Why Phule movie Faces Limited Theatrical Release: A Reflection on Society, Caste, and Government Priorities

Why Phule movie Faces Limited Theatrical Release: Introduction

On April 25, 2025, the biographical film “Phule,” directed by Anant Mahadevan and starring Pratik Gandhi and Patralekhaa, hit theaters after a tumultuous journey marked by controversy and a delayed release. The film, which celebrates the lives of Jyotirao and Savitribai Phule—pioneering social reformers who fought caste discrimination and championed women’s education in 19th-century India—has struggled to secure widespread theatrical screenings.

Reports suggest that it is not being shown in approximately 90% of theaters, a stark contrast to its historical and cultural significance. This article delves into the reasons behind this limited release, exploring whether societal resistance to confronting historical caste-based atrocities and the government’s apparent reluctance to promote the film reflect deeper issues in India’s social and political landscape.

The Controversy That Shaped “Phule’s” Release

“Phule” was initially slated for release on April 11, 2025, but faced significant pushback from certain Brahmin groups who alleged that the film portrayed their community in a negative light. The objections centered on the film’s depiction of historical caste discrimination, a core aspect of the Phules’ reformist work. Anand Dave, President of the Brahmin Federation, claimed the film promoted casteism, prompting protests and discussions with political figures like former state minister Chhagan Bhujbal.

The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) recommended several changes, such as changing the phrase “3,000 saal purani ghulami” to “kai saal purani ghulami” and eliminating words like “Mahar,” “Mang,” and “Peshwai” . Director Anant Mahadevan, himself a Brahmin, described the controversy as “unnecessary and exaggerated,” asserting that the film aimed to inspire change rather than malign any community. To mitigate tensions, the filmmakers postponed the release to April 25, hoping to clear the air and ensure a smoother rollout.

This controversy set the stage for the film’s limited theatrical presence, as theaters likely hesitated to screen a film embroiled in such a sensitive debate.

Limited Theatrical Availability: Why So Few Screens?

The claim that “Phule” is not being shown in 90% of theaters is supported by anecdotal evidence, such as an IMDb user review stating, “many cinema halls did not show this”. While exact figures on theater coverage are unavailable, the film’s box office performance provides clues. On its opening day, “Phule” collected a mere ₹0.15 crore nett, one of the lowest figures for a Hindi film with a reported budget of ₹29 crore. By the second day, the total India net collection was only ₹0.64 crore.

Several factors likely contributed to this limited release:

1. Controversy and Fear of Backlash: The protests from Brahmin groups and the resulting media attention may have made theater chains wary of screening “Phule,” fearing protests or disruptions at their venues.
2. Commercial Viability Concerns: Theaters prioritize films with strong commercial prospects. Given the controversy and the niche appeal of a historical biography, distributors may have allocated fewer screens to “Phule” in favor of more mainstream releases.
3. Societal Sensitivities: The film’s focus on caste discrimination and the Phules’ challenge to upper-caste dominance may have been perceived as too provocative for a broad audience, especially in a climate increasingly focused on religious and caste-based identities.

The following table summarizes the box office performance of “Phule” compared to other films released around the same time, highlighting its limited reach:

The stark contrast in collections suggests that “Phule” was either shown on significantly fewer screens or failed to attract audiences, likely a combination of both.

Societal Readiness to Confront Historical Atrocities

The backlash against “Phule” raises a critical question: Is Indian society ready to face the harsh realities of its past, particularly the caste-based atrocities perpetuated by upper Hindu classes, including Brahmins? The Phules’ work was revolutionary, establishing 18 schools for girls and marginalized communities and challenging systemic inequalities. Yet, the objections to the film suggest that some segments of society remain uncomfortable with narratives that highlight these historical truths.

The controversy reflects a broader societal tension. While India has made progress in education and social reform, caste-based discrimination persists, as evidenced by ongoing social and political debates. The protests against “Phule” indicate a reluctance to acknowledge the role of upper-caste communities in historical oppression, preferring instead to maintain a sanitized version of history. This resistance is not unique to “Phule”; other films addressing caste issues, such as “Article 15,” have faced similar challenges, though they often gain traction through critical acclaim.

AAP politician Sanjay Singh was a prominent voice in favor of the movie, calling the resistance a “insult to Dalits and the marginalized” and calling for an unedited release. Singh also emphasized the film’s significance amid the festivities of Ambedkar’s birth anniversary. This underscores the film’s potential to inspire dialogue about caste and equality, yet its limited reach suggests that such conversations remain contentious.

Government’s Role: Selective Support for Narratives

The government’s stance on “Phule” is less explicit but can be inferred from its actions—or lack thereof. Unlike “The Kashmir Files” and “Kerala Story,” which were declared tax-free in several BJP-ruled states, “Phule” has not received similar endorsements. These films, often seen as aligning with certain political and ideological narratives, benefited from government support that boosted their visibility and accessibility. The absence of such support for “Phule” raises questions about whether the government is reluctant to promote narratives that challenge traditional social structures or highlight historical injustices faced by marginalized communities.

The CBFC’s involvement in suggesting edits to “Phule” indicates some level of government oversight, though Mahadevan clarified that these changes were minor and not the cause of the delay. However, the broader political climate, where films critiquing caste dynamics face scrutiny while others are actively promoted, suggests a selective approach to cinematic narratives. Filmmaker Anurag Kashyap’s criticism of the CBFC and the “rigged system” allowing fringe groups access to unreleased films further fuels this perception.

The following table compares the government’s treatment of “Phule” with other films:

This disparity suggests that films aligning with certain political agendas receive preferential treatment, while those addressing caste and social reform face hurdles.

Broader Implications for Indian Cinema and Society

The limited release of “Phule” is not an isolated incident but part of a broader trend in Indian cinema. Mainstream Bollywood often shies away from caste-conscious narratives, favoring profit-driven films that reinforce social elites’ perspectives. The effect and reach of films like “Phule” that try to question these conventions are constrained by opposition from institutional censors as well as from society groups.

The Phules’ legacy is celebrated across India, with calls for them to be awarded the Bharat Ratna, the country’s highest civilian honor. Yet, the struggle to bring their story to the big screen underscores the challenges of using cinema as a tool for social change. The film’s positive reviews, with netizens praising its historical significance, indicate an audience for such narratives, but its limited screenings hinder its potential to spark meaningful dialogue.

Conclusion

The limited theatrical release of “Phule” is a multifaceted issue rooted in societal sensitivities, commercial considerations, and political priorities. The controversy sparked by Brahmin groups’ objections likely deterred theaters from screening the film, reflecting a broader societal reluctance to confront historical caste-based atrocities. The government’s lack of support, compared to its promotion of films like “The Kashmir Files” and “Kerala Story,” suggests a selective approach to cinematic narratives, prioritizing those that align with certain ideological goals over those that challenge social hierarchies.

“Phule” is more than a film; it is a mirror reflecting India’s ongoing struggle with its past and present. Its limited visibility underscores the challenges of using cinema to address uncomfortable truths, but it also highlights the resilience of filmmakers like Anant Mahadevan who dare to tell these stories. As India navigates its complex social and political landscape, the fate of “Phule” serves as a reminder that the fight for equality and historical truth remains unfinished. Encouraging wider screenings and open discussions about such films could pave the way for a more inclusive and reflective society.