It is final. Satluj, now being screened across the villages of Punjab, is officially banned. Director Honey Trehan was 42 years old – the same age as his protagonist, Jaswant Singh Khalra – when he immersed himself in documenting the abduction and killing of the human rights activist. In an exclusive interview with Harinder Baweja, the first after an inter-departmental committee canned the movie, Trehan opens up on the four-year-long battle he had to wage within the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) before being finally handed a ‘death certificate’. Edited excerpts:It’s official. Satluj has been grounded, domestically and internationally. You must be a very disappointed man. Can you share your feelings with us? I am very excited, actually. At least this film could release officially for two and a half days and people could watch it. For any filmmaker, it’s very important that his work be seen. The response blew my mind. I never expected this kind of response, and though I was confident and knew that the film and its message were very important, the love and appreciation I got is beyond my expectation.I don’t see the film’s fate as a ‘banned movie’ because that goes against freedom of speech and democracy. I’m only disappointed that pirated versions are being watched. I never thought that Satluj would become a movement so quickly and that people would start downloading it. The love, appreciation and encouragement are overwhelming.According to the inter-departmental committee comprising officials from the ministries of home, law, defence and women and child development, amongst others, the movie goes against the national interest and threatens India’s sovereignty. How do you respond to that? I don’t buy it. I think we are a strong nation, a big nation. And let me tell you, my film was cleared by the law. Understand that when a filmmaker brings a script to a producer, he first hears the storyline. Ronnie Screwvala loved this script, which was then sent to law firms. And my film was cleared by lawyers! The producer comes on board to invest the money because the script has been legally cleared.But those are private law firms, right?But they are big law firms and their go ahead gives the producer the confidence to put in the money, because the investment is huge. And let me tell you about what happened when he went to the Bombay High Court (after the Central Board for Film Certification kept suggesting cuts). In the second-last hearing, the lordship mentioned publicly that he does not think this film should have a single cut.Only one hearing was left and the judge wanted to finish the matter the very next day. The CBFC requested that it be postponed for a few days. They knew, from the judge’s responses, that they were losing the battle. And then the pressure came on Ronnie Screwvala. He was called to Delhi, where he was told to do an out-of-court settlement and withdraw the [case related to the] film from the high court.It is not easy to fight against the establishment. Ronnie was asked to withdraw the film from the Toronto International Film Festival as well.Who called Ronnie Screwvala? That Ronnie will never tell me.Obviously, it was somebody from within the government. Yeah, absolutely. And then, because at that time, the CBFC had recommended 21 cuts in the film, I was like, okay, we will make those cuts, but let the film release at the Toronto International Film Festival, because that did not need any certificate.But Ronnie said, ‘No, Honey, you don’t understand, the pressure is way too much.’ He said, you’ve made a beautiful film, let us adjust. We then submitted the film back to the censor board with the 21 cuts. Ronnie thought we would get the clearance but the board kept suggesting more cuts. From 21, it finally went up to 127. I was like, what the hell is going on? And how do I save my film?In between all this, someone promised Ronnie that the film would get cleared because it would be watched by the chairman [of CBFC].But the blows kept coming – 65 cuts, then 85 cuts. The Revising Committee watched the film seven times but legally, as per the Cinematograph Act, the Revising Committee can only watch a film twice.After I made the 85 cuts, I knew the film was getting cut drastically and I didn’t know how I was going to save its narrative. All these things were happening. The chairman was supposed to watch the film but nothing happened for a month.After a month, the CBFC’s lawyer sent a letter… the final cuts now stood at 127. I was like, I’m not gonna do it. Ronnie said, ‘Honey, I have to release the film.’ I said, ‘Ronnie, if your conscience allows, you can get it edited by somebody [else]; you can release the film… I know your money is riding on the movie.’Who was the CBFC chairman at the time? Prasoon Joshi.He is a part of the film industry. He should have been on the side of the filmmakers, one would think…Everybody wishes so, but he [Prasoon Joshi] disappeared [for a month] and Ronnie was totally shaken up. We had made 85 cuts with the hope and promise that we would get the certificate.I was clear… I’ll make 150 cuts if it was coming to me from a court of law. But if it was coming to me from some individual seeking to support a politics and an agenda that he has in mind, then I’m not gonna make those changes. I’m not cut out for this.So then Ronnie, who is also in love with the film, tried to reach out to the people for one year, but there was no response.Diljit Dosanjh also met Prime Minister Modi, while you were making representations to CBFC…I never asked him about it. You don’t meet the prime minister and say, sir, please help release my movie. I would not do it.Can you tell me what parts they wanted cut? What were their sensitivities at the CBFC, their main objections? And what seemed to be the agenda behind increasing the number of cuts?I could not understand this, because I could not see any legitimate reason to make those changes. They wanted to remove ‘Punjab’. The CBFC said, instead of saying Punjab, why don’t you say yahan (here) and wahan (there). They didn’t want us to say ‘Punjab Police’.But the policemen are Sikhs and the point is that Jaswant Singh Khalra is central to the movie… That is precisely what I said. Which other state has sardar [Sikh] policemen? I told them, tell me the name of the state and I’ll write that.We were told we can’t say Delhi, desh (country), system, state… They said don’t use the words extrajudicial, judiciary, law… We were even told not to name Indira Gandhi.There is a line in the movie which says, Indira Gandhi ko marrey 11 saal ho chukkey hain aur Punjab sarkar ko banney teen… (It is 11 years since Indira Gandhi died and three years since the new government came to power in Punjab).This is factual, right? Mrs Gandhi was killed in 1984 and Satluj, which was then named Punjab 95, is set in the year 1995 – the year Khalra was abducted and killed.I was like, there is an entire film about Indira Gandhi called Emergency and I cannot mention her even in one line… It was exasperating. They even asked us to remove Gurbani [word of the guru, or chants in Sikh spiritual tradition composed by the Sikh gurus or saints] from the entire film.But Gurbani evokes peace…. Whenever I used to ask the reason, they said no, don’t ask questions, do what we are telling you. They also had a problem with the figure of 25,000 disappearances. They said you cannot name the crematoriums or talk about any crematorium, be it Durgiana, Patti or Tarn Taran.But Satluj is based on a real person who was abducted and killed. There is a CBI case and convictions of policemen that go all the way up to the Supreme Court…I told them the same thing and they said ‘Why do you want to bring back something that happened 30 years ago?’ What does one say in response to this? They didn’t want us to show the Tiranga [Indian flag] or Canada’s flag!But the Indian flag belongs as much to Punjab as it does to any other state. That is what I said: that you don’t consider Punjab to be a part of India! He said, don’t ask or tell me all these things. I then asked the then CEO. I asked him, ‘Sir, have you watched the film?’ And he said, ‘No, but I am planning to.’ I told him, ‘Sir, please watch the original.’ And he said, ‘No, what if I like the film…’How difficult is it to be a film director at a time when propaganda movies are endorsed by political heavyweights and biopics like Satluj, which focus attention on extra judicial killings and human right violations are banned?My film does not do anything in favour of the government. I was categorically told in one of the meetings – ‘Bloody good film, but what is in it for us?’ Earlier, they [CBFC] were not even ready to believe this film is based on a true story. I said, give me a week and I returned to Amritsar and submitted 1,800-odd pages of research. They watched the film then and I said, ‘So now do you know this is a true story?’The revising committee chief said, ‘Yes, it’s a true story, Mr Trehan. I buy that point, but can you please tell me who speaks the truth so loudly in today’s time?’Let me tell you another thing. One of the officials who was negotiating with me for the cuts wanted Trilokpuri [the locality in Delhi where Sikhs were burnt alive in the 1984 carnage after Indira Gandhi’s assassination] to be renamed ‘Khanpuri’. I told him it is central to the movie, and he said, ‘Kya farak parta heh, Khanpuri kar de na.’ The [anti-]Muslim agenda was being pushed. It was so casual for them.Critics of the movie, including from the media, have raised the point that how did you arrive at the number of 25,000 killings? That is a very good point. It is there in so many public documents! The number is in the public domain. Khalra’s speech, which is available on YouTube for everybody to watch, mentions an estimate of 25,000. I took it into account because it is a film on Khalra and the speech has been in the public domain for decades.But did not the CBI put the figure at 2,000-plus in its investigation?No, no, no. I don’t have that information. And just one thing, Khalra always said the figure was an estimated 25,000. Right? Even the advocate, Rajwinder Singh Bains, put the figure at 17,000 to 18,000 plus.The other criticism is that Khalra was a supporter of Jarnail Singh Bhindrawale, a zealot, who was at the core of the very dark phase of the militancy years, and that Khalra glorified the assassins of Indira Gandhi. Your film has not mentioned either…It’s a very subjective thing. My film is not a political film; it is not a scrutiny on somebody’s personal character. My film is only about human rights. What a common man stood for, and what his fight was, and what happened to that person.In the entire film, I’m not taking the name of any political party. I knew very well that he [Khalra] was the general secretary of the human rights wing of the Akali Dal but I never mentioned that. His visiting card mentioned that, but I removed it because I did not want to give any political colour to the movie.If Khalra was a criminal, if he was a Khalistani, then let us turn to what the Punjab Police said in its testimony. They said that there was not one complaint against Khalra: no FIR, no criminal case was registered against him.For me, Khalra is a person who was clean in government records, a person who stood against the system. The CBI found that he was abducted and killed and it found that its own people [policemen] were guilty. I think my film also shows the Indian Constitution in great light.But are you not personally uncomfortable that he glorified the assassins of Indira Gandhi? No, I don’t think he glorified them. I have done a lot of research. And if he is calling Bhindranwale a sant (saint), is it a crime? Eighty per cent of Punjab calls Bhindranwale a sant.My job was to narrate the battle he fought and how hard he fought for [victims of] extrajudicial killings. I have tried to tell that story with utmost dignity and respect.There is also criticism that I have not spoken about the other side. Whoever wants to make a film on the other side is absolutely free to. It’s a free country, free nation, free speech. Why are you telling me? And to be clear, my principal characters do speak about the other side.If you remember, when Arjun Rampal’s character comes to Sugga for the interrogation, Sugga tells him, ‘Hamari ek goli kitni golion kay jawab mein chalti hain, woh tujhey bahar say pata nahi chaleyga Yeh woh log hain jo pakdey nahi jaatey, jinkay leye hummey army bulani parti hai, taupey bhi kam pad jati hain…’ (You don’t know how many shots are fired at us before we fire back. We are dealing with people who don’t get caught, against whom we have had to call in the army, against whom even canon fire would fail.)The very politicians who say, ‘Punjab kay Hinduon, kab jagogey?’ (When will the Hindus of Punjab awaken?) are deaf and dumb. They need to watch Satluj again and again. In the movie, when the new chief minister arrives, Bitta (K.P.S. Gill) tells him that militancy has been eliminated in Punjab, and that it is he who did this.And the chief minister responds, ‘You have done the right thing, but now let bureaucracy take over, because I don’t want this state to be a police state anymore.’Everything is being said clearly, but I am not a filmmaker who beats the drum. I have a certain dignity in telling my stories and I will tell the story the way I feel like. That’s my expression as a filmmaker.Let us turn to Zee5. How did the platform agree to show Satluj? Its political affiliation is no secret.To be very honest, this information was given to me. After the movie was first named Ghallughara (massacre), I had two other names in mind, Punjab 95 and Satluj. OTT does not need a CBFC certificate. I found the title Satluj very poetic from the very beginning. All I said is, I am against any cuts and I was told that Zee5 was fine with it.Can you explain why a movie that depicts a political era that does not involve the BJP is being blocked? The response of those watching the film is that those dark times should not return. That is my understanding and learning too. I think the film has brought Punjab together. Where are the law and order problems that CBFC talked about? When thousands of people are sitting in one screening and watching a film, there is no casteism, no jaat-paat, no rich and poor. Hindus and Sikhs are watching the film together.The entire state of Punjab is coming together to watch this film because they feel that somebody is speaking about their pain. Satluj works as a balm for their wounds. But it has been banned because their politics is centered on divide and rule. They probably fear the togetherness because then it becomes a case of, how do we sustain our politics…The screenings also have a political angle because the Akali Dal is behind a lot of them The Congress has also announced places where they are holding screenings. There are so many people, the BJP is doing this screening.Are you sure about this… the BJP organising screenings?Many BJP leaders have said that they don’t have a problem with the film. BJP workers must be watching the screenings.Satluj was a very passionate film for you. The family agreed to share their story, their files, their documents. Do you think you owe them an apology after the ban?Apology? To the contrary, Khalra’s family calls me and tells me, Honey, don’t be disheartened. Even before starting the film, they had told me it was not going to be easy and that there are chances the film would never see the light of day, keeping the politics of our country in mind.Some critics have called my film a propaganda movie. I’m happy to say okay, fine. If you’re saying it’s a propaganda film – let the propaganda film be released. Do we not release other propaganda films? If the other propaganda films can release, why not this? Let the audience decide, right?The Satluj ban is a chilling message for the film industry. What are your friends and colleagues now saying? I’m getting overwhelming responses from the entire fraternity. The film has really touched them, moved them. Filmmakers I have admired but never met have been calling me. Their emotions and feelings are very rewarding for me.I’ve heard from Imtiaz Ali, Ram Gopal Verma, Anurag Basu, Saeed Mirza and a few others… Through you, I would really like to request the government and say, 31 years ago, the Centre played a role to get justice for Jaswant Singh Khalra. After 31 years, we are at the same stage. Please be concerned about the matter and do justice to the film and to Khalra.Does it feel sometimes like Khalra has been killed for a second time now? Absolutely, but the flow of the Satluj cannot be stopped. It took 31 years for Khalra to come out alive from Satluj. Khalra has been abducted again, but he cannot ever be killed. It’s not just about the human body, it’s about the thought behind it.What next for Honey Trehan or have you not overcome the disappointment yet?I’m doing a biopic on Shiv Kumar Batalvi.I don’t hold on to disappointments because I’ve had the best of the masters, be it Vishal Bhardwaj, Ronnie or my teacher, Barry John, who got me into direction. One has to keep moving. Bashir Badr said, ‘Hum bhi dariya hain, humme apna hunar malum hain, jis taraf bhi chal padengay, rasta ho jayega…’ (I too am a river and I know my skill. Whichever way I start to flow, a path I will make.)Final question: any plans to join politics?Haven’t I been pulled in already… I want to focus on my films and am really excited about the stories I want to tell.(All photos courtesy Honey Trehan)Harinder Baweja is a journalist and author of the recently published book, They Will Shoot You Madam: My Life Through Conflict.