Three days after the sudden removal of Diljit Dosanjh’s film Satluj from streaming platform ZEE5, the controversy has taken a sharp political turn. The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) has accused Union Minister of State Ravneet Singh Bittu of influencing the Centre to block the film, alleging that the portrayal of his grandfather, former Punjab Chief Minister Beant Singh, was the real reason behind its takedown.
The allegation was made by AAP General Secretary and Adviser to Punjab’s Tourism and Cultural Affairs Department, Deepak Bali, who claimed that the film contained nothing that could be considered objectionable to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Instead, he argued that the story presents the Congress in an unfavorable light, making the decision to remove it even more puzzling.
Speaking from New York, Bali said that after watching the film, he found no justification for stopping its release. “In fact, the film portrays the Congress in a poor light, so there was no reason for it to be stopped. That leads me to two conclusions,” he said.
He went on to allege that the Centre’s action suggested political coordination between the Congress and the BJP on certain issues. According to Bali, the more significant explanation was that Ravneet Singh Bittu used his influence with the Union government because the film depicts the role of his grandfather, Beant Singh, during Punjab’s violent years in the 1980s and 1990s.
“The film depicts the role of his grandfather and former Chief Minister Beant Singh during Punjab’s dark era of terrorism, which may not have been acceptable to him,” Bali alleged.
The controversy surrounding Satluj stems from its portrayal of the life and work of human rights activist Jaswant Singh Khalra, who became internationally known for exposing alleged extrajudicial killings and secret cremations in Punjab during the insurgency period. Khalra’s investigation into human rights violations eventually led to his own abduction and murder, a case that remains one of the most significant human rights chapters in modern Punjab’s history.
The film also recreates the assassination of former Chief Minister Beant Singh, who was killed in a suicide bomb attack at the Punjab Civil Secretariat in Chandigarh in 1995. While supporters of the film argue that it presents historical events as part of Khalra’s story, critics have claimed that certain scenes appear to glorify the assassination, a charge that has fueled the ongoing debate over its content.
Bali insisted that suppressing the film would prevent younger generations from understanding one of Punjab’s most difficult periods. He said the party would formally approach the Centre, urging it to reverse the decision and allow the film to be available for public viewing.
“We will write to the Centre stating that a film portraying human rights violations in Punjab should not be stopped at the behest of leaders such as Bittu. The younger generation must know the reality of that era and how activists like Jaswant Singh Khalra sacrificed their lives while exposing the issue of extrajudicial killings,” he said.
So far, Ravneet Singh Bittu has not publicly responded to the allegations made by the AAP leader. The Union government has also not issued any detailed explanation regarding the removal of the film from ZEE5.
The controversy has intensified because Satluj disappeared from the streaming platform just two days after its release, prompting widespread criticism from filmmakers, writers, political leaders and free speech advocates. The sudden removal has reignited questions about artistic freedom, censorship and the limits of political influence over digital platforms.
Earlier, the film’s co-writer Niren Bhatt questioned the decision by asking why The Kashmir Files was allowed to remain available while Satluj was removed. His remarks sparked fresh debate over whether films dealing with politically sensitive historical events are being treated differently depending on their subject matter.
Despite its removal from the OTT platform, Satluj continues to circulate online. Many viewers downloaded the film before it was taken down, and copies are now being widely shared through WhatsApp, Facebook and other social media platforms, allowing the film to reach audiences even without an official streaming release.
The latest political accusations have added another layer to an already heated controversy that now extends beyond cinema into questions of historical memory, political accountability and freedom of expression. As demands for transparency grow, the absence of an official explanation from either the government or the streaming platform continues to fuel speculation over what led to the film’s sudden disappearance.