Indian politics and the entertainment industry have always had a deep, tangled relationship. However, when films touch upon sensitive political figures or ideologies, they often spark controversy, especially if they don’t align with public or political expectations. A recent example is Kangana Ranaut’s film Emergency. The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) suggested a few cuts, a decision that has reportedly upset the filmmaker. What’s interesting is that Kangana herself is a Member of Parliament for the ruling party, and the CBFC is perceived to be controlled by the party’s sympathizers. This raises an important question: Why isn’t the ruling party backing its own MP in this instance? Could the upcoming assembly elections and concerns about distancing key voter groups be a factor?
One of the primary objections to the film has come from a section of the Sikh community, who have expressed concerns about how historical Sikh figures and their community are portrayed. With significant Sikh populations in crucial states like Haryana and Jammu & Kashmir, the BJP may be hesitant to endorse the film fully, especially after the backlash they received during the farmers’ protests—a movement that Kangana publicly criticized. This situation presents a delicate balancing act for the party, as openly supporting the film might risk further damage to their standing among key voter groups.
Historically, films in India have faced censorship, not just from official bodies like the CBFC, but also from political leaders who have the power to either promote or block a film’s release. For instance, Amitabh Bachchan’s Sarkar was heavily promoted as being inspired by The Godfather, but it was widely believed to be a portrayal of a powerful political family in Maharashtra. The film only received the green light after the families patriarch approved it.
This isn’t a new phenomenon. Political censorship in Indian cinema has long been a reflection of the nation’s socio-political climate. Gulzar’s Aandhi (1975) faced a ban because the lead character was seen as resembling then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, leading to accusations of character assassination. The film was only re-released after Gandhi’s government lost power. Similarly, Kissa Kursi Ka (1978), a satirical film critical of the Emergency era, faced intense suppression, with prints allegedly destroyed on the orders of Sanjay Gandhi.
The 2016 film Udta Punjab stimulated major controversy in Punjab due to its depiction of drug addiction and political issues. The CBFC demanded 89 cuts, sparking a legal battle that ended with the Bombay High Court ruling in favor of the filmmakers, allowing the film to release with minimal changes. Despite being leaked before its release, Udta Punjab performed well, earning nearly ₹100 crore, with Alia Bhatt winning the Filmfare Award for Best Actress.
Interestingly, while Mahatma Gandhi frequently appears in films, it’s Indira Gandhi who has become a prominent figure in politically charged cinema. Films like Aandhi, Nasbandi, Kissa Kursi Ka, Indu Sarkar, and Kranti Ke Tirange centered on her often faced censorship or agitation. However, while many films critique Mahatma Gandhi’s ideology of non-violence, they rarely face censorship, showing the enduring legacy and respect for India’s tallest leader.
The case of Emergency seems to be following a similar path, although with a twist. While the ruling party appears cautious about fully supporting the film due to electoral concerns, the opposition is keen to see it released, perhaps hoping it will spark a debate about the ruling party’s stance on free speech and artistic expression. This unusual dynamic shows how political affiliations can sometimes dictate the fate of films in India, often depending on who stands to gain or lose from their release.
(The writer is a communication professional. Views personal.)
Very few directors in Bollywood have the guts to show politics the way they do in Hollywood.