Sudha Kongara addresses film censorship in India.
Parasakthi faces backlash and online defamation.
CBFC cuts challenged creative freedom.
Film reimagines 1965 Anti-Hindi agitation.
Film censorship in India once again takes centre stage as Parasakthi director Sudha Kongara addresses the backlash, misinformation, and certification hurdles surrounding her latest Tamil film. In her first interview after the film's release, Kongara tells The Hollywood Reporter India that the noise around the film has often overshadowed its intent and craft.
Sudha Kongara on censorship and online backlash
“There is slandering, defamation of the worst kind, hiding behind unknown IDs,” Kongara says, responding to the wave of online attacks that followed the film’s release. According to the filmmaker, much of the criticism has been driven by misrepresentation rather than engagement with the film itself. “You wonder where it is coming from, and you know where it is coming from,” she adds, pointing to organised online narratives.
Parasakthi movie controversy and political context
Starring Sivakarthikeyan, Ravi Mohan, Atharvaa, and Sreeleela, Parasakthi revisits the 1965 Anti-Hindi imposition agitation in Tamil Nadu. Kongara explains that the film compresses history into a tight narrative window. “From the intermission to the climax, it is just 19 days,” she tells THR India, emphasising the urgency of the movement.
Creative freedom vs CBFC cuts
The filmmaker also reflects on her experience with the Central Board of Film Certification. While she had initially believed the process to be democratic, the reality proved otherwise. “Two days before release, I got the cut list,” Kongara recalls, adding that there was no time left to challenge the demands. Despite this, she insists that none of the changes compromised the film’s core message.
Why Parasakthi chooses drama over documentation
Calling the film a “revisionist, alternative history, Kongara says emotional clarity was essential to reach audiences. “To make it cinema, you have to simplify emotions,” she explains, defending her choice to personalise political conflict through character-driven drama.
