Having one’s movie screened at the International Film Festival of India (IFFI) is a matter of pride and joy. Filmmaker Ananth Narayan Mahadevan had hoped to experience it with Phule, his biopic on social reformer Jyotirao Phule. But as the upcoming film festival unveiled its schedule, the director is disheartened that his Pratik Gandhi and Patralekhaa-starrer has not made the cut.

“I feel angry, pained, and helpless. A government-sponsored festival like IFFI sidelined Phule, despite it being an honest film with credible actors,” he tells mid-day.

The movie, released on April 25, chronicled how the social reformer and his wife Savitribai fought casteism and championed women’s education in the 19th century. What stings Mahadevan further is that Homebound, which explores casteism prevalent in the country today, has been selected as India’s official entry to the Academy Awards 2026 while his casteism drama has been “silently boycotted”. 

“Phule was not selected for the Oscars either. This is the original caste revolution that happened in India. I haven’t seen Homebound, but I know it’s about caste differences today. When you have cinema of a scale like that of Phule, including solid performances and the relevance of [its subject] to contemporary times, it [being overlooked] is sad. I feel some kind of silent boycott is happening. If it was a bad film, I’d understand. But considering the kind of films that have been selected at IFFI, it’s disheartening. There are 26 films in the Indian Panorama section. Are you saying it does not deserve a chance among 26 movies?”

During the Independence Day celebrations this year, Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced that the government will mark Phule’s 200th birth anniversary in 2027 with special events. Pleased as he is that the social reformer’s contributions continue to reverberate in society even today, the director is saddened that his big-screen story didn’t get as much support.

“Prime Minister Narendra Modi spoke about the bicentenary, but not once when the film was released. He could have supported it by making it tax-free. Not a single state government gave Phule a tax-free status. The producers had applied for it and were promised, but it didn’t come true.”

Anurag Kashyap’s post about the CBFC’s alleged approach to films about the caste system in India added fuel to the already raging fire around the release of Phule, a film based on the life of Mahatma Jyotiba Phule and Savitribai Phule. While the CBFC granted Phule a ‘U’ certificate on April 7, it had asked for certain edits, including the removal of references like ‘Mahar’, ‘Mang’, ‘Peshwai’, and a modification of the phrase “3,000 saal purani ghulami” to “kai saal purani ghulami.” But did CBFC suggest any cuts in the film?

“No, just these tweaks,” filmmaker Ananth Mahadevan tells us, adding that the suggestions were implemented. In a chat with us, the filmmaker addresses the controversy and speaks about the role of censorship in filmmaking.

Fortunately, there were no cuts suggested by the CBFC. The so-called amendments, or tweaks as I call them, were inconsequential. Even if those weren’t implemented, it wouldn’t have made a difference. I guess we’re all becoming a little over-sensitive and want to soften things. But the audience is knowledgeable. Even if you remove certain words or modify phrases, they’ll understand it. I think some people watched the trailer and jumped the gun. They concluded that the film is against a particular community. It's not. Yes, there are conflicts, but the beauty of Jyotiba and Savitribai Phule’s life is the harmony and interaction they had with all communities.

I am quite amused at these things, because it was not something so major to be labelled fair or unfair. As a filmmaker, I would not like my film to be touched, and that too with such insignificant and innocuous changes. I don’t understand why we are so nervous about how people will react, or how sensitive they are. I think we should respect the sensibilities and the sensitivities of the audience. This film does not exaggerate or fictionalize history. It does not even interpret history. All it does is represent history. When you're so honest about a particular subject or with the people while making the film, you should also respect the intelligence of the audience.

Fortunately, all this hasn’t reduced the impact of the film. It still conveys everything it has to without hiding or making anything subdued. That said, the original word always is stronger than a synonym or alternative for it. And I would always prefer the stronger words to convey what I want to.

Yes, there’s been a lot of support, even from political parties, saying the film should be shown in its entirety. I think that’s encouraging and positive. There will always be disgruntled voices but that has been virtually eclipsed by this unanimous support.

The only thing that I felt a little upset about was that we wanted to release it on April 11, which was Jyotiba’s birth anniversary. That would have gone down in history for posterity. But we had to sacrifice that for the betterment of the film and to help it reach the maximum number of people. It was necessary to address these concerns of those who had an objection. So, we took that little time for things to calm down.

I don't think so. Not even in the future, because we are an immature society. This comes forth either through some unnecessary prejudices or provocations or whatever, but we do not seem to have progressed. In fact, we seem to have regressed in many ways, despite many things that Jyotiba and Savitribai fought for, like women’s education and independence, being achieved. But caste discrimination and gender discrimination continue to plague our society. These issues are not going to be solved so easily. So, the revolution continues. We are still so self-centered and materialistic. Technological advancements do not cover up your social regressions. What about conscience? What about social relevance?

See, if you're an honest filmmaker, if you're a socially relevant filmmaker, and if you are a responsible filmmaker, you will not harbour any fears of how society is going to react or what impact it's going to have on minds. For me, it is very important to not let these things bother me. I delve into a subject, treat it the way it deserves to be treated - with honesty and with the passion that I always had, and then leave the rest to the audience. My duty is to make that film the way it should be made.

Yes, certification happens abroad where films are certified as per their content – universal, with parental guidance, restricted viewing and strictly for adults etc. In India, we did try to amend the process, but the problem is that with the certification, we retained the censorship too. I agree that there should be self-censorship while making a film and there is a cinematic language that one must use for that. I do it too. But by suggesting cuts in a film, you are just defeating the very purpose of certification. Then you might as well call yourself a censor board and not a board of film certification.

Anant Mahadevan plans to book a December slot for his upcoming Marathi film, Bittersweet. "I have kept the story ruthlessly true to its core to garner a global appeal," says the director, who hopes to capture world audience with his tale about women workers in the sugar fields of Beed district in Maharashtra, who are forced to get a hysterectomy to survive.

After being nominated for Jiseok Awards at the Busan International Film Festival, he wants to send the movie to the Oscars. "I want to take Indian cinema to a level where it won't be scoffed at during festivals. I want to release Bittersweet theatrically in December because that's the cut-off date for Oscars selections," says the director, adding that after releasing in theatres, it will be distributed digitally.

While there is no confirmation that the world would achieve normalcy by December, Mahadevan says that the project deserves a 70mm release. "It will be a pity if it is doesn't release in theatres. Even if the film is screened digitally, it is eligible for the 93rd Academy Awards, as the rules have changed." While he is confident of the Akshaya Gurav-starrer, Mahadevan is uncertain about the jury's approach. "If they treat the film only on the basis of merit, we will sail through."

------------------------

My first reaction, too, was, “How is it possible?” when I came across a write-up on the internet. I thought it was a biological malfunction, then, learnt that Maharashtra’s richest industry, in its endeavour to pip Brazil to become the No 1 sugar exporter in the world, is forcing women to undergo hysterectomies with the connivance of contractors and unscrupulous surgeons, so they can work through the sugarcane cutting season without a break.

A cutting machine would cost around Rs 2.50 crore plus 30 per cent excise duty, and that’s not viable for these sugar barons who pay a couple an advance of Rs 80,000 to Rs 1.25 lakh to work for six months in their fields. October to February is the cutting season, but last year, because of unseasonal rains, work started only around November-December and that made things even more hectic for the labourers. Our hut was bang in the middle of their settlement, and we’d watch them stirring to life around 4.30-5 am. After a hurried breakfast, they’d pile into the bullock carts which had lined up, spend the day in the plantation, packed together, their bodies and heads covered so the leaves wouldn’t cut into their flesh, slashing and loading bundles of canes into the carts. The work is backbreaking; the trauma, emotionally and mentally killing. We saw it all first-hand, throwing the actors into these same fields.

I had discussed the idea of the real-life suffering, with Usha Jadhav and she’d loved it, but once the script was ready, I felt we needed the protagonist to be a girl in her twenties, who is forced to put her chosen career on hold because the family needs an extra hand in the fields. But after the narration, I was startled when Akshaya Gurav abruptly walked out of the room. She returned after 10 agonising minutes in tears. Wondering if I had inadvertently hurt her sensibilities, I apologised, telling her she didn’t have to do the film when she choked out between sobs, that she had no idea this was happening and wanted to do it. She reached the location four days early, because being left-handed, it was not easy for her to cut the canes and she needed practice. During this time, she spoke to some of the women there, which strengthened her empathy, and by the time we started shooting, she was living the role with a raw authenticity.

Yes, the combined might of the sugar barons and politicians is openly destroying an entire generation without them even looking at the faces of these women. If they oppose, they are told to return the advance which has already been spent in paying off loans. So, they have no choice but to submit to the present with no thought for the future. Sometimes a couple runs away, but, as a woman there told us, they were caught and her husband hacked to death. She returned to the fields to look after the family. And hysterectomy is not the only problem…

Yes, the danger of rape as the contractors eye the young girls, trying to lure them with promises of a better life outside the settlement, driving up on their bikes and waiting outside the straw enclosure when they are taking a bath. I didn’t make Bittersweet to exploit their suffering, but to make the world aware of it.

I make films for the theatres, not the iPhone or the iPad. I want people to feel the claustrophobia of these women as they stand between the stalks, seeing acres and acres of plantation they have come to dread. No film has ever brought on a revolution, but I’m sure many NGOs will get into action after seeing what’s happening. So, yes, we plan to release Bittersweet in the theatres towards the end of December.