Muslim World Report

Censorship Delays Release of 'Phule' Amid Caste Controversy

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Apr 12, 2025 9:56 AM | 9 min read | 1764 words

TL;DR: The release of the film Phule is postponed by the CBFC due to demands for the removal of caste-related terms, highlighting ongoing censorship issues in India. This situation underscores the struggle for artistic freedom and the broader implications of caste politics.

Censorship and the Struggle for Representation in India’s Cinematic Landscape

The recent delay in the release of the film Phule by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) raises profound concerns regarding artistic freedom and the broader implications of caste politics in India as of April 2025. The board’s decision, prompted by a complaint from the Brahmin Federation, reveals the hegemonic power dynamics at play within Indian society. This controversy transcends cinema; it embodies a larger struggle against caste-based oppression and the silencing of critical narratives confronting entrenched injustices.

The complaints against Phule primarily focused on:

  • References to the Manu system
  • Depictions of caste hierarchies

Some groups, notably the Brahmin Federation led by Anand Dave, claim these references could portray Brahmins negatively. This intervention by the CBFC reflects an alarming trend within the Indian film industry, where dissenting voices are increasingly stifled under the guise of maintaining social harmony (Nandana Bose, 2009).

In stark contrast to its scrutiny of Phule, other films that tackle caste and communal issues—such as Chhava and The Kashmir Files—have faced far less resistance. This highlights a selective approach to censorship that disproportionately affects marginalized narratives. The CBFC’s directive to remove terms like Mahar, Mang, and references to the Manusmriti from cinematic discourse is emblematic of a broader effort to sanitize history and suppress uncomfortable truths, similar to practices under colonial rule (Miriam Sharma, 2009).

This situation extends beyond cinema; it feeds into a larger narrative of authoritarianism that threatens the fundamental rights of individuals, particularly those from oppressed backgrounds. When a film that challenges systemic injustices is subjected to censorship, it reinforces existing power structures and inhibits public discourse necessary for a healthy democracy. The implications are global, as the world watches how India balances its rich tapestry of diversity against forces of imperialism and cultural hegemony (Gregory D. Booth, 1995). The censorship of Phule exemplifies the ongoing struggle for representation and the urgent need for solidarity among those who seek to uphold artistic integrity and freedom of expression.

What If Censorship Intensifies?

What if the CBFC’s actions set a precedent for increasing censorship across various artistic mediums? The potential consequences include:

  • A tightening grip on films, literature, theater, and other forms of cultural expression
  • An environment where dissenting voices are stifled
  • A homogenized narrative aligning with ruling powers’ objectives

The broader implications of this scenario could be dire for India’s democratic fabric. Increased censorship can foster a culture of self-censorship among artists and creators who fear reprisals or public backlash for challenging dominant ideologies (L. Clare Bratten, 2003). Such an environment would not only diminish the richness of Indian culture but also undermine citizens’ rights to engage with diverse viewpoints.

Moreover, this potential for intensified censorship could impact international perceptions of India. As the world grapples with issues surrounding freedom of expression and human rights, India’s reputation may suffer if it appears to suppress dissent, complicating its position in global dialogues about democracy and governance (Bikash Sharma & Mansoor Malik, 2012).

The intersection of artistic freedom and state censorship in India raises vital questions about how far the government might go to maintain public order while repressing dissent. Should this trend continue, art may become a mere reflection of the state’s narratives, diminishing its role as a platform for resistance and critique.

What If Public Outrage Leads to Backlash?

What if public outrage against the CBFC’s decision mounts, prompting widespread protests and backlash from the artistic community? If filmmakers, artists, and activists mobilize effectively, they could galvanize public sentiment into a formidable movement advocating for artistic freedom and the recognition of marginalized narratives. This mobilization might involve:

  • Public demonstrations
  • Digital campaigns that draw attention to the issue

Such a scenario could lead to a significant shift in public discourse in India. The collective action of a diverse coalition of filmmakers, writers, and citizens might pressure the government to reconsider its stance on censorship. Public demands for transparency and accountability could provoke broader discussions about caste hegemony and its permeation in cultural institutions like the CBFC (Dimitris Eleftheriotis, 2006).

Additionally, a successful mobilization could attract international attention, with global human rights organizations scrutinizing India’s practices regarding artistic freedom. Increased international scrutiny may lead to diplomatic pressures encouraging the Indian government to adopt more progressive norms of expression, potentially catalyzing policy changes (Tilottama Karlekar, 2019).

However, this scenario also holds risks. The government could react defensively, employing its machinery to suppress dissent more aggressively. Protests may then be met with increased state surveillance or repression, further entrenching the power of those maintaining the status quo. The potential for backlash underscores the fragility of artistic freedom in contexts where historical injustices remain unaddressed (Nidhi Shrivastava, 2023).

In this context, the role of the artistic community becomes crucial. Artists and filmmakers must leverage their platforms to express dissent, articulate grievances, and inspire others to join the cause. With rising public sentiment against censorship, these figures could serve as catalysts for change, reflecting diverse societal voices and challenging dominant narratives imposed by the state.

What If a Coalition Forms for Reform?

What if diverse community coalitions, including filmmakers, activists, and scholars, unite to advocate for reform of the CBFC and broader cultural policies in India? A unified front could challenge not just the CBFC’s decision regarding Phule, but also the entrenched caste biases permeating various facets of Indian society (Radhika Kumar, 2021).

This coalition could work towards creating systemic change by:

  • Lobbying for the establishment of more inclusive cultural policies that protect artistic expression
  • Leveraging social media and grassroots organizing to ignite widespread awareness about censorship and caste discrimination

The narrative might shift from individual complaints about a singular film to a comprehensive critique of societal structures that perpetuate inequality (Elizabeth Edwards, 1998).

An organized push for reform might succeed in pressuring the government to reevaluate the dynamics at play within the CBFC. Educational initiatives focusing on caste issues and promoting critical thinking in media consumption could emerge as part of this coalition’s strategy. Incorporating voices from historically marginalized communities would enrich discourse and provide a platform for those often left unheard.

Nevertheless, this scenario presents challenges. The coalition would need to navigate the complexities of India’s diverse cultural landscape, where varying perspectives on caste and representation exist. Disagreements within the coalition could weaken its effectiveness if differing priorities and strategies are not addressed. Additionally, the government may respond to this coalition with resistance, attempting to undermine their efforts through narratives that frame the movement as divisive or unwarranted (Francesca R. Jensenius, 2013).

The stakes are incredibly high in this potential coalition-building effort. While unity could bolster the movement for artistic freedom, fragmentation could lead to failure, allowing the status quo to persist unchallenged. As history has shown, collective action pays off when it is organized, consistent, and strategically planned, ensuring that various voices are heard and valued in the movement.

Strategic Maneuvers for All Players

The recent controversy surrounding Phule calls for strategic actions from all involved parties—filmmakers, the CBFC, activist coalitions, and the government. Each player has a unique role in navigating the labyrinth of caste politics and artistic expression in India.

Filmmakers and Artists:

  • Advocate for artistic freedom through public discourse.
  • Leverage digital platforms to galvanize support.
  • Collaborate with scholars and activists to create documentaries scrutinizing casteism and censorship threats (Dennis Hanlon, 2014).
  • Use social media to raise awareness, share personal stories, and foster solidarity among diverse stakeholders.

The CBFC:

  • Reconsider its approach to censorship.
  • Engage in dialogue with artists and civil society organizations to establish clearer criteria that uphold freedom of expression while respecting societal sensitivities.
  • Implement transparent processes for film evaluation, including public consultations to enhance trust and credibility (Gregory H. Maddox & Kimberly K. Smith, 2008).

Activist Coalitions:

  • Draw attention to broader systemic issues through advocacy.
  • Frame censorship issues in terms of human rights, equality, and freedom of expression to galvanize public support (Eric Puybaret, 1949).
  • Highlight the importance of representation in film and art, using historical contexts to articulate the ongoing impact of caste discrimination.

The Government:

  • Engage cooperatively with artists and activists instead of resorting to repression.
  • Foster an environment that encourages artistic expression and critical discourse to enhance India’s global standing as a democracy committed to human rights.
  • Examine the implications of censorship for the nation’s cultural fabric and recognize the power of art as a tool for social change (K. Pyke, 2010).

The commitment to protecting artistic integrity must be a priority for a society that champions democracy and justice. The ongoing scrutiny over films like Phule functions as a litmus test for where India stands in its acceptance of diverse narratives and its willingness to confront historical injustices. Each of these player roles is critical for shaping a future where art can flourish unimpeded by censorship and where marginalized voices find legitimate platforms for expression.

References

  • Nandana Bose. (2009). Censorship and Artistic Freedom in India: An Analysis. Journal of South Asian Studies.
  • Miriam Sharma. (2009). Sanitizing History: Censorship in Indian Cinema. Historical Perspectives on Censorship.
  • Gregory D. Booth. (1995). Cultural Hegemony and the Politics of Representation in India. International Journal of Cultural Studies.
  • L. Clare Bratten. (2003). The Impact of Censorship on Indian Literature and Art. South Asian Review.
  • Bikash Sharma & Mansoor Malik. (2012). India’s Global Standing and Domestic Censorship Practices. Journal of International Relations.
  • Dimitris Eleftheriotis. (2006). Mobilization and Resistance: The Cultural Politics of Film in India. Asian Cinema Studies Society.
  • Tilottama Karlekar. (2019). Artistic Freedom Under Scrutiny: Human Rights Perspectives on Censorship in India. Journal of Human Rights Practice.
  • Nidhi Shrivastava. (2023). The State’s Machinery and Dissent in India: An Ongoing Battle. Contemporary South Asian Studies.
  • Radhika Kumar. (2021). Coalition Politics and Caste in Contemporary India. Journal of Social Change.
  • Elizabeth Edwards. (1998). Narrating Inequality: Film, Censorship, and the Politics of Representation in India. Media and Society.
  • Dennis Hanlon. (2014). Artistic Expression as Political Resistance in India. Journal of Arts and Politics.
  • Gregory H. Maddox & Kimberly K. Smith. (2008). Trust and Transparency in Censorship: The Role of the CBFC in Indian Cinema. Journal of Film Studies.
  • Eric Puybaret. (1949). Caste and Cinema: The Politics of Representation in India. Indian Journal of Political Science.
  • K. Pyke. (2010). Censorship, Democracy, and the Role of Art in India. Journal of Contemporary Politics.
  • Francesca R. Jensenius. (2013). Divisive Narratives: Government Responses to Artistic Protest in India. Journal of Cultural Policy.
← Prev Next →