Aditya Dhar’s “Dhurandhar” duology has emerged as a pivotal turning point for Hindi cinema, indicating a pronounced transformation in Bollywood’s thematic preoccupations and ideological positions. The first instalment, launched in December 2025, proved to be the highest-grossing Hindi-language film in India prior to being divided into two parts in the post-production phase. Now, with the sequel “Dhurandhar: The Revenge” currently dominating cinemas throughout the nation, the espionage thriller is poised to cement what numerous critics consider to be a troubling shift in Indian commercial cinema: the comprehensive adoption of jingoistic narratives that deliberately pursue government favour and leverage national pride. The films’ overt blending of entertainment and state propaganda has revived conversations around Bollywood’s ties to political authority, notably under Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s administration.
From Spy Thriller to Political Statement
The storytelling framework of the “Dhurandhar” duology reveals a strategic movement from entertainment to political messaging. The first film deliberately positioned before Modi’s 2014 electoral triumph, establishes its political foundation through characters who repeatedly voice their desperation for a leader willing to take forceful measures against both external and internal threats. This temporal positioning enables the story to present Modi’s subsequent rise to power as the solution for the country’s aspirations, converting what appears to be a standard espionage film into an elaborate endorsement of the administration’s approach to homeland defence and armed action.
The sequel heightens this promotional agenda by featuring Modi himself as an almost omnipresent supporting character through strategically placed news footage and government broadcasts. Rather than allowing the fictional narrative to operate on its own, the filmmakers have interwoven the Prime Minister’s actual image and rhetoric throughout the story, significantly erasing the boundaries between entertainment and official discourse. This calculated narrative approach distinguishes the “Dhurandhar” films from prior cases of Bollywood’s political positioning, elevating them from muted ideological content to overt political backing that transforms cinema into a tool for political validation.
- First film appeals for a strong leader ahead of Modi’s election victory
- Sequel presents Modi as a supporting character via news clips
- Narrative merges fictional heroism alongside government policy approval
- Films blur the distinction between entertainment and also state propaganda deliberately
The Evolution of Bollywood’s Ideological Evolution
The box office performance of the “Dhurandhar” duology indicates a profound transformation in Bollywood’s connection to nationalist thought and state power. Whilst the Indian cinema sector has traditionally upheld close ties with political establishments, the brazen nature of these films constitutes a meaningful change in how overtly cinema now channels state communications. The franchise’s box office dominance—with the opening film emerging as the top-earning Hindi film in India following its December launch—shows that audiences are increasingly receptive to entertainment that seamlessly integrates state messaging. This acceptance indicates a basic shift in what Indian viewers regard as acceptable cinematic content, moving beyond the subtle ideological positioning of earlier films toward explicit state advocacy.
The consequences of this transition go beyond mere commercial performance. By achieving unprecedented commercial success whilst directly blending cinematic heroics with state policy, the “Dhurandhar” films have effectively endorsed a fresh blueprint for Bollywood production. Future filmmakers now have access to a proven blueprint for combining patriotic feeling with financial gains, conceivably fostering state-aligned filmmaking as a enduring and profitable genre. This evolution indicates broader societal transformations within India, where the dividing lines separating cinema, patriotism, and official discourse have become increasingly porous, raising important concerns about film’s function in influencing political consciousness and national identity.
A Pattern of Nationalist Cinema
The “Dhurandhar” duology does not emerge in a vacuum but rather represents the culmination of a expanding movement within modern Indian film. The past few years have seen a surge of films utilising 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 reinterprets Indian history through a Hindu-centred perspective 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 give their propaganda a veneer of artistic legitimacy that more artless Islamophobic films lack.
This distinction shows especially problematic because the “Dhurandhar” duology’s cinematic craft and audience engagement obscure its fundamentally propagandistic nature. Where films like “The Kashmir Files” operate as blunt political instruments, the “Dhurandhar” series utilises cinematic craft to render its nationalist agenda acceptable to general viewers. The franchise thus represents a concerning development: propaganda elevated through expert direction into what resembles government-endorsed filmmaking. This sophisticated approach to ideological content may prove more influential in affecting popular sentiment than explicitly divisive films, as audiences may embrace political messaging when it comes packaged in engaging storytelling.
Film Production Versus Political Messaging
The “Dhurandhar” duology’s most insidious quality lies in its combination of cinematic mastery with political radicalism. Director Aditya Dhar demonstrates substantial expertise of the thriller genre, constructing sequences of emotional force and plot propulsion that engage audiences. This filmmaking skill becomes concerning precisely because it acts as a medium for political propaganda, transforming what might otherwise be overt political rhetoric into something considerably alluring and convincing. The films’ polished aesthetic, sophisticated cinematography, and powerful acting by actors like Ranveer Singh provide plausibility to their fundamentally divisive narratives, making their political message more acceptable to wider audiences who might otherwise dismiss blatantly incendiary messaging.
This combination of artistic merit and propagandistic intent establishes a unique challenge for film criticism and cultural commentary. Audiences frequently struggle to distinguish between artistic enjoyment from political analysis, especially when entertainment value demonstrates genuine appeal. The “Dhurandhar” films exploit this conflict deliberately, relying on the idea that viewers absorbed in exciting action scenes will internalise their embedded messaging without critical scrutiny. The risk intensifies because the films’ technical accomplishments grant them legitimacy within critical conversation, allowing their nationalist ideology to spread more extensively and influence public consciousness more successfully 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 mainstream entertainment
- Polished production techniques masks political messaging from rigorous analysis
- Film technique raises patriotic messaging above blunt inflammatory language
The Troubling Ramifications for Indian Cinema
The box office and critical success of the “Dhurandhar” duology suggests a potentially troubling trajectory for Indian cinema, one in which nationalist fervour increasingly determines box office performance and cultural importance. Where once Bollywood served as a forum for multiple perspectives and alternative standpoints, the ascendancy of these jingoistic thrillers suggests a reduction of acceptable discourse. The films’ unprecedented success indicates that audiences are becoming more drawn to entertainment that explicitly validates state power and positions dissent as treachery. This shift reflects broader societal polarisation, yet cinema’s particular power to shape collective imagination means its ideological leanings carry particular weight in shaping popular opinion and political attitudes.
The consequences go further than simple entertainment preferences. When a country’s cinema sector regularly generates stories that glorify government authority and vilify external enemies, it runs the danger of hardening public opinion and restricting meaningful dialogue with complex geopolitical realities. The “Dhurandhar” films demonstrate this danger by presenting their perspective not as a single viewpoint amongst others, but as factual reality combined with production quality and celebrity appeal. For commentators and media analysts, this marks a pivotal turning point: Indian cinema’s transition from sometimes serving government objectives to deliberately operating as a propaganda apparatus, albeit one considerably more refined than its historical predecessors.
Propaganda Presented as Entertainment
The pernicious nature of the “Dhurandhar” duology rests upon its deliberate obfuscation of political messaging beneath layers of cinematic craft. Director Aditya Dhar develops intricate action set-pieces and character arcs that capture audience attention, successfully diverting from the films’ persistent advancement of nationalist ideology and blind faith in state institutions. The protagonist’s journey, ostensibly a personal quest for redemption, works at once as a glorification of governmental power and military might. By incorporating propagandistic content inside compelling stories, the films accomplish what cruder political messaging cannot: they transform ideology into spectacle, turning audiences complicit in their own ideological conditioning whilst regarding themselves as merely entertained.
This strategy shows particularly successful because it functions beneath conscious awareness. Viewers captivated by gripping dramatic moments and poignant character development take in the films’ core themes—that decisive governmental control is essential, that enemies are irredeemable, that self-sacrifice for state interests is honourable—without detecting the manipulation at work. The polished camera work, powerful acting, and genuine technical accomplishment lend credibility to these narratives, causing them to seem less like propaganda and more like authentic storytelling. This veneer of legitimacy allows the films’ polarising worldview to reach popular awareness far with greater success than openly divisive messaging ever could.
What This Means for Worldwide Audiences
The global success of the “Dhurandhar” duology raises a concerning pattern for how state-backed cinema can transcend geographic borders and cultural differences. As streaming platforms like Netflix distribute these films globally, 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 needed to interpret the films’ nationalist messaging, overseas audiences may unknowingly consume and legitimise Indian state-sponsored ideology, substantially broadening the reach of propagandistic narratives far beyond their original domestic viewership. This worldwide distribution of politically sensitive material poses urgent questions about platform responsibility and the ethical implications of distributing state-backed films to unsuspecting international audiences.
Furthermore, the “Dhurandhar” films set a troubling template that other countries could try to emulate. If state-sponsored filmmaking can secure both critical recognition and financial returns whilst promoting nationalist agendas, other states—particularly those prone to authoritarianism—may acknowledge cinema as a distinctly potent tool for the spread of ideology. The films illustrate that propaganda need not be crude or obvious to be effective; rather, when paired with real artistic ability and significant funding, it becomes almost inescapable. For worldwide audiences and cinema critics, the duology’s success indicates a troubling outlook where popular entertainment and state communication become progressively harder to distinguish.
