, a film exploring caste, police brutality and communal tensions in rural India, further illustrates the CBFC’s inconsistent standards. Directed by Sandhya Suri, Santosh was denied certification, with the CBFC citing its potential to incite unrest. This decision, coupled with the censorship of Phule and Dhadak 2, points to a pattern of suppressing films that crack open the caste and social inequalities. It also raises concerns about the board’s impartiality and its susceptibility to political and social pressures.

Caste continues to be an uncomfortable topic, particularly for upper-caste communities, who benefit from its systemic privileges. While these privileges — access to education, employment, and social networks — are often taken for granted, discussions about the disadvantages faced by marginalised communities provoke resistance. Films like Phule and Dhadak 2 hold a mirror to the unjust and discriminatory structures that perpetuate caste-based exclusion, challenging the narratives of meritocracy and social harmony often championed by dominant groups.

The CBFC’s actions against such films, whether driven by “upper caste” biases or political pressures, constitute an attack on freedom of expression and the rights of dissenting voices. While Savarna (upper-caste) filmmakers may sometimes adopt a superficial gaze while depicting Dalit and marginalised experiences, outright censorship or bans stifle dialogue and prevent cinema from serving as a catalyst for social change. The Phules’ legacy, like Ambedkar’s, is a testament to the power of education and representation in dismantling oppressive systems. By censoring films that carry forward this legacy, the CBFC risks undermining India’s constitutional commitment to equality and justice.

The controversies surrounding Phule, Dhadak 2, and Santosh highlight the urgent need for reform in India’s film certification process. An independent and transparent CBFC, free from political and social biases, is essential to ensuring that cinema can fulfil its role as a medium for truth-telling and social critique. Moreover, fostering open conversations about caste, both within and outside the film industry, is crucial to dismantling the structures that perpetuate inequality. As Anurag Kashyap’s critique reminds us, the fight for creative freedom is inseparable from the fight for social justice.

The writer is a research scholar at Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, United Kingdom