New Delhi: Over three decades after its release, documentary filmmaker Anand Patwardhan’s national award-winning film, Father, Son and Holy War (1995), has been removed from YouTube after the platform flagged it as “violent content”.While Patwardhan appealed YouTube’s decision to take down the film, he said the platform rejected his review request within 15 minutes.“Youtube censorship again! Father, Son and Holy War is our 1995 film which got a U/A censor certificate, two national awards and the Supreme Court of India ordered Doordarshan to screen it at prime time in the public interest. Yet, 30 years later, Youtube has decided that it is too ‘violent’. It is a documentary that records the violence caused by religious fanatics and politicians vying for power. It is an expose of violence, not an endorsement of it. Shame on Youtube!!! Remove the censors, not good sense,” Patwardhan wrote in a post on Facebook.While the film has been removed from Patwardhan’s official YouTube channel anandverite, it is still available on another channel called Alukuchi Malukuchi.Interestingly, Youtube’s ‘violent or graphic content policy’ makes an exception for educational, documentary, scientific and artistic content. “Violent or gory content intended to shock or disgust viewers, or content encouraging others to commit violent acts, are not allowed on YouTube. In some cases, we may make exceptions for content with educational, documentary, scientific, or artistic context, including content that is in the public’s interest,” the policy reads. It is not clear why the exception has not been applied in this case.CBFC’s certification allowing unrestricted screening of the film. Photo: Screengrab from YouTube.“Mine are not fiction films made to titillate the audience with sex and violence but documentaries that faithfully record what is in front of the camera in real life. If there is any aftermath of violence shown in these films, it is to critique the perpetrators of this violence and those political leaders who inflame audiences by making hate speech. All the films advocate is justice, through awareness-building and non-violent resistance,” Patwardhan told The Wire.Shot in two parts and completed over seven years, the film examines the links between masculinity, religion and communal violence in India. It won the National Film Award for Best Investigative Documentary and Best Film on Social Issues in 1995. The film also received the International Jury Prize at the Bombay International Film Festival in 1996.Like many of Patwardhan’s films, Father, Son and Holy War went on to earn several international accolades, including the Special Jury Prize at the Yamagata International Documentary Film Festival in Japan (1995), the In the Spirit of Freedom Award at the Jerusalem International Film Festival in Israel (1995), the Special Jury Prize at the Vancouver International Film Festival (1995), and the Audience Award at the Sheffield International Documentary Festival (2012).Also read: Anand Patwardhan on How to Watch One’s Country DieCourt battleDespite the film’s critical acclaim, Doordarshan had initially refused to screen the film in 2001. Patwardhan challenged Doordarshan’s decision in the Bombay high court, which ruled in his favour later the same year. The national channel then moved the Supreme Court against the high court directive.In 2006, the apex court, while calling Doordarshan’s decision “highly irrational” and a “blatant violation of the right guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution”, ordered the channel to screen Patwardhan’s film within eight weeks of the ruling.“This documentary film in our considered opinion showcases a real picture of crime and violence against women and members of various religious groups perpetrated by politically motivated leaders for political, social and personal gains,” the Supreme Court had said at the time.Official poster of the Father, Son and Holy War. Photo: Wikimedia commons.“This film does not violate any constitutional provision, nor will it create any law and order problem as Doordarshan fears. It is seeking to portray certain evils prevalent in our society and is not seeking to cater to the prurient interests of any person. We have no hesitation in saying that this documentary film if judged in its entirety has a theme and message to convey and the view taken by the appellants that the film is not suitable for telecast is erroneous,” the bench said.Censorship, while unfortunate, is not unusual for a Patwardhan film. “Platforms like Netflix and Amazon have told me to my face that they would be thrown out of India if they showed anything close to the content and treatment that my films regularly contain,” he had said in a 2022 interview.In 2019, while stopping one step short of absolute censorship, YouTube had introduced an age restriction on his 1992 documentary Ram Ke Naam, despite the film having a ‘U’ certification from the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). This meant that the film – which looks at the Hindu right’s movement to demolish the Babri masjid and build a temple in its stead – could not be accessed by those under the age of 18. “Youtube is at it again, catering to Hindutva goons who want to kill all secular content. Latest is they have put an “age restriction” on my film Ram Ke Naam which has a ‘U’ certificate from CBFC, won a National Award and was shown at prime time (9 pm) on Doordarshan after the High Court ordered its telecast in 1996. The film is 28 years old!” the filmmaker had said at the time.While the removal of Father, Son and Holy War has been attributed to its alleged violation of YouTube’s community guidelines, it is not difficult to see this as part of a pattern where online content can be unilaterally blocked if it seems to unsettle the Modi government.‘Not the first time this has happened’“They tried it with Ram Ke Naam too but at that time there was an internal forum on which you could argue your case and present your point of view. I did this and got the decision overturned. Today there is no forum through which I am allowed to argue,” Patwardhan told The Wire.Apart from outrightly banning films, there are several other methods through which internet platforms restrict content, he said. “An often-used method is the ‘copyright’ strike. Several of my films, completely conceived and shot by me, were removed [from YouTube] after someone claimed a copyright strike. There is no mechanism in place to test this effectively or to examine if the claim is mischievous,” Patwardhan said.He also pointed out that much of his work that has been censored by YouTube had already obtained U certificates from the CBFC. “So YouTube has become a super-censor,” he said.“It is shocking that even on platforms that are non-governmental and supposedly non-ideological, censorship of a disturbing kind is being practiced,” he added.