Director denies that Phule is delayed due to censorship issues

- ADVERTISEMENT -

Phule, the biopic on the legendary Mahatma Jyotiba Phule, directed by National award winner Ananth Narayanan Mahadevan, renowned for films such as Mee Sindhutai Sakpal and the recent The Storyteller, has become embroiled in controversy even before its release. Originally scheduled to premiere on April 11, the film was postponed to April 25, following objections from certain Brahmin organizations in Maharashtra, accusing it of promoting casteism.

At the heart of Phule is the pioneering work of Jyotiba and wife 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 19^th century India.

Pratik Gandhi portrays Jyotiba, while Patralekhaa plays Savitribai. The film documents their tireless struggle against caste and gender discrimination, including the establishment of India’s first girls’ school in 1848. Mahadevan’s aim is to showcase the Phules’ crusade for equality and to bring their fight against caste and gender injustice into the mainstream.

- ADVERTISEMENT -

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.”

A press release by Kalpana Pandey states that “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 marginalized communities. Various social organizations have criticized the CBFC’s decision as hypocritical and inconsistent.”

The queries posed are as follows: “Are the certification standards in our country applied uniformly? Controversial (?!) films like 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 casteism, is being asked to make changes.”

Given that Phule was born on April 11, it is also significant that the film’s intended release date coincided with his birth anniversary. The delay and suggested edits, the media release says, seem to indicate that some films face fewer obstacles, while others addressing challenging subjects encounter hurdles. “This selective approach calls the CBFC’s impartiality into question and may show constraints on artistic freedom and on the truthful depiction of history,” the press release goes on.

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. The release even claims, “If one examines the names and backgrounds of the members of the censor board, it becomes clear—without needing further explanation—that the CBFC’s actions are being taken under political pressure or in the name of maintaining social stability.”

The release also states that “the denial of timely certification for Phule is largely due to complaints from certain Brahmin organizations. These groups contend that the film depicts the Brahmin community unfavorably, portraying them as villains or subjecting them to unfair criticism. The filmmakers assert that the film is historically accurate, includes sympathetic Brahmin characters who supported the Phules’ work, and has no intention of defaming any community.”

All these aspects make for questioning the CBFC’s procedures and credibility, it feels, as it goes on, “The fourth issue concerns artistic freedom. Since the Phules’ mission fundamentally involved reforming an exploitative social order, significant opposition and social conflict were inevitable. These mandated cuts undermine the film’s historical accuracy and do a disservice to the filmmakers’ artistic vision and the audience’s right to unfettered access to information. This struggle represents a collision between the artistic expression of social trauma grounded in historical fact and the constraints imposed by the current political establishment.”

Mahatma 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. Together, the Phules tore down the walls of a caste‑based educational system, establishing separate schools for the untouchable children. In those schools, caste was never asked—a revolutionary act for its time. Through writings such as Gulamgiri, the Phules exposed the realities of the caste system and launched a direct attack on Brahminical rule, declaring, “Until society is educated, it will remain enslaved.”

The 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 he was ostracized by his community. The insults and filth hurled at Savitribai did not deter the couple. They endured religious intimidation as well, and even questioned the nature of gods, religion and rituals—declaring, “God is not the creator of man; man is the creator of God.” For these views they were branded “atheists” and “enemies of religion”, yet they never abandoned their convictions.

Mahatma Phule’s work extended far beyond education. By founding the Satyashodhak Society, he opened a new path toward social equality. He wrote and acted on a range of issues—widow remarriage, women’s right to abortion, the necessity of girls’ education, exploitation in agriculture and the dominance of the Brahmin‑priestly class.

Under the Satyashodhak banner, religious ceremonies—marriage, naming ceremonies or funerals—were performed without Brahmin priests. The Society initiated traditions of communal dining and public gatherings without regard to caste. People of all castes came together and identified themselves as “Satyashodhaks.” Savitribai, incidentally, is historically credited with renaming “Shudras” (the untouchables) as “Dalits”.

Though his health declined with age, Mahatma Phule’s energy for social work never waned, and the Satyashodhak movement continued after his death. Leaders such as Shahu Maharaj, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and Periyar were later inspired by Satyashodhak ideas.

The other side

Director Ananth Mahadevan said, “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.

In an interview to the portal www.bollywoodhungama.com, he has clearly stated, “The film is not stuck at the censor board. We received a clear ‘U’ certificate after submitting the amendments they suggested. Direct references to caste names were probably deemed unsuitable, so they were softened.”

In another interview to PTI, as quoted in The Hindu, he stated, “They (CBFC) had suggested some amendments, I wouldn’t call it cuts. I want to clarify that there are no cuts as such. We did so (complied with the suggested amendments). They felt that the film should be watched by youth and everyone and it’s very educational. I don’t know why this whole storm of conflict and counter arguments are happening, it’s a little exaggerated and unnecessary!”

Mahadevan also told The Deccan Chronicle regarding certain Brahmin communities raising their voice stating they have been shown in bad light: “No, I think it was just a knee-jerk reaction after seeing the trailer. They probably thought that we had maligned Brahmins, we had sort of humiliated them in the film, but no, the bonding between the Brahmins and the symbiosis between them is so strong in the film because right from the beginning when Jyotiba very clandestinely starts his first school, it is the Brahmins who support him by giving them their premises. So, you cannot sort of alienate the Brahmins from his life, but in every community, there is always some group or some kind of ideology that creates differences unnecessarily and revolts against reform and progress of the lower classes, what they feel as the lower classes they do not want them to come up to their level. So, when Jyotiba tries to educate the discriminated classes and the suppressed people, there are a few groups of people who sort of, try to put a spoke in the wheel.”

Related posts:

As Democrats push to ban caste discrimination, some Indian Americans object Dalits take fight to Silicon Valley where India’s caste system appears to have thrived Under America’s racial hierarchy lies a deeper system of division: Caste Google’s plan to talk about caste bias led to ‘division and rancor’