Supporters of the government's decision to review 'Satluj' emphasize that the state has a responsibility to ensure that sensitive historical narratives are presented with factual integrity. Union Minister Ravneet Singh Bittu and other critics of the film argue that the portrayal of Punjab's militancy years is selective and potentially inflammatory. By questioning the film's claims—such as the specific figures regarding missing persons—they contend that the government is acting to prevent the spread of misinformation that could disturb public peace.
From this viewpoint, the review process is not about suppressing free speech but about maintaining a balanced historical record. Proponents argue that the 1990s was a period of immense suffering for many, and a film that focuses exclusively on one perspective risks ignoring the violence faced by public servants and innocent civilians. They maintain that if a creative work makes significant claims about state actions, those claims must be backed by verifiable evidence rather than emotional storytelling.
Furthermore, this perspective highlights the potential for such films to be used as tools for political polarization, especially in a state like Punjab where memories of the past remain raw. By involving an Inter-Departmental Committee, the government is utilizing an established regulatory framework to assess whether the content adheres to national security and public order guidelines. For those who prioritize stability and the prevention of communal tension, this oversight is a necessary check against narratives that might be perceived as divisive or historically inaccurate.