‘Phule’ & Censorship

Kalpana Pandey

Phule, directed by National Award-winner Ananth Mahadevan–renowned for films such as “The Storyteller,” which combine sensitivity, depth, and artistic merit–has become embroiled in controversy even before its release. Originally scheduled to premiere on April 11, 2025, the film was postponed to April 25, 2025, following objections from certain Brahmin organisations in Maharashtra, accusing it of promoting casteism.

“Phule” narrates the story of the pioneering work of Jyotirao and Savitribai Phule–founders of the first school for girls in India and champions of so-called “backward” castes–whose efforts for education and social justice are chronicled against the backdrop of nineteenth-century India. Pratik Gandhi portrays Jyotirao Phule, while Patralekha plays Savitribai Phule.

The film documents their tireless struggle against caste and gender discrimination, including the establishment of India’s first girls’ school in 1848. Ananth Mahadevan aims to foreground the Phules’ crusade for equality and bring their fight against caste and gender injustice into the mainstream.

In response to the Brahmin groups’ objections, the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) has recommended cuts and modifications: removing or altering caste specific terms such as “Mang,” “Mahar,” and “Peshwai,” and changing the dialogue “three thousand years of slavery” to “many years of slavery.”

These suggestions effectively dilute the harsh historical realities of caste oppression central to the Phules’ movement. Such cuts undermine the integrity of the Phules’ ideological legacy and do a disservice to the historical struggles of marginalised communities. Various social organisations have criticised the CBFC’s decision as hypocritical and inconsistent.

 Controversial films with provocative statements, such as “The Kerala Story” and “The Kashmir Files” were granted CBFC approval without significant cuts, whereas a film about social reformers Jyotirao and Savitribai Phule, whose work directly confronted Brahmanical and casteist values, is being asked to make numerous changes.

Given that Jyotirao Phule was born on April 11, it is also significant that the film’s intended release date coincided with his birth anniversary, suggesting that commercial considerations may be at play. The delay and suggested edits–ostensibly to protect box office prospects–reveal that the CBFC does not enforce its guidelines evenly.

Films endorsing certain viewpoints face fewer obstacles, while those addressing challenging subjects encounter hurdles. This selective approach questions the CBFC’s impartiality and imposes constraints on artistic freedom and the truthful depiction of history.

The second point is that caste remains an extremely sensitive issue in India, and discrimination based on caste persists even today. Films like “Phule,” which confront these questions head-on, have been obstructed in various ways.

 Imposing stringent rules on a film like “Phule” demonstrates that the CBFC wishes to control films advocating social reform while granting leeway to divisive narratives.

The third significant point is that the denial of timely certification for “Phule” is largely due to complaints from certain Brahmin organisations. These groups contend that the film–based on the lives of Jyotirao and Savitribai Phule–depicts the Brahmin community unfavourably, portraying Brahmins as villains or subjecting them to unfair criticism.

In response to these objections, the CBFC has questioned the film’s release, taken exception to certain scenes and dialogues, and recommended changes, thereby delaying its certification. However, filmmakers assert that the film is historically accurate, includes sympathetic Brahmin characters who support the Phules’ work, and has no intention of defaming any community. Nevertheless, the CBFC prioritised the Brahmin organisations’ complaints, insisting on altering caste related terms or episodes while disregarding the filmmakers’ claims of historical fidelity.

This selective deference casts doubt on the CBFC’s impartiality, suggesting that it values the sentiments of one group over artistic integrity and the filmmakers’ creative vision. Consequently, one must ask whether the CBFC is making independent decisions or acting under external pressure.

The fourth issue concerns artistic freedom. Since the Phules’ mission fundamentally involved reforming an exploitative social order, significant opposition and social conflict were inevitable.

Regardless of whether the film is ultimately approved or blocked, one thing is certain: “Phule” holds up a mirror to India’s social history by bringing its painful realities to light.

Phule’s work could not have been accomplished without the contributions of his wife, Savitribai Phule. He educated a young, married girl who had received no formal schooling and empowered her to become India’s first woman teacher. She, in turn, stood firm against social exclusion and kept the flame of education burning bright.
Phule’s social movement was a direct challenge to the ruling caste hierarchy, and as a result, he faced immense opposition from society. His family severed ties with him, and his community ostracised him.

Though his health declined with age, Phule’s energy for social work.

Even today, murders are committed in the name of caste, blind faith grows under the guise of religion, and the rights of women, Dalits, and OBCs are still under assault.

Director Ananth Mahadevan has defended his film unequivocally: “My film has no hidden agenda. It is a sincere cinematic tribute to the social reformers who changed the face of Indian society.” He states that the film’s purpose is not to provoke but to educate and inspire.

[Courtesy: Madras Courier]

Back to Home Page

Frontier
Vol 57, No. 46, May 11 - 17, 2025