The removal of the film 'Satluj' from an online streaming platform has caused a complex debate among politicians and human rights activists. This discussion focuses on the documentation of illegal killings in Punjab during the 1980s and 1990s.

電影《Satluj》從線上串流平台被移除，在政治人物與人權活動家之間引起了一場複雜的爭論。這次討論聚焦於 1980 年代與 1990 年代旁遮普邦非法殺戮的紀錄。

The controversy centers on the portrayal of Jaswant Singh Khalra, a human rights activist who was kidnapped and killed in 1995 after trying to identify victims of illegal cremations. Paramjit Kaur Khalra has asked the Akal Takht to create a 'People's Commission' to count the number of missing people and unidentified remains. She emphasizes that several governments—including those led by the Congress, SAD, and AAP parties—have failed to hold people accountable, claiming that guilty police officers were protected by the system. Furthermore, she mentioned FBI reports regarding targeted killings abroad linked to the current BJP-led government.

這次爭議的核心在於對 Jaswant Singh Khalra 的描繪，他是一名人權活動家，在 1995 年嘗試識別非法火化受害者後被綁架殺害。Paramjit Kaur Khalra 要求 Akal Takht 成立一個「民眾委員會」以統計失蹤人數與未識別的遺骸。她強調，包括由國大黨（Congress）、SAD 及 AAP 黨領導在內的數個政府都未能追究責任，並聲稱有罪的警察受到體制保護。此外，她提到了 FBI 關於與現任 BJP 領導的政府有關的海外針對性殺戮報告。

On the other hand, Union Minister Ravneet Singh Bittu has questioned the film's claim that 25,000 people went missing or were illegally cremated, demanding evidence to prove this number. Bittu argues that the movie is selectively edited because it ignores the victims of militant violence. While he supports an independent inquiry into all killings from that era, he maintains that the government does not control the content on streaming platforms.

另一方面，聯邦部長 Ravneet Singh Bittu 對電影中關於 2.5 萬人失蹤或被非法火化的說法提出質疑，要求提供證據證明此數字。Bittu 主張該電影經過選擇性剪輯，因為它忽略了激進分子暴力行為的受害者。雖然他支持對該時代所有殺戮事件進行獨立調查，但他堅持政府並不控制串流平台的內容。

Other views have been shared by former Chief Minister Capt Amarinder Singh, who suggests that while historical facts are important, they should not be used to divide society today. He believes that showing the film in rural areas after its digital removal is likely being used for the political gain of the SAD and Waris Punjab De. Meanwhile, Giani Harpreet Singh of the SAD (Punar Surjit) asserted that the government's criticism of the film is an attempt to disturb peace, arguing that the Supreme Court had previously accepted Khalra's evidence.

前首席部長 Capt Amarinder Singh 則分享了其他看法，他建議雖然歷史事實很重要，但不應被用於分裂今日的社會。他認為在數位版本移除後，於農村地區放映該片很可能是被 SAD 與 Waris Punjab De 用於獲取政治利益。同時，SAD (Punar Surjit) 的 Giani Harpreet Singh 斷言政府對電影的批評是企圖破壞和平，並指出最高法院先前已接受 Khalra 提供的證據。

The situation remains tense as there is a conflict between the demand for legal accountability for past human rights abuses and disagreements over the accuracy of the film.

情況依然緊張，因為要求對過去人權侵害進行法律追究的訴求，與對電影準確性的分歧之間存在衝突。