The recent censorship and removal of the Indian film "Satluj" has brought renewed attention to the way Indian Prime Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government has exerted pressure on Bollywood, shaping its creative output over more than a decade in power. Experts suggest this pattern offers lessons for Hollywood and the United States, highlighting how governments can use a mix of punishment and incentives to influence the entertainment industry.
Director Honey Trehan's film "Punjab '95," later renamed "Satluj," faced significant obstacles. Despite a planned premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival, Trehan's producer reportedly received a threatening call from an individual affiliated with the Indian government. The message implied that if the film screened internationally, it would not be permitted for release in India. Ultimately, India's Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) demanded 127 cuts, including the removal of the word "Punjab" from a film about the state. After failing to secure a theatrical release, the film was made available on the streaming service Zee5. However, within days of its July 3 release, Zee5 removed "Satluj" for Indian viewers at the government's request, citing concerns about public order and national security. The film was subsequently removed from Zee5's international service, rendering it inaccessible.
Trehan expressed uncertainty about the specific reasons for the government's actions, beyond vague claims about threatening public safety and Indian sovereignty. The experience has shaken his faith in his country's democratic principles.
Since Modi's ascent to power in 2014, the Indian film industry, with a cultural reach comparable to Hollywood, has undergone a significant transformation. Once a space that embraced Indian multiculturalism and secularism, it has increasingly reflected the ideology of the right-wing government. Films that promote Hindu narratives and cast Muslims in negative roles have become more prevalent, while those addressing politically sensitive topics are becoming rarer. This shift appears to be a deliberate strategy by the Modi government to reward filmmakers aligned with its agenda and to suppress dissenting voices. Filmmakers who speak out publicly, like Trehan, report a climate of self-censorship, where actors who express opposition to the government face difficulties finding work.
Sadanand Dhume, an expert on Indian politics at the Council on Foreign Relations, notes that the United States is witnessing an early stage of the mechanisms used to capture and politicize institutions, similar to what has occurred in India. While Hollywood's free speech protections are more robust than those in India, the Indian experience offers a model for how a determined government can exert influence.
Historical Context of Censorship
Censorship in Indian cinema is not a new phenomenon. The CBFC, established in 1951, has the authority to block film releases if they are deemed contrary to national sovereignty, state security, friendly relations with foreign countries, public order, decency, or morality. While this power was abused in the past, particularly during Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's Emergency period from 1975-1977, instances of censorship declined by the 1990s.
Under Modi, however, censorship has been revived and expanded. Dhume states that the present situation is worse than in the past. Evidence suggests a growing government grip on Hindi-language filmmaking. The politicization of the CBFC is a key factor, with its current chairman being a vocal supporter of Prime Minister Modi. The government has also weakened checks on its power, such as eliminating a special appellate board in 2021 that allowed filmmakers to appeal CBFC rulings, forcing them into a slow and expensive litigation process.
Journalist Saurav Das described the CBFC as having become "less a certifying body and more an arm of state-sponsored and sentiment-driven censorship." Beyond the CBFC, other government agencies, like the tax authority, have also been reportedly politicized and used to pressure filmmakers. Law enforcement has also been employed; the arrest of Muslim megastar Shah Rukh Khan's son on drug charges, widely seen as retaliation for his outspokenness on anti-Muslim violence, is cited as an example.
Furthermore, Modi's party has cultivated an online base that directs threats and harassment toward dissenting figures in the film industry. The government has also incentivized the production of ideologically aligned films. "The Kashmir Files" (2022), a film that presented a nationalist narrative about the killings of Hindus in Jammu and Kashmir, received significant promotional support from the ruling party, including tax exemptions and mandated viewings for government employees, becoming a box office success.
This success has inspired similar films, such as "Dhurandhar" (2025) and its sequel, which are described as overtly propagandistic and feature pro-Modi messaging. The result has been a trend toward profit-driven self-censorship, with studios increasingly favoring jingoistic content over controversial themes. While independent films and non-Hindi language cinema (like Malayalam and Tamil industries) have shown more resistance, the dominant Hindi film industry, commonly referred to as Bollywood, appears to have largely capitulated, amplifying the government's narrative.
Lessons for the United States
The transformation of Bollywood offers two main lessons for democracies, particularly the United States. First, free expression in major industries relies on maintaining nonpartisan leadership within powerful government agencies. Modi's administration has allegedly staffed key agencies with political allies, enabling significant pressure on studios and individuals. Second, cultural industries, regardless of their public image, are primarily profit-driven. When financial incentives favor government-aligned content, studios are likely to shift their output accordingly, as seen with the success of nationalist films in India.
While the United States has stronger legal protections for free speech and its institutions are not as deeply politicized as India's under Modi, parallels exist. The Trump administration has been criticized for attempting to undermine the independence of agencies like the Justice Department and the FCC and has been accused of attempting to weaponize them against entertainment figures. There have also been instances where American companies have appeared to yield to government pressure, such as CBS's decision to cancel a show by a Trump critic during a period of FCC regulatory review for its parent company.
While the American entertainment industry has not shown a mass shift toward pro-Trump propaganda, and critical content remains popular, the mechanisms for political pressure are present. The Indian experience suggests that these lines of attack, even if currently underdeveloped in the U.S., could evolve into more serious threats to creative freedom. Studying how these tactics have been employed in places like India is crucial for future-proofing American democracy.