Veteran filmmaker Anand Patwardhan’s Father, Son and Holy War explores how ideas of masculinity, religious nationalism and political mobilisation intersect with anti-Muslim violence
NEW DELHI — YouTube, the online video-sharing platform owned by Google, has taken down an award-winning documentary by veteran filmmaker Anand Patwardhan that examines anti-Muslim violence and the rise of Hindu nationalist politics in India. The move has again triggered concerns over how digital platforms moderate politically sensitive content.
The film, Father, Son and Holy War, is widely regarded as one of Patwardhan’s most significant works. It explores how ideas of masculinity, religious nationalism and political mobilisation intersect with anti-Muslim violence.
The documentary also revisits the events surrounding the 1992 demolition of the Babri Masjid by the Hindutva mob and the deadly communal riots that followed across the country. The events marked a turning point in the political and social landscape of the country, giving rise to Hindutva politics.
Patwardhan confirmed the removal in a post on social media, saying that YouTube had flagged the documentary for “violent content.”
He argued that the work documents violence rather than promotes it, and questioned why a film that has been publicly screened, academically studied, and officially recognised for decades was suddenly being treated as objectionable.
In his post, Patwardhan wrote, “It is an exposé of violence, not an endorsement of it. Shame on YouTube!!!”
Adding further, “Thirty years later, YouTube has decided that it is too ‘violent,’” he said.
The filmmaker also pointed out that the documentary had earlier received a U/A certificate from India’s Central Board of Film Certification, won National Film Awards for Best Investigative Documentary and Best Film on Social Issues, and was even directed by the Supreme Court to be broadcast on national television in the public interest after a legal battle over censorship.
For Patwardhan, the issue is not just about one takedown, but about a recurring pattern in how politically sensitive documentaries are handled in the world’s largest democracy.
The film itself has faced restrictions in various forms over the years, including broadcast refusals in the 1990s despite court orders and repeated scrutiny of his later work.
His 1992 documentary Ram Ke Naam, which documented the Ram temple movement in Ayodhya and the events leading up to the Babri Masjid demolition, was also later subjected to restrictions on YouTube, including age limits, despite having cleared India’s certification process.
At the time, Patwardhan had accused digital platforms of yielding to pressure from Hindutva groups.
The decision has renewed a larger conversation about how platforms decide what constitutes “violence” or “acceptable content,” particularly when it comes to documentaries dealing with communal conflict and political history.
Critics argue that such works serve as historical records and critical examinations of power, rather than content that incites violence.
The controversy also comes against a wider backdrop in India’s media and cultural landscape, where sharply contrasting narratives often coexist uneasily.
While documentaries that critically examine Hindutva politics have repeatedly faced censorship battles, restrictions or removals, propaganda films such as The Kerala Story, The Kashmir Files, Chhaava and others have drawn large audiences in theatres and on streaming platforms despite facing criticism from historians, film critics and reviewers, who have accused them of promoting anti-Muslim stereotypes, historical distortions or Islamophobic narratives.
In the years since the Narendra Modi-led BJP government came to power in 2014, several authors, journalists and filmmakers working on themes of communal violence, religious nationalism and minority rights have found themselves facing censorship battles, legal challenges, online harassment and coordinated trolling campaigns.
Restrictions have ranged from broadcast bans and certification hurdles to content takedowns on digital platforms. Patwardhan’s work, in particular, has repeatedly been caught in these controversies, making him one of the most prominent figures in debates over free expression and political dissent.
