A film has become the centre of a major political debate in Punjab and the controversy is around Satluj, a film starring Diljit Dosanjh and the film was released on the OTT platform ZEE5 but was removed within 48 hours, soon after, political leaders, social media users, and members of the public started debating why it was taken down.
The issue has now gone far beyond a film and it has reopened discussions about Punjab's militancy period, human rights, police action, Khalistan, and the state's political future as the 2027 Punjab Assembly elections move closer.
Punjab's ruling AAP government has alleged that Union Minister Ravneet Singh Bittu played a role in getting the film removed from ZEE5 however, Bittu has strongly denied the allegation.
According to Bittu, the government has no control over OTT platforms and said the makers of the film removed it themselves after getting the attention and publicity they wanted, he also rejected the claim that he had any role in the film's removal and described the allegation as politically motivated.
The controversy became even bigger after Bittu made several strong remarks about actor and singer Diljit Dosanjh, Bittu said Diljit "only thinks about money" and also called him "an impostor" and claimed that Diljit was misleading Punjab while living in Los Angeles, apart from his comments about Diljit, Bittu also raised questions about the film itself.
According to Bittu, Satluj presents only one side of Punjab's militancy period and said the film focuses on alleged excesses by the state but does not show the suffering of people who were killed or affected by militant violence, Bittu argued that Punjab's history should be shown completely and not partially and during the discussion, Bittu also defended former Punjab Chief Minister Beant Singh.
He said Beant Singh took charge at a time when Punjab was facing serious violence and according to Bittu, the state's first priority at that time was to restore law and order and said Punjab deserves to know the whole truth about that period instead of only one version of history, another important part of Bittu's remarks was about human rights activist Jaswant Singh Khalra.
Bittu questioned the popular narrative around Khalra's work and asked that if the government was suppressing every voice during that period, then how was Khalra able to continue his work and travel abroad to raise the issue internationally and this statement added another sensitive subject to the ongoing debate, the discussion later moved towards the issue of Khalistan. Bittu also questioned people who are supporting the film and asked whether they support Khalistan today and at the same time, he said that militancy has no religion, his remarks led to further discussions on social media and in political circles.
Bittu also challenged Diljit Dosanjh and the film's director, Honey Trehan and asked whether they would also make a film about the police officers who were killed during Punjab's militancy period and according to Bittu, the sacrifices of those police personnel should also be shown if films are being made on that period of history, after Bittu's statements, several right-wing groups and many social media accounts started sharing another claim related to Punjab's militancy.
These posts claimed that around 36,000 Punjabis, especially Hindus, were killed or displaced during the years of militancy and they argued that these victims and their families have received very little attention in films and public discussions and these claims were widely shared online following the controversy, meanwhile, the AAP government in Punjab continued to allege that Bittu influenced the removal of Satluj from ZEE5.
Bittu has rejected this allegation and said it is only an attempt to gain political advantage and he has maintained that neither he nor the central government had any role in the platform's decision and as the debate continued, the controversy expanded beyond the film itself and it is now about much larger issues linked to Punjab's past and present and the discussion includes militancy, Khalistan, police action, human rights, Sikh-Hindu relations, and different interpretations of Punjab's history, the timing of the controversy has also attracted attention.
The film became a political issue at a time when political activity in Punjab is expected to increase before the 2027 Assembly elections, because of this, many people see the debate as more than just a disagreement over a film and supporters of different political parties, social media users, and members of the public continue to express different views about the controversy.
Some believe the film highlights important human rights issues while others agree with Bittu's argument that the story should also include the victims of militant violence and the role played by security forces during that period and these are different opinions expressed during the debate, and the controversy continues to generate discussion across Punjab.
One thing, however, remains clear, Punjab suffered heavily during the years of militancy and thousands of families experienced violence, loss, fear, and pain and the events of that period continue to remain emotional and sensitive for many people even today and the ongoing controversy over Satluj has once again brought those memories into public discussion.
Whether people agree with Ravneet Singh Bittu, Diljit Dosanjh, or any other side in the debate, the issue has shown how deeply Punjab's history still affects public life and politics and as political discussions continue ahead of the 2027 Assembly elections, the debate around Satluj is no longer only about one film, it has become a wider conversation about history, memory, justice, and how Punjab's past should be remembered.
Many voices continue to disagree on different parts of that history, but one message is shared by many across the political and social spectrum: Punjab has already paid a very heavy price for conflict and the state needs peace, healing, and unity instead of another cycle of division.