Aditya Dhar’s “Dhurandhar” duology has established itself as a watershed moment for Hindi cinema, marking a dramatic shift in Bollywood’s subject matter focus and political leanings. The opening film, released in December 2025, became the biggest box office success in India prior to being divided into two parts during post-production. Now, with the second instalment “Dhurandhar: The Revenge” presently commanding cinemas nationwide, the espionage thriller is positioned to establish what numerous critics regard as a concerning transformation in Indian mainstream film: the comprehensive adoption of nationalist-leaning stories that openly seek state approval and leverage patriotic feeling. The films’ brazen conflation of entertainment and state propaganda has reignited debates about Bollywood’s connections with political influence, especially during 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 strategically set before Modi’s 2014 electoral triumph, sets up its ideological framework through characters who repeatedly voice their desperation for a leader willing to take forceful measures against both external and internal threats. This strategic timing enables the story to present Modi’s later ascent to leadership as the solution for the nation’s prayers, transforming what appears to be a conventional spy thriller into an elaborate endorsement of the ruling government’s approach to homeland defence and armed action.
The sequel amplifies this promotional agenda by showcasing Modi himself as an near-constant supporting character through carefully positioned 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 ideological affiliation, advancing them from subtle ideological positioning to overt political backing that transforms cinema into a vehicle for political legitimacy.
- First film calls for a powerful leader ahead of Modi’s electoral triumph
- Sequel presents Modi as a supporting character via news clips
- Narrative blends fictional heroism alongside government policy endorsement
- Films obscure the distinction between entertainment and also state propaganda deliberately
The Evolution of Bollywood’s Philosophical Change
The commercial success of the “Dhurandhar” duology indicates a profound transformation in Bollywood’s connection to nationalist thought and government authority. Whilst the Indian film industry has traditionally upheld close ties with political establishments, the brazen nature of these films represents a meaningful change in how directly cinema now conveys state communications. The franchise’s commercial supremacy—with the first instalment emerging as the top-earning Hindi film in India upon its December release—shows that viewers are growing more receptive to entertainment that seamlessly integrates political propaganda. This receptiveness indicates a basic shift in what Indian viewers regard as acceptable film content, moving beyond the understated ideological framing of prior cinema towards direct governmental promotion.
The implications of this change extend beyond mere box office figures. By achieving extraordinary financial performance whilst openly conflating fictional heroism with state policy, the “Dhurandhar” films have effectively legitimised a new template for Bollywood production. Upcoming directors now possess a tested formula for merging nationalist sentiment with financial gains, potentially establishing state-aligned filmmaking as a sustainable and profitable genre. This development indicates broader societal transformations within India, where the boundaries between cinema, patriotism, and official discourse have grown more blurred, generating significant inquiries about the cinema’s influence in influencing public awareness of politics and sense of nationhood.
A Example of National Cinema
The “Dhurandhar” duology does not emerge in a vacuum but rather represents the culmination of a growing trend within contemporary Indian cinema. Recent years have seen a proliferation of films utilising nationalist messaging and anti-Muslim narratives, including “The Kashmir Files,” “The Kerala Story,” and “The Taj Story.” These films share a shared ideological structure that recasts Indian history through a Hindu-centric lens whilst portraying Muslims as existential threats. However, what sets apart the “Dhurandhar” films from these predecessors is their superior cinematic execution and production values, which lend their propaganda a sheen of artistic credibility that more artless Islamophobic films do not possess.
This differentiation proves particularly troubling because the “Dhurandhar” duology’s cinematic craft and popular appeal conceal its inherently ideological nature. Where films like “The Kashmir Files” operate as blunt political instruments, the “Dhurandhar” series employs cinematic craft to render its nationalist agenda appealing to general viewers. The franchise thus constitutes a dangerous evolution: propaganda elevated through sophisticated production into what resembles state-sanctioned cinema. This refined method to political narrative may become increasingly impactful in shaping public opinion than explicitly divisive films, as audiences may embrace propagandistic material when it is presented in absorbing narrative.
Cinematic Technique Versus Political Narratives
The “Dhurandhar” duology’s most insidious quality lies in its combination of technical excellence with political radicalism. Director Aditya Dhar demonstrates substantial expertise of the thriller genre, crafting sequences of emotional force and plot propulsion that enthrall audiences. This technical competence becomes problematic precisely because it acts as a medium for nationalist propaganda, reshaping what might otherwise be overt political rhetoric into something far more seductive and persuasive. The films’ polished aesthetic, accomplished visual composition, and strong performances by actors like Ranveer Singh provide plausibility to their fundamentally divisive narratives, turning their ideological messaging more palatable to mainstream viewers who might otherwise dismiss overtly inflammatory material.
This combination of artistic merit and ideological messaging presents a unique challenge for film criticism and cultural commentary. Audiences often find it difficult to separate artistic enjoyment from political critique, especially when entertainment appeal proves genuinely compelling. The “Dhurandhar” films leverage this tension intentionally, relying on the idea that audiences engaged with exciting action scenes will absorb their underlying messages without critical scrutiny. The danger intensifies because the films’ technical achievements grant them legitimacy within critical conversation, enabling their nationalist ideology to circulate more widely and influence 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 turns ideological material into mainstream entertainment
- Advanced cinematography conceals political messaging from close examination
- Film technique raises nationalist rhetoric above blunt inflammatory language
The Troubling Consequences for Indian Film Industry
The box office and critical success of the “Dhurandhar” duology suggests a potentially troubling trajectory for Indian cinema, one in which nationalistic sentiment increasingly determines box office performance and cultural importance. Where once Bollywood served as a forum for multiple perspectives and alternative standpoints, the emergence of these nationalist action films suggests a contraction in acceptable discourse. The films’ extraordinary performance indicates that audiences are growing more accepting of entertainment that directly endorses state power and characterises opposition as treachery. This shift demonstrates broader societal polarisation, yet cinema’s unique capacity to shape collective imagination means its political orientation carry considerable importance in shaping popular opinion and political attitudes.
The ramifications extend beyond mere entertainment preferences. When a country’s cinema sector consistently produces stories that celebrate state power and portray negatively external enemies, it runs the danger of calcifying collective views and limiting critical engagement with intricate geopolitical realities. The “Dhurandhar” movies illustrate this risk by presenting their worldview not as a single viewpoint amongst others, but as factual reality combined with production quality and celebrity appeal. For critics and cultural observers, this constitutes a watershed moment: Indian film industry’s shift 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 insidious nature of the “Dhurandhar” duology rests upon its calculated obscuring of political messaging beneath layers of cinematic craft. Director Aditya Dhar develops elaborate action sequences and character arcs that capture audience attention, deftly deflecting from the films’ persistent advancement of nationalist ideology and unquestioning faith in state institutions. The protagonist’s journey, nominally a personal quest for redemption, functions simultaneously as a glorification of governmental power and military might. By embedding propagandistic content within entertaining 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 shows particularly successful because it functions beneath conscious awareness. Viewers absorbed in thrilling set pieces and poignant character development absorb the films’ underlying messages—that strong-handed government action is essential, that adversaries lack redemption, that self-sacrifice for governmental objectives is noble—without recognising the manipulation taking place. The polished camera work, compelling performances, and real technical skill provide authenticity to these stories, causing them to seem less like propaganda and more like genuine narrative. This appearance of authenticity permits the films’ polarising worldview to penetrate popular awareness far more effectively than explicitly provocative content ever could.
What This Signifies for Worldwide Audiences
The global success of the “Dhurandhar” duology presents a troubling pattern for how state-backed cinema can transcend geographical boundaries and cultural contexts. As streaming platforms like Netflix distribute these films worldwide, audiences in Western countries and elsewhere encounter advanced propagandistic content wrapped in the familiar language 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 consume and legitimise Indian state ideology, substantially broadening the reach of propagandistic narratives far beyond their original domestic viewership. This worldwide distribution of politically charged content raises urgent questions about platform accountability and the moral dimensions of distributing state-sponsored cinema to unaware overseas viewers.
Furthermore, the “Dhurandhar” films establish a troubling template that rival states might attempt to emulate. If state-sponsored filmmaking can achieve both critical acclaim and box office success whilst advancing nationalist agendas, other states—particularly those prone to authoritarianism—may recognise cinema as a distinctly potent tool for ideological dissemination. The films show that propaganda need not be crude or obvious to be effective; rather, when coupled with authentic creative talent and substantial budgets, it becomes nearly irresistible. For global audiences and cinema critics, the duology’s success indicates a worrying prospect where entertainment and government messaging become progressively harder to distinguish.
