The disappearance of Satluj from an Indian streaming platform within days of its release is about far more than the fate of a single film. It raises a larger question that democratic societies cannot afford to ignore: who gets to shape public memory, and by what process? Every nation has painful chapters in its history. India’s battle against militancy in Punjab remains one of them. The insurgency claimed thousands of lives, including civilians, security personnel and political leaders.

It also left behind allegations of excesses by state agencies, many of which have been examined by courts, commissions and investigative bodies over the years. A mature democracy should possess the confidence to confront both realities simultaneously rather than reducing history to a single, officially sanctioned narrative. The irony is striking. India has gradually moved towards a more liberal ecosystem for digital content, where streaming platforms were expected to widen the space for creative expression beyond the traditional censorship model applicable to theatrical films. Yet the swift withdrawal of Satluj demonstrates that digital distribution is no guarantee against official intervention. The distinction between certification and post-release regulation may exist in law, but for filmmakers........

© The Statesman