Aditya Dhar’s “Dhurandhar” duology has become a pivotal turning point for Hindi cinema, marking a significant change in Bollywood’s subject matter focus and ideological positions. The first instalment, unveiled in December 2025, turned out to be the biggest box office success in India before being split into two parts during post-production. Now, with the follow-up “Dhurandhar: The Revenge” actively dominating cinemas nationwide, the intelligence-based narrative is set to solidify what various commentators consider to be a worrying change in Indian commercial cinema: the blanket endorsement of jingoistic narratives that openly seek official support and exploit national pride. The films’ unabashed fusion of commercial entertainment and state narratives has rekindled debates about Bollywood’s relationship with political power, notably under PM Narendra Modi’s administration.
From Intelligence Thriller to Political Statement
The narrative structure of the “Dhurandhar” duology demonstrates a strategic movement from escapism to political messaging. The first film deliberately positioned before Modi’s 2014 electoral triumph, sets up its ideological framework through characters who repeatedly voice their yearning 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, transforming what appears to be a conventional spy thriller into an comprehensive validation of the ruling government’s approach to national security and armed action.
The sequel intensifies this ideological drive by featuring Modi himself as an virtually ever-present supporting character through deliberately inserted news footage and government broadcasts. Rather than permitting the fictional narrative to stand independently, the filmmakers have interwoven the Prime Minister’s actual image and rhetoric throughout the story, effectively blurring the boundaries between entertainment and government messaging. This intentional storytelling decision distinguishes the “Dhurandhar” films from previous instances of Bollywood’s political positioning, advancing them from understated ideological messaging to direct state promotion that transforms cinema into a instrument for political credibility.
- First film prays for a powerful leader ahead of Modi’s election victory
- Sequel presents Modi in a supporting character via news clips
- Narrative merges fictional heroism with government policy endorsement
- Films obscure the boundaries between entertainment and also state propaganda intentionally
The Transformation of Bollywood’s Ideological Evolution
The box office performance of the “Dhurandhar” duology indicates a significant shift in Bollywood’s relationship with nationalist ideology and state power. Whilst the Indian film industry has historically maintained strong connections to political structures, the brazen nature of these films constitutes a meaningful change in how overtly cinema now conveys governmental messaging. The franchise’s commercial supremacy—with the first instalment becoming the top-earning Hindi film in India following its December launch—demonstrates that viewers are growing more receptive to entertainment that seamlessly integrates state messaging. This receptiveness suggests a basic shift in what Indian viewers regard as acceptable cinematic content, progressing past the understated ideological framing of prior cinema toward direct governmental promotion.
The ramifications of this change extend beyond mere entertainment metrics. By attaining unprecedented commercial success whilst openly conflating cinematic heroics with state policy, the “Dhurandhar” films have effectively endorsed a new template for Bollywood production. Upcoming directors now have access to a proven blueprint for merging patriotic feeling with commercial success, potentially establishing propagandistic cinema as a sustainable and profitable genre. This development demonstrates larger cultural shifts within India, where the boundaries between cinema, patriotism, and official discourse have become less distinct, prompting significant inquiries about cinema’s role in shaping public awareness of politics and sense of nationhood.
A Example of Patriotic Cinema
The “Dhurandhar” duology does not emerge in a vacuum but rather represents the culmination of a growing trend within modern Indian film. The past few 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 productions possess a common ideological framework that reinterprets Indian history through a Hindu-centred perspective 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 veneer of artistic legitimacy that more crude anti-Muslim productions do not possess.
This differentiation proves particularly problematic because the “Dhurandhar” duology’s production quality and entertainment value mask its fundamentally propagandistic nature. Where films like “The Kashmir Files” function as simplistic propagandist instruments, the “Dhurandhar” series deploys filmmaking expertise to render its nationalist agenda appealing to general viewers. The franchise thus constitutes a concerning development: ideological content enhanced through expert direction into what resembles government-endorsed filmmaking. This refined method to nationalist messaging may prove more influential in shaping public opinion than overtly provocative films, as audiences may accept propagandistic material when it is presented in compelling entertainment.
Cinematic Technique Versus Political Messaging
The “Dhurandhar” duology’s most pernicious quality lies in its marriage of cinematic mastery with nationalist ideology. Director Aditya Dhar demonstrates impressive command of the action thriller genre, assembling sequences of raw power and narrative momentum that captivate audiences. This technical competence becomes problematic precisely because it serves as a vehicle for ideological messaging, transforming what might otherwise be crude political messaging into something significantly alluring and convincing. The films’ glossy production values, accomplished visual composition, and compelling performances by actors like Ranveer Singh lend credibility to their inherently polarizing narratives, rendering their political content more palatable to mainstream viewers who might otherwise spurn overtly inflammatory material.
This convergence of creative excellence and ideological messaging establishes a unique challenge for film criticism and cultural commentary. Audiences frequently struggle to separate artistic enjoyment from political critique, especially when entertainment value demonstrates genuine appeal. The “Dhurandhar” films leverage this tension deliberately, relying on the idea that viewers absorbed in exciting action scenes will internalise their embedded messaging without critical scrutiny. The danger grows because the films’ technical accomplishments bestow them legitimacy within critical discourse, enabling their nationalist ideology to circulate more widely and shape 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 |
- Skilled craftsmanship converts ideological material into mainstream entertainment
- Advanced cinematography conceals ideological undertones from critical scrutiny
- Filmmaking skill elevates nationalist rhetoric beyond blunt inflammatory language
The Problematic 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 increasingly determines box office performance and cultural relevance. Where once Bollywood operated as a forum for diverse narratives and alternative standpoints, the rise of these jingoistic thrillers suggests a reduction of 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 demonstrates wider social division, yet cinema’s particular power to shape shared cultural consciousness means its ideological stance carry considerable importance in influencing public consciousness and political attitudes.
The ramifications go further than simple viewing habits. When a nation’s cinema sector regularly generates stories that glorify state power and demonise external enemies, it risks ossifying public opinion and limiting critical engagement with complex international political dynamics. The “Dhurandhar” movies exemplify this risk by portraying their worldview not as one perspective among many, but as objective truth packaged with technical excellence and star power. For commentators and media analysts, this represents a pivotal turning point: Indian cinema’s transition from sometimes serving state interests to actively functioning as a propaganda machine, albeit one considerably more refined than its historical predecessors.
Propaganda Dressed up as Entertainment
The pernicious nature of the “Dhurandhar” duology lies in its intentional concealment of political messaging beneath layers of cinematic craft. Director Aditya Dhar crafts elaborate action sequences and character arcs that capture audience attention, effectively distracting from the films’ relentless promotion of nationalist ideology and uncritical belief in state institutions. The protagonist’s journey, ostensibly a personal quest for redemption, works at once as a exaltation of governmental power and military might. By weaving propagandistic content throughout engaging narratives, the films attain what cruder political messaging cannot: they transform ideology into spectacle, turning audiences complicit in their own ideological conditioning whilst considering themselves simply entertained.
This strategy proves particularly compelling because it functions beneath deliberate notice. Viewers captivated by thrilling set pieces and poignant character development internalise the films’ core themes—that forceful state intervention is necessary, that opponents cannot change, that personal sacrifice for governmental objectives is honourable—without detecting the manipulation taking place. The refined visual composition, engaging portrayals, and genuine technical accomplishment provide authenticity to these stories, making them appear less like propaganda and more like genuine narrative. This surface credibility permits the films’ divisive ideology to infiltrate mainstream consciousness far more successfully than explicitly provocative content ever would.
What This Means for Global Audiences
The global success of the “Dhurandhar” duology presents a concerning pattern for how state-backed cinema can transcend geographical boundaries and cultural contexts. As streaming services like Netflix release these films globally, audiences in Western countries and elsewhere encounter advanced propagandistic content wrapped in the familiar language 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 ideology, effectively extending the reach of propagandistic content far beyond their original domestic viewership. This worldwide distribution of politically sensitive material raises urgent questions about platform accountability and the moral dimensions of circulating state-backed films to unsuspecting international audiences.
Furthermore, the “Dhurandhar” films establish a disquieting template that other countries might attempt to emulate. If state-aligned cinema can attain both critical acclaim and financial returns whilst furthering nationalist agendas, other states—particularly those with authoritarian tendencies—may acknowledge cinema as a exceptionally influential tool for the spread of ideology. The films illustrate that propaganda doesn’t have to be crude or obvious to be effective; rather, when coupled with authentic creative talent and considerable resources, it becomes almost inescapable. For worldwide audiences and film critics, the duology’s success signals a worrying prospect where entertainment and government messaging become progressively harder to distinguish.
