Thiruvananthapuram: Despite undergoing 24 cuts and significant edits, the Mohanlal-starrer Empuraan remains under scrutiny. Two earlier articles in the RSS mouthpiece Organiser had already put the film team on the defensive, prompting the revisions. However, a new article published Wednesday has raised further concerns, this time questioning director Prithviraj Sukumaran and screenwriter Murali Gopy.
The revised version of the film is set to be screened starting Wednesday.
The latest Organiser article asserts that despite changes in character names and dialogue, the film still carries “anti-Hindu undertones.”
It highlights that the plot centres on Masood Saeed (played by Prithviraj), a character who, after losing his family in the Gujarat riots, joins the terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) to seek revenge against Hindus. According to the article, even after the re-edits, the film portrays Islamic terrorists who shelter Masood as sympathetic figures and includes a scene where a young boy is encouraged to take up arms against India.
“The protests were never about removing the Gujarat riots from the film,” the article states. “The demand was for a balanced portrayal, including the Godhra train burning. However, while the timeline has been vaguely changed from ‘2002’ to ‘a few years ago,’ the core narrative remains the same — depicting Hindus as the villains,” it said.
The article further claims that the film places the blame for Islamist terrorism on Hindus. It also questions why Prithviraj’s character is named Masood Saeed, arguing that it closely resembles the names of known terrorists Hafiz Saeed (LeT) and Masood Azhar (Jaish-e-Mohammed), despite other modifications made to the film.
Beyond the film’s content, the article directly targets Prithviraj and Murali Gopy, raising a series of pointed questions.
“Were there controversial elements in the original script that were later removed? What scenes related to the national anthem were cut by the censor board? Were anti-national forces involved in the film’s production, both in India and abroad? Why did one of the original producers withdraw from the project? What are Prithviraj’s financial dealings and Gulf connections? Did external influences shape Murali Gopy’s script in an anti-national direction?”, it asked.
The article concludes by urging Kerala society to critically examine what it calls an “agenda” being pushed by Empuraan’s makers.
“Without hiding behind the excuse that films should be viewed as mere entertainment, both Prithviraj and Murali Gopy should apologize for attempting to create communal divisions and anti-national narratives under the guise of artistic freedom,” it states.
