Marathi actor raises concerns over historical accuracy and communal narratives, warns against selective storytelling
NEW DELHI – Marathi actor Karan Mane has stirred a public debate by questioning whether the upcoming biopic Phule will present a complete and truthful account of Jyotiba Phule’s legacy, particularly his admiration for Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). The film, originally slated for release on 11 April, has now been postponed to 25 April following objections by members of the Brahmin community over certain scenes they claimed were “historically insensitive.”
Mane, who is known for his bold and forthright views, expressed concern on social media that the film might sanitise Phule’s radical ideals—especially his poetic tribute (Pohra/Qasida) to the Prophet—while potentially magnifying his reverence for Chhatrapati Shivaji.
“I fear this film may be another Manuvadi project,” Mane wrote. “Just as some twisted Shivaji’s legacy to spread hate, will they ignore Jyotiba’s Qasida for the Prophet? His fight was against casteism, not Muslims.”
Drawing a comparison with Chaava—a recent film that, according to critics, promoted anti-Muslim sentiments—Mane warned against selective storytelling. “They show four truths but hide a hundred,” he said. “Phule wrote for Shivaji and the Prophet—will both be shown or just one?”
According to historians and researchers, Jyotiba Phule—regarded as one of India’s foremost anti-caste reformers—was deeply inspired by the egalitarian teachings of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). In one of his lesser-known poems written in the Pohra form, Phule praised the Prophet’s compassion, justice, and commitment to social reform.
While Phule’s tributes to Shivaji are well documented and widely celebrated in Maharashtra’s cultural memory, his poetic homage to the Prophet has largely remained unexplored in public discourse.
“The same people who highlight Phule’s tribute to Shivaji carefully hide his devotion to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh),” Mane claimed. “This selective representation is not only dishonest but dangerous.”
Mane’s concerns touch upon a broader issue: the increasing trend of using historical biopics as instruments of ideological influence. Several social commentators have expressed fear that filmmakers, under the guise of honouring reformers, may be succumbing to political pressures that sanitise or distort complex legacies.
“Singing songs of great personalities by telling four true things and then misleading people with hundreds of falsehoods is an old tactic,” Mane noted. “We must stay vigilant.”
He further questioned whether the film would honestly depict Phule’s lifelong resistance to Brahmanical dominance and his efforts to build solidarity among Dalits and Muslims.
“Will the film show how Phule rediscovered Shivaji’s samadhi and initiated Shiv Jayanti? Or that he brought together Dalits and Muslims against caste-based oppression?” he asked.
Jyotiba Phule, along with his wife Savitribai Phule, played a revolutionary role in 19th-century India by founding schools for girls and Dalits, challenging religious orthodoxy, and advocating for an inclusive society rooted in justice and equality.
Jyotiba’s worldview was not bound by religion or region; rather, it embraced universal human values. His tribute to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and his honouring of Shivaji stemmed from the same ideological core—a desire to challenge tyranny, uplift the oppressed, and advocate for social reform.
“Phule’s legacy belongs to everyone—Dalits, Muslims, women, and all marginalised communities,” said a Pune-based historian. “To erase any part of that legacy is to do injustice to history itself.”
Mane’s remarks have sparked both appreciation and criticism. While many users on social media echoed his concerns and praised him for “speaking truth to power,” others accused him of unnecessarily politicising the film even before its release.
Supporters argue that such vigilance is necessary, especially in an environment where cultural productions are increasingly shaped by majoritarian sentiment.
“After Chaava, we must stay alert,” Mane said. “If my fears are proven wrong, I will be the happiest person.”
As the release date of Phule approaches, the filmmakers now face growing public scrutiny—not just for artistic merit, but for historical fidelity. Will they include Phule’s Pohra for the Prophet alongside his praise for Shivaji? Will they explore his solidarity with Muslims and his commitment to social justice without compromise?
The debate around the film serves as a reminder of a larger question: who controls the narrative of India’s reformers, and what truths are allowed to be remembered?
In the words of Karan Mane: “Will this film portray the real Jyotiba Phule—the fearless voice who challenged Brahmanism—or just a sanitised version palatable to the ruling ideology?”
Only time—and the final cut of the film—will tell.
