Earlier this month, during an Instagram Live session, Diljit Dosanjh said he was unaware of any protest and urged his fans to keep him out of such matters.
Even as it sharpened its political criticism of the Centre, the AAP government also sought to distance itself from the controversy over the community screenings of Satluj across Punjab.
Diljit Dosanjh-starrer Satluj doesn’t blame any political party or individual politicians. We only know the demographic in Punjab it’s bound to trigger the most.
Satluj, based on human rights activist Jaswant Singh Khalra, was to be screened following demand from the Sikh community. DSGMC says it will now organise screenings elsewhere in Delhi.
Screenings of Diljit-starrer Satluj, in villages across Punjab, have no single organiser. In some villages, sports clubs have pooled resources to arrange LED walls and sound systems.
Government officials told PTI that the film's makers had applied for CBFC certification in 2022 but did not accept the 127 suggested cuts and instead released the film online.
After Diljit Dosanjh-starrer taken off air, ThePrint revisits life of activist who exposed alleged illegal cremations in Punjab and whose murder led to SC upholding life terms for 4 cops.
A look at the latest data from the Ministry of Commerce & Industry shows imports rising faster than exports, as Indian firms continue to rely on Chinese components for manufacturing.
ThePrint has learnt that more than one woman fighter pilot were involved in targeting military locations during the 87-hour conflict with Pakistan last year.
Forty years ago this week, ‘Khalistan Commando Force’ assassins were closing in on Gen Vaidya. So callous was the security of the just-retired Army chief that he was given a solitary police gunman
While this article presents a well-written analysis of Diljit Dosanjh’s public persona and filmography, it conveniently overlooks the glaring double standards of the media and the Indian entertainment industry. The author calls his silence a “calculated strategy to coddle his career,” but fails to ask a vital question: Why wouldn’t he protect himself when the media has consistently failed to support him?
When the Federation of Western India Cine Employees (FWICE) threatened to ban Diljit from projects like Border 2 simply for working with a Pakistani artist in Sardaar Ji 3, where was the media’s outrage over artistic freedom [1, 5]? When Punjab ’95 (Satluj) was subjected to a grueling three-year battle with the censor board, slapped with an absurd 127 cuts, and eventually ripped off a streaming platform within 48 hours of its release, the mainstream media largely stood by and watched [2, 3, 5].
The media expects celebrities to be moral compasses and activists, but the moment they speak up, the narrative shifts. The core issue—whether it’s the farmers’ protest or the history of Jaswant Singh Khalra—gets entirely diluted [2, 5]. It just becomes a media circus about the celebrity. Let’s be completely honest: had Diljit launched a massive verbal protest over the Satluj ban, the very same media outlets analyzing his “silence” today would have immediately branded him as “anti-India” or criticized him for stirring up trouble while sitting comfortably in the USA [4, 5]. It is a classic Catch-22—he is criticized for staying quiet, but he would be crucified if he spoke.
Furthermore, why is there a constant, exhausting demand for Diljit to “prove his loyalty”? He is arguably the only contemporary Indian superstar operating at a massive global scale—taking not just Punjabi and Sikh culture, but Indian representation to platforms like Coachella, the Met Gala, and Jimmy Fallon. Yet, despite being a proud, unapologetic global ambassador for his homeland, he is subjected to loyalty tests that culturally neutral artists never have to face. Are celebrities elected officials? Did they ask for this burden?
As the article itself notes, Diljit’s filmography is his activism. Choosing to finance and star in heavy, historically significant, and heavily scrutinized films like Udta Punjab, Chamkila, 1984, and Satluj takes infinitely more courage than posting a fleeting, easily manipulated tweet.
Before we criticize an artist for navigating political ambiguity, we should look at the incredibly hostile environment that forced them into that ambiguity in the first place. Wait for his upcoming Europe tour, and watch how he represents his roots on a global stage. Sometimes, letting the art speak for itself is the most powerful statement of all.
The fact that Amar Singh Chamkila’s assassination by the Sikh Khalistani terrorists was left out of the film told everyone what the film was about and where Imtiaz Ali’s sympathies lie.
That Dosanjh went along with it and brushed the brutal assassination under the carpet in order to shield Khalistani terrorists spoke volumes regarding his actual intentions.
While this article presents a well-written analysis of Diljit Dosanjh’s public persona and filmography, it conveniently overlooks the glaring double standards of the media and the Indian entertainment industry. The author calls his silence a “calculated strategy to coddle his career,” but fails to ask a vital question: Why wouldn’t he protect himself when the media has consistently failed to support him?
When the Federation of Western India Cine Employees (FWICE) threatened to ban Diljit from projects like Border 2 simply for working with a Pakistani artist in Sardaar Ji 3, where was the media’s outrage over artistic freedom [1, 5]? When Punjab ’95 (Satluj) was subjected to a grueling three-year battle with the censor board, slapped with an absurd 127 cuts, and eventually ripped off a streaming platform within 48 hours of its release, the mainstream media largely stood by and watched [2, 3, 5].
The media expects celebrities to be moral compasses and activists, but the moment they speak up, the narrative shifts. The core issue—whether it’s the farmers’ protest or the history of Jaswant Singh Khalra—gets entirely diluted [2, 5]. It just becomes a media circus about the celebrity. Let’s be completely honest: had Diljit launched a massive verbal protest over the Satluj ban, the very same media outlets analyzing his “silence” today would have immediately branded him as “anti-India” or criticized him for stirring up trouble while sitting comfortably in the USA [4, 5]. It is a classic Catch-22—he is criticized for staying quiet, but he would be crucified if he spoke.
Furthermore, why is there a constant, exhausting demand for Diljit to “prove his loyalty”? He is arguably the only contemporary Indian superstar operating at a massive global scale—taking not just Punjabi and Sikh culture, but Indian representation to platforms like Coachella, the Met Gala, and Jimmy Fallon. Yet, despite being a proud, unapologetic global ambassador for his homeland, he is subjected to loyalty tests that culturally neutral artists never have to face. Are celebrities elected officials? Did they ask for this burden?
As the article itself notes, Diljit’s filmography is his activism. Choosing to finance and star in heavy, historically significant, and heavily scrutinized films like Udta Punjab, Chamkila, 1984, and Satluj takes infinitely more courage than posting a fleeting, easily manipulated tweet.
Before we criticize an artist for navigating political ambiguity, we should look at the incredibly hostile environment that forced them into that ambiguity in the first place. Wait for his upcoming Europe tour, and watch how he represents his roots on a global stage. Sometimes, letting the art speak for itself is the most powerful statement of all.
The fact that Amar Singh Chamkila’s assassination by the Sikh Khalistani terrorists was left out of the film told everyone what the film was about and where Imtiaz Ali’s sympathies lie.
That Dosanjh went along with it and brushed the brutal assassination under the carpet in order to shield Khalistani terrorists spoke volumes regarding his actual intentions.