Key Takeaways
- Phule movie controversy: The Bollywood film Phule, directed by Ananth Mahadevan, faced delays and censorship due to objections from Brahmin groups over its portrayal of caste dynamics, highlighting tensions between historical truth and modern sensitivities.
- The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) suggested amendments, such as removing caste-specific terms like “Mahar” and “Mang,” which critics argue dilutes the film’s depiction of the Phules’ anti-caste legacy.
- Directed by Ananth Mahadevan, Phule stars Pratik Gandhi and Patralekhaa, portraying 19th-century reformers Jyotirao and Savitribai Phule, who fought caste and gender discrimination.
- The controversy underscores broader societal challenges in confronting India’s caste history, with Mahadevan calling society “immature” for resisting uncomfortable truths.
- The film’s release, originally set for April 11, 2025, was postponed to April 25, 2025, to address community concerns and ensure a peaceful rollout.
Introduction: A Film That Stirs the Soul—and Sparks Debate
Imagine a film so powerful it forces a nation to confront its past, yet so contentious it’s nearly silenced before its release. Phule, a Bollywood biopic about social reformers Jyotirao and Savitribai Phule, has ignited a firestorm of controversy, exposing the fault lines of caste, history, and censorship in modern India. Directed by Ananth Mahadevan and starring Pratik Gandhi and Patralekhaa, the film was poised to honor the Phules’ legacy on Jyotirao’s birth anniversary, April 11, 2025. Instead, objections from Brahmin groups and subsequent demands for changes by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) pushed its release to April 25, 2025, raising a critical question: Can India face its historical truths without flinching?
The Phule movie controversy isn’t just about a film—it’s about whether a society can reconcile with its past to build a more equitable future. In this article, we’ll dive into the heart of the debate, exploring the Phules’ revolutionary work, the objections to the film, the CBFC’s role, and what this saga reveals about India’s ongoing struggle with caste and identity.
Who Were Jyotirao and Savitribai Phule?
We must first comprehend the enormous legacy of Jyotirao Govindrao Phule and his wife, Savitribai Phule, in order to comprehend the Phule movie issue. Jyotirao, a visionary who opposed the strict caste system of 19th-century India, was born in Maharashtra in 1827. In 1848, he and Savitribai established the first school for girls, which was a bold move at a time when most education was only available to males from higher castes. Their Satyashodhak Samaj (Truth-Seekers’ Society) advocated for equality across castes and genders, uplifting marginalized communities like Dalits and Shudras.
Often praised as India’s first female educator, Savitribai encountered unfathomable animosity. She endured insults, physical attacks, and even cow dung thrown at her by those who opposed her efforts to educate women and lower castes. Yet, the Phules persisted, establishing schools, promoting widow remarriage, and challenging practices like untouchability. Their work laid the groundwork for later reformers like Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and inspired movements for social justice across India.
Phule, the film, aims to bring this story to life, with Pratik Gandhi embodying Jyotirao’s fierce resolve and Patralekhaa capturing Savitribai’s courage. But as the trailer hit screens, it sparked a backlash that revealed how raw India’s caste wounds remain.
The Phule Movie Controversy: What Sparked the Outrage?
The Phule movie controversy erupted after the trailer’s release on April 10, 2025, when some Brahmin organizations, including the Maharashtra-based Hindu Mahasangh, objected to the film’s portrayal of their community. A key point of contention was a scene depicting a boy in traditional Brahmin attire throwing cow dung at Savitribai—an act rooted in historical accounts of the abuse she faced. Anand Dave, president of Hindu Mahasangh, argued that the trailer unfairly highlighted “the bad things done by Brahmins” while ignoring their contributions, such as supporting the Phules’ schools.
Other objections centered on the film’s use of caste-specific terms like “Mahar,” “Mang,” and “Peshwai” (referring to the Brahmin-led Peshwa rule) and phrases like “3,000 years of slavery,” which some claimed could stoke caste tensions. These concerns prompted the CBFC to intervene, granting the film a ‘U’ certificate on April 7, 2025, but only after demanding amendments. The board instructed the filmmakers to:
- Remove terms like “Mahar,” “Mang,” and “Peshwai.”
- Replace a scene of a man with a broom tied to his waist (a historical practice associated with untouchability) with boys throwing cow dung at Savitribai.
- Modify the phrase “3,000 years of slavery” to “many years of slavery.”
Director Ananth Mahadevan complied with these changes, calling them “tweaks” rather than cuts, but expressed frustration. “As a filmmaker, I would not like my film to be touched,” he said, adding that the changes were “insignificant and innocuous” and that society’s sensitivity was overblown.
The CBFC’s Role: Certification or Censorship?
The CBFC’s involvement in the Phule movie controversy has reignited debates about the line between film certification and censorship. Established to ensure films meet legal and ethical standards, the CBFC has often been accused of overstepping its mandate, particularly with films tackling sensitive issues like caste. The board’s demands, according to opponents, weaken the historical facts of the Phules’ battle.
Ananth Mahadevan, himself a Brahmin, defended the film’s integrity, noting that it doesn’t malign any community. He declared, “As a Brahmin, I would not disparage my community. There is nothing offensive in the film, but the two-minute trailer got the brahmins all worked up.” He underlined that the video emphasizes the peace between the Phules and Brahmins who help them, such those who gave their schools land.
Filmmaker Anurag Kashyap, a vocal supporter of Phule, slammed the CBFC’s actions, questioning the inconsistency in censoring a film about caste while approving others with divisive narratives. “If there’s no caste system, why are you offended?” he said, urging society to “decide once and for all, does casteism exist in India or not?”
The CBFC’s selective scrutiny raises troubling questions. Films with polarizing narratives have sailed through certification with minimal changes, while Phule, a film celebrating reformers, faced hurdles. This disparity suggests that commercial or political considerations may influence the CBFC’s decisions, undermining its role as an impartial arbiter.
Why the Controversy Matters: Confronting Caste in Modern India
The Phule movie controversy is more than a dispute over a film—it’s a mirror reflecting India’s unresolved relationship with caste. Despite constitutional protections and decades of social reform, caste discrimination persists in subtle and overt forms, from rural villages to urban workplaces. The Phules’ fight for equality, begun 175 years ago, remains unfinished, as Mahadevan poignantly noted: “We are an immature society… we seem to have regressed in many ways.”
The objections to Phule highlight a reluctance to acknowledge historical wrongs. Practices like untouchability, though outlawed, were real and brutal. Shudras and Dalits faced punishments for reading sacred texts, and women were denied basic rights. These truths, however uncomfortable, are part of India’s history. Suppressing them in art risks sanitizing the past and stunting progress.
As a society, India must ask: Why do caste names like “Mahar” or “Mang” provoke unease when communities proudly claim these identities? Why does depicting historical caste oppression spark accusations of “promoting casteism”? The answer lies in the lingering hierarchy embedded in caste identities, which the Phules sought to dismantle. By demanding equal respect for all castes—Brahmin, Shudra, or Dalit—they envisioned a society free from superiority or shame.
The Power of Cinema: Can Phule Inspire Change?
Cinema has the power to shape perceptions and spark dialogue, and Phule is no exception. By bringing the Phules’ story to a mainstream Bollywood audience, the film could inspire reflection on caste and gender equality. Actor Pratik Gandhi, who portrays Jyotirao, was disappointed by the postponement and hoped the movie would commemorate the reformer’s 197th birthday. He urged the Brahmin community to watch the film with an open mind, promising a narrative that respects all perspectives.
Mahadevan, too, sees Phule as a call to action. “This film does not exaggerate or fictionalize history,” he said. “It’s a sincere cinematic tribute to reformers who changed the face of Indian society.” By depicting the Phules’ nonviolent resistance—such as saving a widow from a mob without retaliation—the film underscores their moral courage, drawing parallels to figures like Gautam Buddha.
Yet, the controversy risks overshadowing the film’s message. The decision to postpone the release, while pragmatic, reflects the challenges of addressing caste in a polarized climate. Mahadevan explained that the delay was to “clear controversies” and ensure audiences could watch the film peacefully, but it also highlights the pressure filmmakers face to navigate community sensitivities.
Lessons from the Phules: Owning the Past, Shaping the Future
The Phule movie controversy offers a chance to reflect on how India engages with its history. Reformers like the Phules didn’t shy away from uncomfortable truths—they confronted them head-on, enduring violence and ostracism to build a more just society. Their legacy challenges us to do the same: to own the sins of our ancestors, not to hide them.
As someone from a rural Indian background, I’ve seen caste dynamics play out in subtle ways—segregated seating at village gatherings, whispered prejudices in family conversations. Recognizing these facts is about progress, not assigning blame. Like the Phules, we must foster dialogue, not division, and cinema can be a powerful catalyst.
The CBFC and society at large must trust audiences to grapple with complex histories. By softening Phule’s narrative, we risk diluting its impact, robbing viewers of the chance to confront caste oppression’s legacy. As Mahadevan aptly put it, “We should respect the sensibilities and the sensitivities of the audience.” That respect includes trusting them to face the truth.
What’s Next for Phule?
As Phule prepares for its April 25, 2025, release, the filmmakers are engaging with media and communities to clarify misconceptions. Backed by Dancing Shiva Films, Kingsmen Productions, and Zee Studios, the film has garnered support from cinephiles, political leaders, and activists, who insist it be shown unedited.
More general conversations around censorship and artistic freedom have also been spurred by the controversy. Filmmakers like Anurag Kashyap and Anubhav Sinha have called for a more transparent CBFC process, while audiences express frustration over the challenges of making “truthful” films in India.
Ultimately, Phule’s success will depend on whether it can rise above the noise and inspire viewers to reflect on the Phules’ vision of equality. As India navigates its complex social landscape, the film could serve as a reminder that progress begins with facing the past, not erasing it.
Conclusion: A Legacy Worth Fighting For
The Phule movie controversy is a stark reminder that history isn’t just a story—it’s a battleground. Jyotirao and Savitribai Phule dared to challenge a system that dehumanized millions, and their legacy demands that we confront caste with the same courage. By delaying Phule and softening its truths, we risk betraying their vision. Let this film be a catalyst, not a casualty, of India’s journey toward equality. As we await its release, let’s ask ourselves: Are we ready to honor the Phules by facing our past, or will we let fear silence their story?
