Aditya Dhar’s “Dhurandhar” duology has established itself as a landmark achievement for Hindi cinema, indicating a dramatic shift in Bollywood’s thematic preoccupations and political allegiances. The initial chapter, released in December 2025, became the highest-grossing Hindi-language film in India before being split into two parts throughout the editing process. Now, with the second instalment “Dhurandhar: The Revenge” actively dominating cinemas across the country, the espionage thriller is positioned to establish what various commentators view as a worrying change in Indian popular cinema: the blanket endorsement of nationalist-leaning stories that deliberately pursue government favour and capitalise on national pride. The films’ overt blending of entertainment and governmental messaging has rekindled discussions concerning Bollywood’s ties to political authority, notably under 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 opening instalment deliberately positioned before Modi’s 2014 electoral triumph, sets up its political foundation through characters who repeatedly voice their desperation for a figure prepared to pursue decisive action against both foreign and domestic dangers. This temporal positioning enables the story to present Modi’s later ascent to leadership as the solution for the country’s aspirations, transforming what seems like a standard espionage film into an comprehensive validation of the ruling government’s stance on homeland defence and armed action.
The sequel intensifies this ideological drive by showcasing Modi himself as an near-constant supporting character through carefully positioned news footage and government broadcasts. Rather than enabling the fictional narrative to stand independently, the filmmakers have woven the Prime Minister’s genuine appearance and rhetoric throughout the story, effectively blurring the boundaries between entertainment and state communication. This deliberate narrative choice distinguishes the “Dhurandhar” films from previous instances of Bollywood’s political alignment, raising them from subtle ideological positioning to direct state promotion that transforms cinema into a vehicle for political legitimacy.
- First film appeals for a powerful leader ahead of Modi’s electoral triumph
- Sequel includes Modi in a supporting character through news clips
- Narrative blends fictional heroism alongside government policy endorsement
- Films obscure the boundaries between entertainment and also state propaganda intentionally
The Development of Bollywood’s Ideological Shift
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 establishments, the explicit character of these films represents a qualitative shift in how overtly cinema now conveys state communications. The franchise’s box office dominance—with the first instalment becoming 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 suggests a basic shift in what Indian viewers regard as acceptable cinematic content, moving beyond the subtle ideological positioning of prior cinema toward direct governmental promotion.
The implications of this transition go beyond mere entertainment metrics. By achieving extraordinary financial performance whilst explicitly merging cinematic heroics with political agenda, the “Dhurandhar” films have effectively legitimised a novel framework for Indian film production. Next-generation filmmakers now have access to a tested formula for blending nationalist sentiment with commercial success, potentially establishing propagandistic cinema as a enduring and profitable genre. This evolution demonstrates broader societal transformations within India, where the dividing lines separating entertainment, nationalism, and state messaging have become increasingly porous, generating critical questions about cinema’s role in influencing public awareness of politics and sense of nationhood.
A Example of Nationalist Cinema
The “Dhurandhar” duology does not appear in a vacuum but rather constitutes the apotheosis of a growing trend within modern Indian film. Recent years have witnessed 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 common ideological framework that reinterprets Indian history through a Hindu-centred perspective whilst depicting Muslims as fundamental dangers. However, what sets apart the “Dhurandhar” films from these earlier works is their better filmmaking craft and production quality, which lend their propaganda a sheen of artistic credibility that more artless Islamophobic films do not possess.
This distinction proves particularly problematic because the “Dhurandhar” two-film series’ technical sophistication and entertainment value conceal its essentially propagandist nature. Where films like “The Kashmir Files” operate as simplistic propagandist instruments, the “Dhurandhar” series employs filmmaking expertise to present its nationalist agenda palatable to general viewers. The franchise thus constitutes a dangerous evolution: messaging refined through expert direction into something approaching officially-backed production. This sophisticated approach to nationalist messaging may become increasingly impactful in shaping public opinion than explicitly divisive films, as audiences may absorb propagandistic material when it arrives wrapped in compelling entertainment.
Film Production Versus Political Narratives
The “Dhurandhar” duology’s most insidious quality lies in its fusion of production sophistication with ideological extremism. Director Aditya Dhar exhibits considerable mastery of the action thriller genre, constructing sequences of emotional force and plot propulsion that captivate audiences. This cinematic proficiency becomes problematic precisely because it serves as a vehicle for political propaganda, transforming what might otherwise be blunt political content into something considerably compelling and influential. The films’ polished aesthetic, sophisticated cinematography, and strong performances by actors like Ranveer Singh lend credibility to their fundamentally divisive narratives, making their political content more palatable to mainstream viewers who might otherwise spurn explicitly provocative content.
This intersection of creative excellence and propagandistic intent establishes a distinctive difficulty for film criticism and cultural analysis. Audiences often find it difficult to distinguish between aesthetic appreciation from political critique, especially when entertainment appeal demonstrates genuine appeal. 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 resistance. The risk grows because the films’ technical accomplishments grant them credibility within critical conversation, allowing their nationalist ideals to circulate more widely and influence public opinion 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 popular media
- Advanced cinematography conceals ideological undertones from close examination
- Filmmaking skill lifts patriotic messaging above raw inflammatory speech
The Troubling Consequences for Indian Cinema
The box office and critical success of the “Dhurandhar” duology suggests a potentially troubling trajectory for Indian cinema, one in which nationalistic sentiment grows to influence box office performance and cultural significance. Where once Bollywood served as a forum for diverse narratives and competing viewpoints, the rise of these jingoistic thrillers suggests a narrowing of acceptable discourse. The films’ unprecedented success indicates that audiences are growing more accepting of entertainment that openly champions state power and positions dissent as treachery. This shift reflects broader societal polarisation, yet cinema’s particular power to shape shared cultural consciousness means its ideological leanings carry particular weight in influencing public consciousness and political attitudes.
The consequences extend beyond mere viewing habits. When a country’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 presenting their worldview not as a single viewpoint amongst others, but as factual reality wrapped in technical excellence and star power. For critics and media analysts, this constitutes a watershed moment: Indian cinema’s evolution from occasionally accommodating state interests to deliberately operating as a propaganda machine, albeit one considerably more refined than its historical predecessors.
Propaganda Presented 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 crafts intricate action set-pieces and character arcs that command viewer attention, deftly deflecting from the films’ relentless promotion of nationalist ideology and uncritical belief in state institutions. The protagonist’s journey, purportedly a personal quest for redemption, works at once 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 convert ideology into spectacle, rendering viewers complicit in their own ideological conditioning whilst regarding themselves as merely entertained.
This strategy shows particularly effective because it works beneath deliberate notice. Viewers engrossed by thrilling set pieces and emotional character moments take in the films’ core themes—that forceful state intervention is necessary, that enemies are irredeemable, that individual sacrifice for state interests is honourable—without acknowledging the manipulation at work. The polished camera work, powerful acting, and authentic craftsmanship lend credibility to these accounts, allowing them to look less like persuasive messaging and more like true storytelling. This surface credibility permits the films’ divisive ideology to reach popular awareness far more effectively than openly divisive messaging ever could.
What This Signifies for Global Audiences
The international success of the “Dhurandhar” duology presents a troubling pattern for how state-backed cinema can cross geographic borders 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 cultural and political literacy required to decode the films’ nationalist rhetoric, international viewers may inadvertently consume and legitimise Indian state ideology, substantially broadening the reach of propagandistic content far beyond their original domestic viewership. This worldwide distribution of politically charged content poses critical concerns about platform responsibility and the moral dimensions of distributing state-sponsored cinema to unaware overseas viewers.
Furthermore, the “Dhurandhar” films create a troubling template that other countries could try to emulate. If government-backed film can secure both critical praise and commercial success whilst promoting nationalist agendas, other states—particularly those with authoritarian leanings—may acknowledge cinema as a exceptionally influential tool for ideological propagation. The films show that propaganda need not be crude or obvious to be effective; rather, when combined with authentic creative talent and considerable resources, it becomes virtually unavoidable. For international viewers and cinema critics, the duology’s success indicates a concerning future where entertainment and government messaging become increasingly indistinguishable.
