The upcoming Hindi film Phule, intended as a tribute to the groundbreaking reformers Jyotirao and Savitribai Phule, now finds itself caught in a storm of controversy. Meant to spotlight the couple’s courageous resistance against caste-based discrimination and their advocacy for education, gender equality, and social reform, the film instead risks becoming a diluted version of their revolutionary spirit.
When the trailer was released on March 24, it promised a bold portrayal—one that dared to confront caste realities often ignored in mainstream cinema. In a space where class often serves as a proxy for caste to sidestep uncomfortable truths, Phule seemed poised to break the mould. Scheduled to release on April 11, coinciding with Jyotiba Phule’s birth anniversary, the film has now been pushed to April 25. This delay, however, is not logistical—it stems from objections raised by groups such as the All-India Brahmin Samaj and Parashuram Aarthik Vikas Mahamandal. These groups claim that the film demeans Brahmins and incites caste-based animosity.
The deeper issue lies in the Central Board of Film Certification’s (CBFC) response to these complaints. Rather than defending artistic and historical integrity, the CBFC has taken the path of appeasement—ordering cuts and alterations that significantly water down the film’s message. Ironically, a movie about two people who stood against caste oppression is now being trimmed to avoid offending those aligned with that very system.
The changes are telling. For instance, a historically accurate image of a man forced to tie a broom to his waist—symbolising the inhumane practice of Shudras erasing their footprints—has been swapped with a less historically charged scene of boys throwing cow dung at Savitribai. While still unsettling, the change erases the direct link to a documented caste atrocity, lessening its impact.
Dialogues, too, have been sanitized. A powerful line calling out caste-based dehumanisation—“Jahan Shudra ko jhadu bandhkar chalna chahiye”—has been replaced with the more abstract and toothless “Kya yahi hamari sabse doori banake rakhni chahiye?” What was once a direct challenge to systemic injustice has now become a rhetorical question, stripped of its edge.
References to caste slavery spanning millennia have been softened to “Kai saal purani hain,” thus obscuring the pre-colonial roots of oppression and shifting the blame subtly away from ancient Hindu social structures. Even terms like “Mang” and “Mahar,” critical identifiers in Dalit discourse, have been replaced with euphemistic phrases such as “aise choti choti”—as if the terminology, rather than the lived experience, is the problem.
The manipulation extends to subtitles, where the term “caste” is replaced by “varna”—a word often used to rationalize caste as a fluid occupational system rather than a rigid, birth-based hierarchy. This isn’t just a semantic shift—it’s a deliberate distortion, softening the truth to make it more palatable.
The Phules never minced words. They boldly challenged an oppressive order legitimised by religion and tradition. They didn’t merely critique; they constructed alternatives—schools for girls, spaces for critical thinking, platforms for justice. Censoring their legacy to avoid offending the powerful does a disservice not only to their memory but also to the truth of India’s social history.
This episode reveals a larger contradiction. Many leaders today pay symbolic respect to Jyotiba Phule, adorning his statues with garlands while rejecting the radical essence of his ideas. Organisations quick to defend their historical role seldom engage in introspection about the casteist norms they still uphold. Ironically, those pointing out caste oppression are accused of promoting division, while those preserving the caste system remain unquestioned.
Phule, if it is to do justice to its subjects, must not flinch from the truth. Sanitising their story doesn’t promote harmony—it perpetuates denial. The fight the Phules began was never meant to be comfortable; it was meant to be just. Their legacy deserves honesty, not compromise.