Aditya Dhar’s “Dhurandhar” duology has emerged as a pivotal turning point for Hindi cinema, indicating a significant change in Bollywood’s subject matter focus and political leanings. The initial chapter, launched in December 2025, became the highest-grossing Hindi-language film in India before being separated into two parts during post-production. Now, with the sequel “Dhurandhar: The Revenge” actively dominating cinemas nationwide, the espionage thriller is positioned to establish what various commentators regard as a troubling shift in Indian commercial cinema: the blanket endorsement of patriotic-inflected tales that deliberately pursue government favour and exploit national pride. The films’ overt blending of commercial entertainment and state narratives has rekindled conversations around Bollywood’s connections with political influence, particularly under Narendra Modi’s administration.
From Spy Thriller to Political Declaration
The narrative structure of the “Dhurandhar” duology demonstrates a strategic movement from escapism to ideological advocacy. The opening instalment deliberately positioned before Modi’s 2014 election victory, sets up its ideological framework through protagonists who consistently express their desperation for a figure prepared to pursue decisive action against both foreign and domestic dangers. This strategic timing allows the narrative to frame Modi’s later ascent to leadership as the answer to the country’s aspirations, converting what seems like a standard espionage film into an elaborate endorsement of the administration’s stance on national security and armed action.
The sequel intensifies this propagandistic impulse by showcasing Modi himself as an virtually ever-present supporting character through deliberately inserted news footage and government broadcasts. Rather than permitting the fictional narrative to operate on its own, the filmmakers have interwoven the Prime Minister’s real likeness and rhetoric throughout the story, significantly erasing the boundaries between entertainment and state communication. This deliberate narrative choice distinguishes the “Dhurandhar” films from earlier examples of Bollywood’s political positioning, advancing them from subtle ideological positioning to overt political backing that transforms cinema into a instrument for political credibility.
- First film appeals for a powerful leader ahead of Modi’s electoral triumph
- Sequel includes Modi in a supporting character via news clips
- Narrative blends fictional heroism with government policy approval
- Films erase the distinction between entertainment and state propaganda by design
The Evolution of Bollywood’s Philosophical Change
The commercial success of the “Dhurandhar” duology indicates a significant shift in Bollywood’s connection to nationalist ideology and government authority. Whilst the Indian cinema sector has historically maintained strong connections to political structures, the explicit character of these films constitutes a meaningful change in how directly cinema now channels governmental messaging. The franchise’s box office dominance—with the first instalment becoming the highest-grossing Hindi-language film in India upon its December release—demonstrates that audiences are increasingly receptive to entertainment that seamlessly integrates political propaganda. This receptiveness indicates a fundamental change in what Indian viewers consider acceptable film content, moving beyond the understated ideological framing of earlier films toward direct governmental promotion.
The consequences of this transition go beyond mere box office figures. By attaining extraordinary financial performance whilst explicitly merging cinematic heroics with governmental policy, the “Dhurandhar” films have effectively endorsed a fresh blueprint for Indian film production. Future filmmakers now have access to a established model for blending patriotic feeling with financial gains, potentially establishing politically-driven cinema as a viable and lucrative genre. This development demonstrates wider social changes within India, where the dividing lines separating entertainment, nationalism, and state messaging have become increasingly porous, prompting important concerns about cinema’s role in influencing political consciousness and national identity.
A Trend of National Cinema
The “Dhurandhar” duology does not appear in a vacuum but rather represents the apotheosis of a expanding movement within modern Indian film. Recent years have witnessed a proliferation of films employing nationalist messaging and anti-Muslim framing, including “The Kashmir Files,” “The Kerala Story,” and “The Taj Story.” These films share a common ideological framework that recasts Indian history through a Hindu-centric lens whilst depicting Muslims as existential threats. However, what sets apart the “Dhurandhar” films from these predecessors is their superior cinematic execution and production quality, which lend their propaganda a sheen of artistic credibility that more artless Islamophobic films lack.
This difference shows particularly problematic because the “Dhurandhar” duology’s production quality and entertainment value mask its fundamentally propagandistic nature. Where films like “The Kashmir Files” operate as simplistic propagandist instruments, the “Dhurandhar” series utilises professional technique to make its ideological content acceptable to general viewers. The franchise thus represents a troubling progression: messaging refined through expert direction into what resembles government-endorsed filmmaking. This refined method to nationalist messaging may exert greater influence in influencing audience views than overtly provocative films, as audiences may absorb propagandistic material when it is presented in engaging storytelling.
Cinematic Technique Versus Political Communication
The “Dhurandhar” duology’s most troubling quality lies in its fusion of technical excellence with ideological extremism. Director Aditya Dhar exhibits impressive command of the action-thriller format, crafting sequences of emotional force and plot propulsion that enthrall audiences. This technical competence becomes concerning precisely because it acts as a vehicle for ideological messaging, reshaping what might otherwise be crude political messaging into something far more alluring and convincing. The films’ glossy production values, sophisticated cinematography, and powerful acting by actors like Ranveer Singh provide plausibility to their fundamentally divisive narratives, rendering their political message more digestible to general audiences who might otherwise reject explicitly provocative content.
This intersection of artistic merit and propagandistic intent establishes a unique challenge for film criticism and cultural commentary. Audiences often find it difficult to distinguish between aesthetic appreciation from political critique, especially when entertainment appeal proves genuinely compelling. The “Dhurandhar” films exploit this conflict deliberately, banking on the notion that viewers absorbed in exciting action scenes will internalise their underlying messages 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 successfully than earlier, more simplistic examples 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 |
- Technical excellence converts propagandistic content into mainstream entertainment
- Polished production techniques obscures ideological messaging from rigorous analysis
- Filmmaking skill lifts patriotic messaging beyond crude inflammatory discourse
The Troubling Implications for Indian Film Industry
The commercial and critical success of the “Dhurandhar” duology signals a worrying trajectory for Indian cinema, one in which nationalist fervour grows to influence box office performance and cultural relevance. Where once Bollywood operated as a forum for diverse narratives and competing viewpoints, the ascendancy of these nationalist action films suggests a contraction in acceptable discourse. The films’ remarkable achievement indicates that audiences are increasingly receptive to entertainment that explicitly validates state power and positions dissent as treachery. This shift mirrors broader societal polarisation, yet cinema’s unique capacity to shape collective imagination means its political orientation carry particular weight in shaping popular opinion and political attitudes.
The implications extend beyond mere entertainment preferences. When a country’s cinema sector regularly generates narratives that glorify state power and demonise external enemies, it risks calcifying public opinion and restricting meaningful dialogue with intricate geopolitical realities. The “Dhurandhar” films demonstrate this danger by portraying their perspective not as a single viewpoint amongst others, but as objective truth combined with production quality and star power. For commentators and media analysts, this constitutes a pivotal turning point: Indian film industry’s transition from occasionally accommodating state interests to actively functioning as a propaganda apparatus, albeit one considerably more refined than its earlier incarnations.
Propaganda Disguised as Entertainment
The pernicious nature of the “Dhurandhar” duology lies in its deliberate obfuscation of political messaging within layers of cinematic craft. Director Aditya Dhar crafts intricate action set-pieces and character arcs that demand viewer engagement, successfully diverting from the films’ constant endorsement of nationalist ideology and unquestioning faith in state institutions. The protagonist’s journey, purportedly a personal quest for redemption, functions simultaneously as a celebration of governmental power and military might. By incorporating propagandistic content inside compelling stories, the films accomplish what cruder political messaging cannot: they convert ideology into spectacle, making audiences complicit in their own ideological conditioning whilst believing themselves merely entertained.
This strategy demonstrates particularly effective because it functions beneath active perception. Viewers captivated by thrilling set pieces and intimate character scenes absorb the films’ fundamental narratives—that decisive governmental control is required, that adversaries lack redemption, that self-sacrifice for national priorities is honourable—without acknowledging the manipulation at work. The refined visual composition, powerful acting, and real technical skill lend credibility to these accounts, making them appear less like propaganda and more like true storytelling. This veneer of legitimacy enables the films’ divisive ideology to infiltrate popular awareness far more effectively than openly divisive messaging ever would.
What This Signifies for Global Audiences
The global popularity of the “Dhurandhar” duology presents a troubling pattern for how state-backed cinema can cross geographical boundaries and cultural differences. As streaming platforms like Netflix distribute these films globally, audiences in Western countries and beyond encounter advanced propagandistic content wrapped in the recognizable style of espionage thrillers and action cinema. Without the understanding of cultural and political contexts needed to interpret the films’ nationalist messaging, overseas audiences may unknowingly absorb and validate Indian state ideology, effectively extending the reach of propagandistic narratives far outside their original domestic viewership. This globalisation of politically charged content poses critical concerns about platform accountability and the moral dimensions of circulating state-backed films to unsuspecting international audiences.
Furthermore, the “Dhurandhar” films create a disquieting template that rival states may seek to emulate. If state-sponsored filmmaking can achieve both critical recognition and box office success whilst advancing nationalist agendas, rival administrations—particularly those with authoritarian leanings—may identify cinema as a distinctly potent tool for the spread of ideology. The films illustrate that propaganda doesn’t need to be crude or obvious to be effective; rather, when combined with real artistic ability and substantial budgets, it becomes almost inescapable. For international viewers and cinema critics, the duology’s success suggests a worrying prospect where entertainment and government messaging become progressively harder to distinguish.
