Why the Centre’s Censor Intervention at IFFK Has Triggered a Cultural Flashpoint

Film festivals have traditionally functioned as protected spaces for artistic freedom, where even politically sensitive or controversial works are screened without the constraints applied to commercial cinema. That norm was jolted this year when the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting denied censor exemption to 19 films scheduled at the International Film Festival of Kerala (IFFK), disrupting one of India’s most respected cultural platforms and igniting a wider debate on censorship, federalism and shrinking spaces for dissent.

What exactly happened at IFFK this year?

Films screened at festivals do not require a censor certificate from the Central Board of Film Certification, but they must obtain a censor exemption from the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. Until now, this process had largely been procedural, with only rare exceptions.

In an unprecedented move, the Ministry denied exemption to 19 out of 206 films selected for screening at the “International Film Festival of Kerala”, throwing the festival’s carefully planned schedule into chaos. Following protests, exemptions were later granted to 13 films, but six remained blocked. Eventually, the Kerala government, after initially taking a defiant stance, decided not to screen the remaining six.

Which films were flagged — and why that matters

The list of films denied exemption raised immediate red flags. It included Palestinian films such as “Palestine 36”, “Once Upon a Time in Gaza”, “All That’s Left of You” and “Wajib”, alongside Sergei Eisenstein’s Soviet-era classic “Battleship Potemkin”, widely regarded as a foundational work of modern cinema.

Also barred was “Yes”, directed by Israeli filmmaker “Nadav Lapid”, known in India for sharply criticising the inclusion of “The Kashmir Files” while serving as jury chair at the “International Film Festival of India” in 2022. The presence of such films suggested that political sensitivities, rather than technical considerations, were guiding the Ministry’s intervention.

Kerala’s initial defiance — and subsequent retreat

The Kerala government initially directed the State “Kerala State Chalachitra Academy” to go ahead with all screenings, framing the Centre’s move as an encroachment on cultural autonomy. However, after warnings from the Union Ministry that stringent provisions of the “Cinematograph Act” could be invoked, the State stepped back.

Comments by academy chairperson “Resul Pookutty”, citing concerns about India’s international relations, further inflamed the controversy. Filmmakers accused the academy of capitulating under pressure, arguing that cultural institutions should not function as instruments of foreign policy.

Why filmmakers see this as more than censorship

Within Kerala and beyond, the episode is widely viewed as an attempt to weaken one of the few remaining major film festivals that consistently screens politically and socially challenging cinema. In recent years, festivals such as the MAMI Mumbai Film Festival have struggled for survival, while the Centre-backed IFFI has been criticised for prioritising ideologically aligned films and sidelining independent voices.

In this landscape, IFFK has acquired symbolic importance — not merely as a festival, but as a space for pluralism. Its mass character, with 10,000–15,000 delegates annually and consistently packed screenings, sets it apart from elite, invitation-only festivals.

IFFK’s role in shaping Malayalam cinema

Now in its 30th year, IFFK has played a critical role in nurturing Malayalam cinema’s recent creative resurgence. Many contemporary filmmakers from the State trace their cinematic education to years spent watching world cinema at the festival and participating in Kerala’s extensive network of film societies.

The festival’s openness to diverse political and aesthetic traditions has helped foster a cinema that is grounded, experimental and socially engaged — qualities that have earned Malayalam films national and international recognition.

Beyond films: visas, intimidation and shrinking cultural space

The controversy extended beyond censorship. A jury member from Azerbaijan and a Turkish filmmaker and producer were denied visas, adding to perceptions of an orchestrated effort to constrain the festival’s international character.

At the closing ceremony, Chief Minister “Pinarayi Vijayan” warned against what he described as anti-democratic and fascistic attempts to dismantle cultural platforms, asserting that IFFK would continue to resist such pressures.

Why this moment matters for Indian democracy

Cultural spaces that allow people to engage across political, religious and ideological divides have been steadily shrinking in India. Film festivals like IFFK, which combine mass participation with intellectual openness, have become increasingly rare.

The Centre’s intervention at IFFK is therefore being read not as an isolated bureaucratic decision, but as part of a broader pattern of cultural control. For many in the film community, defending IFFK is no longer just about cinema — it is about preserving the idea that art, debate and dissent can still coexist in India’s public sphere.