‘Phule’, ‘Jaat,’ ‘L2: Empuraan’: Are Indian films being silenced by sentiment? | Hindi Movie News

Cinema as a medium of expression has often made headlines for addressing socially relevant topics and the realities of different groups in the country. The social reflection seen in films sometimes makes them vulnerable to criticism from certain groups who take offense and label them as propaganda.
Recently, when Anurag Kashyap landed in legal turmoil over his remarks about the Brahmin community concerning the release issue of Anant Mahadevan’s ‘Phule,’ the question of artistic freedom of expression resurfaced in public discourse.
This trend of various communities taking offense at their representation or the depiction of their religious symbols in films has been an ongoing issue since the inception of cinema. When historical films or biopics are released, some people try to safeguard their image by opposing the final cut, often filing FIRs to have such portrayals removed from what they perceive to be a factual piece of art.
At its best, cinema mirrors society, challenges norms, provokes thought, and amplifies voices. But with this power comes a recurring price—backlash. Over the years, films have frequently found themselves at the center of heated debates, legal challenges, and even international bans. From politically sensitive portrayals to religious sentiments and nationalistic narratives, filmmakers are often required to navigate a delicate minefield of public and institutional reactions.
Through this article, we take a look at some of the most notable instances where films have faced severe backlash, bans, or censorship—both within India and abroad—and delve into in-depth discussions with filmmakers and actors who have endured such situations in their careers.
“I don’t think cinema should be linked to politics…” Sushil Pandey
Sushil Pandey, who is gearing up for the release of ‘Phule’ on April 25, shared how hurt he was by the legal issues surrounding the film during a conversation with ETimes. He believes that once people watch the film, the complaints will subside.

“I got a phone call yesterday around 3:34. It was an unknown number. I picked it up. Initially, the gentleman was speaking kindly, saying I’m a good actor, that he’s seen me in many films, and that he’s a fan. I thanked him. But then suddenly, he started abusing me. He said, ‘Being a Brahmin, how can you be part of this anti-Brahmin movie?’ He went on and on. I kept saying ‘sir, sir,’ trying to calm him, but he wouldn’t stop. I remained silent and smiled. I apologised, saying, ‘If you feel this way, I’m sorry.’ I only requested him to watch the movie. I truly believe he won’t regret it. His judgment is based only on the trailer or a few lines. He said he was my fan and liked my work—so I asked him to trust me. I would never be a part of any propaganda project. This is a very important film for today’s youth. They need to see it. I felt very disturbed after receiving that call. He was literally threatening,” Sushil revealed.
“ Cinema is a reflection of our society. It encompasses our past, present, and future. The stories that emerge from creative minds must be shared. I don’t see an issue with that—but somehow, things like this keep happening. I was very troubled by the censoring,” Sushil told ETimes.
He also addressed the legal trouble that Anurag Kashyap found himself in. Sushil said, “We live in a country where many communities coexist. Everyone has the right to speak freely. Freedom of speech and expression matters. Cinema has a powerful impact on society. When you’re making a film on someone like Phule or Gandhi, everything is already in the public domain. These are facts, not attempts to demean anyone. But before expressing anything, I must balance my emotions. There are a thousand ways to speak on any issue. I know Anurag Kashyap—he’s one of my favorite directors. Perhaps the statement he made came from initial guilt or a mix of emotions. He’s a very balanced man.”
The upcoming biographical film Phule, chronicling the life and legacy of social reformer Mahatma Jyotirao Phule, has become the center of a heated debate. The film drew backlash from three Brahmin organizations—Hindu Mahasangh, Akhil Bhartiya Brahmin Samaj, and the Parshuram Aarthik Vikas Mahamandal—who raised objections to the content presented in the teaser and trailer.
Anand Dave, representing the Hindu Mahasangh, criticized the visuals, alleging that the film portrayed a skewed and prejudiced narrative that unfairly targeted the Brahmin community. The controversy quickly gained political traction, prompting former state minister Chhagan Bhujbal to engage in a dialogue with the film’s director, Anant Mahadevan, and the producers to resolve the matter.
Mahadevan defended the creative process and cited the concept of cinematic liberty. Following discussions and recommended edits, the Censor Board has now cleared Phule for release on April 25 with certain modifications.
Simultaneously, filmmaker Anurag Kashyap found himself embroiled in legal trouble after making a controversial remark about the Brahmin community, which sparked public outrage. Known for his strong opposition to censorship and political interference in cinema, Kashyap later issued a public apology, clarifying that his statement stemmed from frustration and was not intended to offend anyone. He explained his stance via a note shared on social media, reiterating his respect for all communities.
“In such cases, the producer and director must be very strong…” Manish Gupta
Manish Gupta also commented on the ongoing trend, referring to films such as ‘Jaat,’ ‘L2: Empuraan,’ ‘PK,’ and ‘Phule,’ which underwent numerous cuts.
“All of this is fake. The protests, bans, boycotts, and cases—none of them are genuine. The people behind them are only seeking publicity. They aren’t concerned about religion, caste, or any issue they pretend to stand for. They are just creating hype around themselves. A film becomes a soft target because they know crores of rupees are invested. If a release is stalled, the producer is pressured immensely. They do this to put pressure on the makers,” he told ETimes.

“If you ban a car or a drink, it doesn’t make the news. But if you ban a film, it becomes a headline. These individuals and organizations use that publicity. No one may have heard their names before—but thanks to a ban or boycott, they become media figures. That’s their agenda,” Manish emphasized.
“People who protest films do so for attention, not for any real cause. They don’t even understand caste or religion. They’re just looking for media mileage. Filmmakers suffer because of this. As a producer and director, I can say this has affected us. Movies are a reflection of our culture—and in a country as diverse as ours, someone is bound to be offended. It’s impossible to make a film that offends no one. Frivolous claims should be dismissed by the government and courts. That’s what the Censor Board is for.”
He continued, What’s the point of a censor board if everyone tries to be one? Once a government body certifies a film as fit for public viewing, with all necessary cuts made, how can others challenge that? If we keep entertaining protests, it undermines the board’s authority. It becomes meaningless.”
Manish also appealed to Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis:
“If the chief minister starts responding to these complaints, it only encourages more of them. These are baseless protests. Cinema is for entertainment. There are real issues—poverty, women’s safety, underdevelopment, pollution, and bad roads. The government must focus on providing a better life for citizens, not on such distractions.”
He added, If something is in the public domain, we have every right to show it. Sati existed. Women were burnt alive. Are we to pretend it never happened? Dalits were, and in many ways still are, treated as untouchables. Denying this history is dishonest. We must acknowledge the past. If we don’t, we’re no better than China. We lose our democracy and our freedom of expression.”
When asked about his opinion on filmmakers not standing up for their films but instead apologising and making cuts demanded by certain communities, Manish responded:
“So, the theater owners and the exhibitors are pressured. They are pressured to remove the film from theaters. And the film will not get a release on any OTT platform or satellite channel because there is an FIR against it. Out of desperation, they expect crores. Films are very expensive. It is an extremely costly business. It takes crores to make any film. So, imagine the producer’s position. His money is at stake. Obviously, he will do anything to ensure he gets a return on his investment. Out of desperation and having no other choice, they take such steps. They approach the censor board again and say, ‘Okay, you may have passed this, but there are still people filing complaints against it. We want a revised certificate.’ And so, they make the cuts and obtain a revised certificate.
Now, the thing is, I do not blame the producer for this. He is clearly helpless in such cases. The real issue is that the government should provide some sort of protection for producers, who are essentially businessmen. It is an entire industry. Anyone can just file a complaint or an FIR, and the producer becomes powerless. There must be some safeguard for producers against such tasteless and, frankly, criminal acts.
Suppose a film is released and it holds a censor certificate—nobody should have the right to file an FIR against that film. The police should say, ‘See, the film has a censor certificate, so we cannot file an FIR.’ Hmm. It should work like that. There must be protection, because the government needs to acknowledge this, and the censor board is a highly respected body. It’s not just one person—it’s an entire committee. A committee made up of both male and female members. Many of those are government officials who have viewed, assessed, and given their opinions on the film. The producer has gone through the proper legal procedures. Without such protections, there will be chaos. There will be anarchy in society.”
Manish also experienced a similar situation in 2015 with his film ‘Rahasya.’

“It was based on the Aarushi Talwar murder case. Her parents, Dr. Rajesh Talwar and Dr. Nupur Talwar, filed a case against my film. They prevented its release and attempted to pressure me to portray them as innocent. I did not yield to their pressure. I said, ‘I refuse to succumb to their demands.’ I stood before the Honorable Bombay High Court for 11 months, fighting the case. I stood firm and insisted that I would not alter the film. I would not fabricate anything. And the film was released just as it was, with the censor’s certificate. My argument was simple: I have a censor’s certificate, and the Government of India is responsible for my release. So how can they file a case against me? I won the case. It took me 11 months, but I won. The film was released, and today, it’s considered a cult classic. It’s available on OTT now.”
“In such cases, the producer and director must be very strong. They need to have strong convictions. They must be prepared to fight. If they have shown something in the film, they must also have the courage to stand by it. If someone wants to be so timid and cowardly and just play it safe, then they should make a love story. But let me tell you—today, even a love story will attract protests. People will say it’s offensive to women, offensive to men, or offensive to a certain community. Because even in a love story, some community will be shown. All of this has become a circus. We are a poor country—we have far more important things to focus on for our development,” he concluded.
Films like Raees (2017) starring Shah Rukh Khan, Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s Padmaavat starring Deepika Padukone, PK (2014) starring Aamir Khan, Lipstick Under My Burkha (2016) by Alankrita Shrivastava, and Fire by Nandita Das and Shabana Azmi—among many others—have faced criticism for addressing themes of love, gender, politics, and community.

Backlash isn’t always a sign of failure—it often means a film has struck a nerve, challenged a belief, or disrupted a norm. While the debate over censorship and artistic freedom is far from over, one thing remains certain: cinema continues to be a powerful medium, capable of sparking dialogue, controversy, and, at times, real change.