Aditya Dhar’s “Dhurandhar” duology has emerged as a watershed moment for Hindi cinema, marking a pronounced transformation in Bollywood’s narrative priorities and political allegiances. The first instalment, released in December 2025, proved to be the top-earning Hindi film in India before being split into two parts during post-production. Now, with the follow-up “Dhurandhar: The Revenge” presently commanding cinemas across the country, the spy saga is poised to cement what numerous critics consider to be a concerning transformation in Indian commercial cinema: the comprehensive adoption of jingoistic narratives that openly seek government favour and exploit nationalist sentiment. The films’ overt blending of entertainment and state propaganda has rekindled debates about Bollywood’s relationship with political power, notably under Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s administration.
From Intelligence Thriller to Political Statement
The narrative structure of the “Dhurandhar” duology reveals 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 protagonists who consistently express their desperation for a figure prepared to pursue decisive action against both external and internal threats. This temporal positioning allows the narrative to present Modi’s subsequent rise to power as the answer to the country’s aspirations, converting what appears to be a standard espionage film into an comprehensive validation of the ruling government’s approach to homeland defence and military aggression.
The sequel intensifies this propagandistic impulse 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 stand independently, the filmmakers have threaded the Prime Minister’s actual image and rhetoric throughout the story, significantly erasing the boundaries between entertainment and state communication. This calculated narrative approach distinguishes the “Dhurandhar” films from previous instances 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 before Modi’s election victory
- Sequel includes Modi in a supporting character via news clips
- Narrative blends fictional heroism alongside government policy approval
- Films erase the distinction between entertainment and state propaganda by design
The Transformation of Bollywood’s Philosophical Change
The commercial success of the “Dhurandhar” duology signals a profound transformation in Bollywood’s connection to nationalist ideology and government authority. Whilst the Indian cinema sector has traditionally upheld strong connections to political establishments, the brazen nature of these films constitutes a qualitative shift in how directly cinema now conveys governmental messaging. The franchise’s commercial supremacy—with the first instalment emerging as the top-earning Hindi film in India following its December launch—shows that viewers are growing more receptive to content that smoothly incorporates state messaging. This acceptance suggests a basic shift in what Indian audiences consider acceptable cinematic content, progressing past the subtle ideological positioning of prior cinema towards explicit state advocacy.
The implications of this shift go beyond simple box office figures. By achieving remarkable box office gains whilst directly blending fictional heroism with political agenda, the “Dhurandhar” films have effectively legitimised a fresh blueprint for Bollywood production. Upcoming directors now possess a tested formula for merging nationalist sentiment with commercial success, potentially establishing politically-driven cinema as a viable and lucrative category. This evolution indicates larger cultural shifts within India, where the boundaries between entertainment, nationalism, and state messaging have become increasingly porous, generating critical questions about film’s function in forming public awareness of politics and national identity.
A Pattern of Patriotic Cinema
The “Dhurandhar” duology does not emerge in a vacuum but rather constitutes the apotheosis of a expanding movement within contemporary Indian cinema. Recent 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 shared ideological structure that reinterprets Indian history through a Hindu-centred perspective whilst portraying Muslims as existential threats. However, what distinguishes the “Dhurandhar” films from these predecessors is their superior cinematic execution and production values, which lend their propaganda a veneer of artistic legitimacy that more artless Islamophobic films lack.
This difference shows especially concerning because the “Dhurandhar” duology’s production quality and audience engagement obscure its inherently ideological nature. Where films like “The Kashmir Files” function as crude ideological instruments, the “Dhurandhar” series deploys professional technique to make its political messaging appealing to general viewers. The franchise thus constitutes a troubling progression: propaganda elevated through expert direction into something approaching state-sanctioned cinema. This polished strategy to political narrative may prove more influential in affecting popular sentiment than more obviously inflammatory 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 marriage of production sophistication with political radicalism. Director Aditya Dhar demonstrates substantial expertise of the action thriller genre, assembling sequences of raw power and narrative momentum that enthrall audiences. This technical competence becomes concerning precisely because it serves as a medium for political propaganda, reshaping what might otherwise be crude political messaging into something significantly compelling and influential. The films’ glossy production values, accomplished visual composition, and powerful acting by actors like Ranveer Singh add legitimacy to their fundamentally divisive narratives, rendering their political message more palatable to wider audiences who might otherwise dismiss explicitly provocative content.
This convergence of creative excellence and ideological messaging creates a distinctive difficulty for film criticism and cultural commentary. Audiences frequently struggle to distinguish between artistic enjoyment from political critique, especially when entertainment appeal proves genuinely compelling. The “Dhurandhar” films exploit this conflict intentionally, banking on the idea that audiences engaged with thrilling action sequences will internalise their underlying messages without critical scrutiny. The danger grows because the films’ technical accomplishments grant them credibility within critical discourse, enabling their nationalist ideology to circulate more widely and shape public consciousness 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 |
- Technical excellence turns ideological material into mass-market content
- Polished production techniques conceals ideological messaging from rigorous analysis
- Filmmaking skill lifts nationalist rhetoric above blunt inflammatory language
The Problematic Implications for Indian Cinema
The commercial and critical success of the “Dhurandhar” duology suggests a concerning trajectory for Indian cinema, one in which nationalist fervour increasingly determines box office performance and cultural importance. Where once Bollywood functioned as a forum for multiple perspectives and differing opinions, the ascendancy of these patriotic suspense films suggests a reduction of acceptable discourse. The films’ unprecedented success 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 distinctive ability to shape public imagination means its ideological stance carry considerable importance in influencing public consciousness and political attitudes.
The consequences extend beyond simple entertainment preferences. When a nation’s cinema sector consistently produces stories that glorify government authority and portray negatively foreign adversaries, it runs the danger of hardening collective views and limiting meaningful dialogue with complex international political dynamics. The “Dhurandhar” films illustrate this risk by portraying their perspective not as one perspective among many, but as objective truth combined with production quality and celebrity appeal. For critics and media analysts, this marks a watershed moment: Indian cinema’s shift from sometimes serving government objectives to actively functioning as a propaganda machine, albeit one far more sophisticated than its historical predecessors.
Propaganda Dressed up as Entertainment
The pernicious nature of the “Dhurandhar” duology lies in its calculated obscuring of political messaging under layers of cinematic craft. Director Aditya Dhar constructs elaborate action sequences and character arcs that demand viewer engagement, deftly deflecting from the films’ persistent advancement 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 within entertaining narratives, the films achieve what cruder political messaging cannot: they convert ideology into spectacle, rendering viewers complicit in their own ideological conditioning whilst considering themselves simply entertained.
This strategy proves particularly effective because it operates beneath conscious awareness. Viewers captivated by exhilarating action sequences and emotional character moments absorb the films’ core themes—that forceful state intervention is essential, that adversaries lack redemption, that self-sacrifice for governmental objectives is noble—without acknowledging the manipulation taking place. The polished camera work, compelling performances, and real technical skill lend credibility to these stories, allowing them to look less like ideological material and more like authentic storytelling. This veneer of legitimacy permits the films’ divisive ideology to reach mainstream consciousness far more successfully than explicitly provocative content ever would.
What This Implies for Worldwide Audiences
The international success of the “Dhurandhar” duology raises a concerning precedent for how state-backed cinema can transcend geographical boundaries and cultural contexts. As streaming platforms 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 rhetoric, international viewers may inadvertently absorb and validate Indian state ideology, substantially broadening the reach of propagandistic content far beyond their intended domestic audience. This worldwide distribution of politically charged content raises critical concerns about platform responsibility and the moral dimensions of circulating state-backed films to unaware overseas viewers.
Furthermore, the “Dhurandhar” films set a troubling template that other nations might attempt to emulate. If government-backed film can secure both critical recognition and financial returns whilst promoting nationalist agendas, other states—particularly those with authoritarian leanings—may acknowledge cinema as a exceptionally influential tool for ideological dissemination. The films illustrate that propaganda doesn’t have to be crude or obvious to be effective; rather, when combined with genuine artistic talent and significant funding, it becomes almost inescapable. For worldwide audiences and movie reviewers, the duology’s success suggests a worrying prospect where popular entertainment and state communication become progressively harder to distinguish.
