Aditya Dhar’s “Dhurandhar” duology has established itself as a watershed moment for Hindi cinema, signalling a significant change in Bollywood’s narrative priorities and ideological positions. The initial chapter, launched in December 2025, proved to be the top-earning Hindi film in India before being separated into two parts throughout the editing process. Now, with the sequel “Dhurandhar: The Revenge” currently dominating cinemas across the country, the intelligence-based narrative is poised to cement what various commentators consider to be a concerning transformation in Indian popular cinema: the comprehensive adoption of jingoistic narratives that deliberately pursue official support and capitalise on national pride. The films’ overt blending of commercial entertainment and state narratives has rekindled debates about Bollywood’s connections with political influence, notably under PM Narendra Modi’s administration.
From Intelligence Thriller to Political Statement
The storytelling framework of the “Dhurandhar” duology reveals a calculated progression from entertainment to political messaging. The opening instalment strategically set before Modi’s 2014 election victory, establishes its ideological framework through characters who repeatedly voice their desperation for a figure prepared to pursue forceful measures against both external and internal threats. This strategic timing enables the story to frame Modi’s later ascent to leadership as the answer to the nation’s prayers, transforming what appears to be a standard espionage film into an comprehensive validation of the administration’s approach to homeland defence and military aggression.
The sequel intensifies this propagandistic impulse by showcasing Modi himself as an near-constant supporting character through deliberately inserted news footage and government broadcasts. Rather than permitting the fictional narrative to exist separately, the filmmakers have woven the Prime Minister’s genuine appearance and rhetoric throughout the story, substantially obscuring the boundaries between entertainment and state communication. This deliberate narrative choice distinguishes the “Dhurandhar” films from earlier examples of Bollywood’s ideological affiliation, elevating them from subtle ideological positioning to overt political backing that transforms cinema into a vehicle for political legitimacy.
- First film prays for a powerful leader ahead of Modi’s election victory
- Sequel presents Modi in a supporting character through news clips
- Narrative conflates fictional heroism alongside government policy endorsement
- Films obscure the distinction between entertainment and state propaganda by design
The Evolution of Bollywood’s Ideological Evolution
The box office performance of the “Dhurandhar” duology indicates a significant shift in Bollywood’s relationship with nationalist thought and state power. Whilst the Indian film industry has traditionally upheld close ties with political structures, the brazen nature of these films represents a qualitative shift in how overtly cinema now channels state communications. The franchise’s commercial supremacy—with the first instalment emerging as the highest-grossing Hindi-language film in India upon its December release—shows that viewers are growing more receptive to entertainment that seamlessly integrates state messaging. This acceptance suggests a fundamental change in what Indian viewers regard as acceptable film content, progressing past the understated ideological framing of prior cinema toward explicit state advocacy.
The implications of this shift extend beyond mere entertainment metrics. By achieving remarkable box office gains whilst openly conflating cinematic heroics with governmental policy, the “Dhurandhar” films have successfully established a novel framework for Indian film production. Next-generation filmmakers now possess a established model for merging patriotic feeling with commercial success, potentially establishing propagandistic cinema as a sustainable and profitable category. This evolution demonstrates wider social changes within India, where the dividing lines separating cinema, patriotism, and official discourse have grown more blurred, prompting critical questions about film’s function in forming political consciousness and national identity.
A Trend of Nationalist Cinema
The “Dhurandhar” duology does not appear in a vacuum but rather constitutes the culmination of a expanding movement within contemporary Indian cinema. Recent years have witnessed a surge of films utilising nationalist messaging and anti-Muslim framing, including “The Kashmir Files,” “The Kerala Story,” and “The Taj Story.” These productions share a common ideological framework that reinterprets Indian history through a Hindu-centric lens whilst portraying Muslims as fundamental dangers. However, what sets apart the “Dhurandhar” films from these predecessors is their better filmmaking craft and production values, which lend their propaganda a veneer of artistic legitimacy that more artless Islamophobic films lack.
This difference proves particularly problematic because the “Dhurandhar” duology’s production quality and entertainment value obscure its inherently ideological nature. Where films like “The Kashmir Files” serve as simplistic propagandist instruments, the “Dhurandhar” series utilises cinematic craft to render its ideological content acceptable to mainstream audiences. The franchise thus embodies a concerning development: messaging refined through professional filmmaking into what resembles government-endorsed filmmaking. This refined method to political narrative may prove more influential in influencing audience views than explicitly divisive films, as audiences may absorb political messaging when it is presented in engaging storytelling.
Filmmaking Artistry Versus Political Messaging
The “Dhurandhar” duology’s most insidious quality lies in its combination of technical excellence with nationalist ideology. Director Aditya Dhar exhibits considerable mastery of the thriller genre, crafting sequences of emotional force and plot propulsion that enthrall audiences. This cinematic proficiency becomes concerning precisely because it serves as a conduit for political propaganda, reshaping what might otherwise be overt political rhetoric into something significantly alluring and convincing. The films’ polished aesthetic, sophisticated cinematography, and compelling performances by actors like Ranveer Singh add legitimacy to their inherently polarizing narratives, rendering their political content more digestible to mainstream viewers who might otherwise reject blatantly incendiary messaging.
This convergence of artistic merit and propagandistic intent creates a distinctive difficulty for film criticism and cultural commentary. Audiences often find it difficult to separate aesthetic appreciation from political critique, especially when entertainment value proves genuinely compelling. The “Dhurandhar” films leverage this conflict deliberately, relying on the notion that audiences engaged with exciting action scenes will absorb their embedded messaging without critical scrutiny. The danger grows because the films’ technical achievements grant them credibility within critical conversation, allowing their nationalist ideology to circulate more widely and shape public opinion more effectively than cruder predecessors ever could.
| Film | Narrative Strength |
|---|---|
| Dhurandhar | Espionage intrigue with compelling character development and moral ambiguity |
| Dhurandhar: The Revenge | Political thriller capitalising on nationalist sentiment and state apparatus mythology |
| The Kashmir Files | Historical narrative lacking cinematic sophistication or narrative complexity |
- Professional quality converts ideological material into mass-market content
- Advanced cinematography masks ideological undertones from critical scrutiny
- Cinematic craft lifts nationalist rhetoric above crude inflammatory discourse
The Troubling Ramifications for Indian Film Industry
The box office and critical success of the “Dhurandhar” duology signals a worrying trajectory for Indian cinema, one in which nationalistic sentiment increasingly determines box office performance and cultural significance. Where once Bollywood operated as a forum for varied storytelling and differing opinions, the emergence of these patriotic suspense films suggests a contraction in acceptable discourse. The films’ remarkable achievement indicates that audiences are growing more accepting of entertainment that explicitly validates state power and frames disagreement as treachery. This shift reflects wider social division, yet cinema’s unique capacity to shape public imagination means its ideological leanings carry considerable importance in shaping popular opinion and political attitudes.
The ramifications extend beyond simple viewing habits. When a country’s cinema sector consistently produces stories that lionise government authority and portray negatively external enemies, it runs the danger of calcifying public opinion and limiting critical engagement with intricate international political dynamics. The “Dhurandhar” films illustrate this risk by portraying their worldview not as one perspective among many, but as objective truth packaged with technical excellence and star power. For critics and media analysts, this marks a watershed moment: Indian film industry’s evolution from occasionally accommodating government objectives to deliberately operating as a propaganda machine, albeit one far more sophisticated than its historical predecessors.
Propaganda Disguised as Entertainment
The insidious nature of the “Dhurandhar” duology stems from its calculated obscuring of political messaging within layers of cinematic craft. Director Aditya Dhar constructs intricate action set-pieces and character arcs that capture audience attention, effectively distracting from the films’ constant endorsement of nationalist ideology and unquestioning faith in state institutions. The protagonist’s journey, nominally a personal quest for redemption, functions simultaneously as a celebration of governmental power and military might. By weaving propagandistic content inside compelling stories, the films attain what cruder political messaging cannot: they reshape ideology into spectacle, rendering viewers complicit in their own ideological conditioning whilst believing themselves merely entertained.
This strategy demonstrates particularly successful because it functions beneath active perception. Viewers absorbed in exhilarating action sequences and intimate character scenes internalise the films’ core themes—that decisive governmental control is essential, that enemies are irredeemable, that self-sacrifice for state interests is noble—without detecting the manipulation at work. The refined visual composition, compelling performances, and real technical skill add legitimacy to these accounts, causing them to seem less like ideological material and more like authentic storytelling. This veneer of legitimacy permits the films’ polarising worldview to reach popular awareness far with greater success than openly divisive messaging ever would.
What This Signifies for Global Audiences
The international success of the “Dhurandhar” duology raises a concerning pattern for how state-backed cinema can cross geographical boundaries and cultural differences. As streaming services like Netflix release these films worldwide, audiences in Western nations and beyond encounter advanced propagandistic content wrapped in the recognizable style of espionage thrillers and action cinema. Without the cultural and political literacy required to decode the films’ nationalist rhetoric, international viewers may unknowingly absorb and validate Indian state-sponsored ideology, substantially broadening the reach of propagandistic content far beyond their original domestic viewership. This worldwide distribution of politically sensitive material poses urgent questions about platform accountability and the ethical implications of distributing state-backed films to unaware overseas viewers.
Furthermore, the “Dhurandhar” films set a concerning template that rival states may seek to emulate. If government-backed film can secure both critical praise and financial returns whilst promoting nationalist agendas, other states—particularly those prone to authoritarianism—may recognise cinema as a distinctly potent tool for ideological propagation. The films demonstrate that propaganda doesn’t need to be crude or obvious to be effective; rather, when paired with genuine artistic talent and considerable resources, it becomes nearly irresistible. For worldwide audiences and film critics, the duology’s success suggests a worrying prospect where popular entertainment and state communication become progressively harder to distinguish.
