Exposing the state: How other democracies handled films like Satluj
As Diljit Dosanjh’s Satluj faces a ban, a look at how five global democracies handled controversial films that exposed their own state machinery
When a filmmaker shines a light on the darkest, most uncomfortable chapters of a nation’s history, governments face a definitive choice: do they suppress the narrative to preserve a fragile peace, or do they trust their citizens to process the truth?
While the sudden digital takedown of Diljit Dosanjh’s film Satluj highlights a preference for containment, global history shows that mature democracies consistently choose open dialogue over censorship. Here is how five nations, from different parts of the world, handled films that laid bare the brutal excesses of their own state machinery.
In all of these cases, the governments trusted their citizens to process difficult historical truths. By treating adults as mature audiences rather than shielding them from controversy, these nations found that open discussion ultimately strengthens public trust far more than a sudden digital takedown ever could.
1. South Korea: A Taxi Driver (2017)
This film uncovers the Gwangju Uprising of 1980, a painful historical event where South Korea’s military dictatorship enforced a strict media blackout and turned its weapons on its own citizens, killing hundreds of student protestors and civilians.
The Reaction: Instead of blocking the film out of fear that it would damage the military’s reputation or spark fresh public unrest, the South Korean government completely embraced it. The sitting President at the time, Moon Jae-in, even attended a highly publicized theater screening alongside the creators.
The Outcome: The film became a massive box office hit and represented South Korea at the Oscars. More importantly, the immense public conversation it generated prompted the government to launch a fresh, official independent investigation to uncover the full extent of the historical cover-up.
2. United Kingdom: Bloody Sunday (2002)
This movie reconstructs the tragic events of 1972 in Northern Ireland, where British paratroopers opened fire on unarmed civil rights marchers, killing 14 civilians. For decades, this remained one of the most volatile and politically charged topics in British history, deeply tied to regional security and terrorism.
The Reaction: The film was brutally critical of the British Army’s actions, showing soldiers shooting fleeing civilians. Yet, the British government made no attempt to interfere with its release. The film was broadcast directly on mainstream British television (ITV) and shown in theaters nationwide.
The Outcome: It went on to win prestigious international awards, including the Golden Bear at the Berlin Film Festival. Instead of causing unrest, the film aired during a period when the UK was actively undertaking a massive public inquiry to finally hold the state accountable for the tragedy.
3. United States: The Report (2019)
This political drama tells the real-life story of a Senate staffer who uncovers the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) systemic use of brutal, illegal torture techniques on detainees after the September 11 attacks, alongside the government’s active attempts to bury the findings.
The Reaction: The film named real officials and directly exposed shocking misconduct at the highest levels of the nation’s intelligence apparatus. Despite the incredibly sensitive national security themes, the US government made no move to censor, edit, or delay the film.
The Outcome: It was picked up by Amazon Studios and streamed globally without any political interference, allowing ordinary citizens to openly debate the ethics of their own government’s counter-terrorism tactics.
4. Argentina: Argentina, 1985 (2022)
This legal drama recreates the historic trial where a team of civilian lawyers prosecuted the top leaders of Argentina’s brutal military dictatorship that ruled from 1976 to 1983. he regime had maintained control through a terrifying campaign known as the “Dirty War”—a dark period marked by state-sponsored torture, illegal detentions, and the forced disappearance of an estimated 30,000 citizens.
The Reaction: Even though the country’s newly restored democracy was incredibly fragile and the military still held significant underground power, the Argentine government did not censor the film. Instead, the state actively backed its creation and international distribution, viewing it as an essential tool for national healing.
The Outcome: The film became a massive cultural phenomenon, drawing over a million viewers to Argentine theaters in its first month alone. By refusing to hide its state-sponsored horrors, the film successfully educated a younger generation born into peace, reinforcing the country’s collective commitment to democratic values.
5. Israel: Waltz with Bashir (2008)
This animated documentary follows a filmmaker’s search for his own repressed memories as a young soldier during Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon. The narrative builds toward a harrowing confrontation with the Sabra and Shatila massacres, where an Israeli-allied Christian militia slaughtered hundreds of Palestinian refugees while Israeli military units stood by and illuminated the camps at night.
The Reaction: The film exposed shocking moral failures and severe negligence within the nation’s military leadership during a highly sensitive foreign war. Despite this, the Israeli government did not restrict its release. Remarkably, the project was actually partially funded by the Israeli Film Fund—a state-backed body under the Ministry of Culture.
The Outcome: The film was released to widespread critical acclaim domestically, sweeping the Israeli Film Academy Awards with six wins, including Best Film, before earning an Oscar nomination. Rather than triggering a national security crisis, it opened up a crucial space for veterans to discuss collective guilt and trauma, while demonstrating that a democracy can openly fund its own self-critique.
Global human rights standards maintain that restricting free expression for “national security” requires a direct, imminent, and provable threat—not just a generalized anxiety about public discomfort or political sensitivity.
Furthermore, international norms heavily emphasize the principle of proportionality. Completely scrubbing a film from a platform within 48 hours is the most heavy-handed measure available. The core of Satluj, the abduction and killing of Jaswant Singh Khalra, and the subsequent conviction of the police officers involved, is not a conspiracy theory. It is a matter of documented Indian judicial record. By treating that truth as a threat to national security, the government’s approach distances itself quite significantly from global democratic standards.
Subscribe to get updates, bookmark, or comment.