\u201cPhule,\u201d directed by National Award\u2013winner Ananth Mahadevan\u2014renowned for films such as \u201cThe Storyteller,\u201d which combine sensitivity, depth, and artistic merit\u2014has 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 organizations in Maharashtra accusing it of promoting casteism.
At the heart of \u201cPhule\u201d is the pioneering work of Jyotirao and Savitribai Phule\u2014founders of the first school for girls in India and champions of so called \u201cbackward\u201d castes\u2014whose 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\u2019s first girls\u2019 school in 1848. Ananth Mahadevan\u2019s aim is to foreground the Phules\u2019 crusade for equality and to bring their fight against caste and gender injustice into the mainstream.
In response to the Brahmin groups\u2019 objections, the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) has recommended cuts and modifications: removing or altering caste specific terms such as \u201cMang,\u201d \u201cMahar,\u201d and \u201cPeshwai,\u201d and changing the dialogue \u201cthree thousand years of slavery\u201d to \u201cmany years of slavery.\u201d These suggestions effectively dilute the harsh historical realities of caste oppression central to the Phules\u2019 movement. Such cuts undermine the integrity of the Phules\u2019 ideological legacy and do a disservice to the historical struggles of marginalized communities. Various social organizations have criticized the CBFC\u2019s decision as hypocritical and inconsistent.
First, are the certification standards in our country applied uniformly? Controversial films with provocative statements\u2014such as \u201cThe Kerala Story\u201d and \u201cThe Kashmir Files\u201d\u2014were 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\u2019s intended release date coincided with his birth anniversary, suggesting that commercial considerations may be at play. The delay and suggested edits\u2014ostensibly to protect box office prospects\u2014reveal 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 calls the CBFC\u2019s impartiality into question 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 \u201cPhule,\u201d which confront these questions head on, have been obstructed in various ways. If one examines the names and backgrounds of the members of the censor board, it becomes clear\u2014without needing further explanation\u2014that the CBFC\u2019s actions are being taken under political pressure or in the name of maintaining social stability. Imposing stringent rules on a film like \u201cPhule\u201d 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 \u201cPhule\u201d is largely due to complaints from certain Brahmin organizations. These groups contend that the film\u2014based on the lives of Jyotirao and Savitribai Phule\u2014depicts the Brahmin community unfavorably, portraying Brahmins as villains or subjecting them to unfair criticism. In response to these objections, the CBFC has questioned the film\u2019s 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\u2019 work, and has no intention of defaming any community. Nevertheless, the CBFC prioritized the Brahmin organizations\u2019 complaints, insisting on altering caste related terms or episodes while disregarding the filmmakers\u2019 claims of historical fidelity. This selective deference casts doubt on the CBFC\u2019s impartiality, suggesting that it values the sentiments of one group over artistic integrity and the filmmakers\u2019 creative vision. Consequently, one must ask whether the CBFC is making independent decisions or acting under external pressure. If the CBFC coerces changes to historical truths or artistic perspectives, the filmmakers\u2019 original message is weakened and the audience\u2019s right to informed understanding is compromised. It is therefore both natural and necessary to question the CBFC\u2019s procedures and credibility.
The fourth issue concerns artistic freedom. Since the Phules\u2019 mission fundamentally involved reforming an exploitative social order, significant opposition and social conflict were inevitable. These mandated cuts undermine the film\u2019s historical accuracy and do a disservice to the filmmakers\u2019 artistic vision and the audience\u2019s 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.
Regardless of whether the film is ultimately approved or blocked, one thing is certain: \u201cPhule\u201d holds up a mirror to our social history by bringing its painful realities to light. It portrays the woman who fought for girls\u2019 education, the teacher who shattered caste barriers, the Hindu social order rooted in Brahminical supremacy, the horrors of social ostracism and religious terror\u2014indeed, the life and work of Mahatma Jyotirao Phule himself.
Mahatma Phule\u2019s 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\u2019s 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, Dalit, and Shudra children. In those schools, caste was never asked\u2014a revolutionary act for its time. Through writings such as \u201cGulamgiri,\u201d the Phules exposed the realities of the caste system and launched a direct attack on Brahminical rule, declaring, \u201cUntil society is educated, it will remain enslaved.\u201d
Mahatma Phule\u2019s 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 them. They endured religious intimidation as well, and even questioned the nature of gods, religion, and rituals\u2014declaring plainly, \u201cGod is not the creator of man; man is the creator of God.\u201d For these views they were branded \u201catheists\u201d and \u201cenemies of religion,\u201d yet they never abandoned their convictions.
Mahatma Phule\u2019s 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\u2014widow remarriage, women\u2019s right to abortion, the necessity of girls\u2019 education, exploitation in agriculture, and the dominance of the Brahmin priestly class. He never ceased his struggle, establishing the Satyashodhak Society with the core aim of securing intra caste equality and opposing Brahminical supremacy.
Under the Satyashodhak banner, religious ceremonies\u2014marriage, naming, funerals\u2014were 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 \u201cSatyashodhaks.\u201d For the first time, Dalits, Shudras, and women found a social platform where they truly belonged, and the movement brought education into the community.
Though his health declined with age, Mahatma Phule\u2019s 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. 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: \u201cMy film has no hidden agenda. It is a sincere cinematic tribute to the social reformers who changed the face of Indian society.\u201d He states that the film\u2019s purpose is not to provoke but to educate and inspire. Phule\u2019s legacy is not confined to a single film; it is the deep seated unrest surrounding India\u2019s caste discourse. Although Mahatma Phule\u2019s contributions are academically celebrated, attempts to portray his social change vision in the media continue to face resistance.
By challenging caste inequality and empowering Dalit and oppressed communities, the Phules engaged in an unbroken struggle. The intellectual battle they began remains profoundly relevant today. Every step toward education, equality, and justice is guided by Mahatma Phule\u2019s inspirational legacy. The \u201cSatyashodhak\u201d path shown by Jyotirao and Savitribai Phule still underpins the beliefs of many.
Kalpana Pandey<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cPhule,\u201d directed by National Award\u2013winner Ananth Mahadevan\u2014renowned for films such as \u201cThe Storyteller,\u201d which combine sensitivity, depth, and artistic merit\u2014has 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 organizations in Maharashtra accusing it of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[395],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-482529","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","category-opinion"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/nagalandpost.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/482529","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/nagalandpost.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/nagalandpost.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nagalandpost.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nagalandpost.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=482529"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/nagalandpost.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/482529\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/nagalandpost.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=482529"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nagalandpost.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=482529"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nagalandpost.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=482529"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}