Aditya Dhar’s “Dhurandhar” duology has established itself as a watershed moment for Hindi cinema, signalling a dramatic shift in Bollywood’s thematic preoccupations and political leanings. The initial chapter, released in December 2025, proved to be the top-earning Hindi film in India before being separated into two parts throughout the editing process. Now, with the sequel “Dhurandhar: The Revenge” actively dominating cinemas nationwide, the intelligence-based narrative is positioned to establish what various commentators view as a worrying change in Indian mainstream film: the blanket endorsement of patriotic-inflected tales that openly seek state approval and leverage patriotic feeling. The films’ overt blending of commercial entertainment and state narratives has reignited debates about Bollywood’s ties to political authority, especially during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s administration.
From Spy Thriller to Political Manifesto
The storytelling framework of the “Dhurandhar” duology demonstrates a strategic movement from escapism to political messaging. The first film strategically set before Modi’s 2014 electoral triumph, establishes its ideological framework through protagonists who consistently express their yearning for a figure prepared to pursue forceful measures against both foreign and domestic dangers. This temporal positioning enables the story to frame Modi’s subsequent rise to power as the solution for the nation’s prayers, transforming what appears to be a conventional spy thriller into an elaborate endorsement of the administration’s approach to national security and military aggression.
The sequel amplifies this propagandistic impulse 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 operate on its own, the filmmakers have interwoven the Prime Minister’s genuine appearance and rhetoric throughout the story, effectively blurring the boundaries between entertainment and official discourse. This intentional storytelling decision distinguishes the “Dhurandhar” films from prior cases of Bollywood’s ideological affiliation, raising them from subtle ideological positioning to overt political backing that transforms cinema into a instrument for political credibility.
- First film calls for a strong leader before Modi’s electoral triumph
- Sequel features Modi as a supporting character through news clips
- Narrative blends fictional heroism with government policy endorsement
- Films erase the boundaries between entertainment and also state propaganda intentionally
The Transformation of Bollywood’s Ideological Shift
The box office performance of the “Dhurandhar” duology signals 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 qualitative shift in how overtly cinema now channels governmental messaging. The franchise’s commercial supremacy—with the first instalment emerging as the highest-grossing Hindi-language film in India upon its December release—demonstrates that audiences are increasingly receptive to entertainment that seamlessly integrates state messaging. This receptiveness indicates a fundamental change in what Indian audiences consider acceptable cinematic content, progressing past the understated ideological framing of earlier films towards explicit state advocacy.
The implications of this shift extend beyond simple box office figures. By attaining extraordinary financial performance whilst explicitly merging fictional heroism with state policy, the “Dhurandhar” films have effectively endorsed a new template for Bollywood production. Next-generation filmmakers now possess a established model for merging nationalist sentiment with financial gains, conceivably fostering politically-driven cinema as a sustainable and profitable category. This development reflects wider social changes within India, where the boundaries between cinema, patriotism, and official discourse have become less distinct, prompting significant inquiries about the cinema’s influence in forming public awareness of politics and sense of nationhood.
A Example of National Cinema
The “Dhurandhar” duology does not appear in a vacuum but rather constitutes the apotheosis of a expanding movement within contemporary Indian cinema. The past few years have witnessed a surge of films employing nationalist messaging and anti-Muslim narratives, including “The Kashmir Files,” “The Kerala Story,” and “The Taj Story.” These productions share a shared ideological structure that recasts Indian history through a Hindu-centred perspective whilst depicting Muslims as fundamental dangers. However, what distinguishes the “Dhurandhar” films from these predecessors is their better filmmaking craft and production values, which give their propaganda a sheen of artistic credibility that more crude anti-Muslim productions do not possess.
This differentiation demonstrates particularly concerning because the “Dhurandhar” two-film series’ production quality and popular appeal mask its essentially propagandist nature. Where films like “The Kashmir Files” operate as blunt political instruments, the “Dhurandhar” series employs cinematic craft to present its nationalist agenda palatable to mainstream audiences. The franchise thus represents a dangerous evolution: propaganda elevated through expert direction into material bordering on government-endorsed filmmaking. This polished strategy to ideological content may become increasingly impactful in influencing audience views than more obviously inflammatory films, as audiences may embrace propagandistic material when it arrives wrapped in absorbing narrative.
Film Production Versus Political Narratives
The “Dhurandhar” duology’s most troubling quality lies in its marriage of production sophistication with political radicalism. Director Aditya Dhar displays substantial expertise of the action thriller genre, assembling sequences of visceral intensity and narrative momentum that engage audiences. This technical competence becomes concerning precisely because it functions as a vehicle for nationalist propaganda, converting what might otherwise be crude political messaging into something significantly alluring and convincing. The films’ polished aesthetic, sophisticated cinematography, and compelling performances by actors like Ranveer Singh add legitimacy to their deeply divisive narratives, making their political message more acceptable to wider audiences who might otherwise spurn explicitly provocative content.
This intersection of creative excellence and propagandistic intent presents a distinctive difficulty for film criticism and cultural analysis. Audiences often find it difficult to separate artistic enjoyment from political critique, particularly when entertainment value demonstrates genuine appeal. The “Dhurandhar” films exploit this conflict intentionally, relying on the notion that viewers absorbed in exciting action scenes will internalise their embedded messaging without critical resistance. The danger intensifies because the films’ technical accomplishments bestow them credibility within critical conversation, enabling their nationalist ideology to spread more extensively 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 mainstream entertainment
- Sophisticated filmmaking obscures ideological undertones from critical scrutiny
- Filmmaking skill lifts patriotic messaging above crude inflammatory discourse
The Problematic Consequences for Indian Film Industry
The commercial and critical success of the “Dhurandhar” duology signals a concerning trajectory for Indian cinema, one in which nationalist fervour grows to influence box office performance and cultural significance. Where once Bollywood functioned as a forum for varied storytelling and competing viewpoints, the rise of these jingoistic thrillers suggests a contraction in acceptable discourse. The films’ remarkable achievement indicates that audiences are increasingly receptive to entertainment that explicitly validates state power and characterises opposition as treachery. This shift reflects broader societal polarisation, yet cinema’s particular power to shape public imagination means its political orientation carry particular weight in affecting political attitudes and political attitudes.
The implications extend beyond simple viewing habits. When a country’s film industry consistently produces narratives that glorify government authority and portray negatively external enemies, it risks ossifying public opinion and limiting critical engagement with complex international political dynamics. The “Dhurandhar” movies demonstrate this danger by portraying their perspective not as a single viewpoint amongst others, but as factual reality packaged with technical excellence and celebrity appeal. For critics and media analysts, this represents a watershed moment: Indian film industry’s transition from occasionally accommodating state interests to deliberately operating as a propaganda apparatus, albeit one far more sophisticated than its historical predecessors.
Propaganda Disguised as Entertainment
The pernicious nature of the “Dhurandhar” duology stems from its calculated obscuring of political messaging under layers of cinematic craft. Director Aditya Dhar constructs elaborate action sequences and character arcs that command viewer attention, successfully diverting from the films’ constant endorsement of nationalist ideology and unquestioning faith in state institutions. The protagonist’s journey, nominally a personal quest for redemption, operates concurrently as a exaltation of governmental power and military might. By weaving propagandistic content throughout engaging narratives, the films achieve what cruder political messaging cannot: they reshape ideology into spectacle, making audiences complicit in their own ideological conditioning whilst considering themselves simply entertained.
This strategy demonstrates particularly effective because it works beneath active perception. Viewers engrossed by exhilarating action sequences and poignant character development take in the films’ underlying messages—that strong-handed government action is required, that opponents cannot change, that self-sacrifice for governmental objectives is worthy—without acknowledging the manipulation at work. The refined visual composition, powerful acting, and genuine technical accomplishment provide authenticity to these accounts, causing them to seem less like ideological material and more like authentic storytelling. This veneer of legitimacy enables the films’ divisive ideology to penetrate popular awareness far with greater success than overtly inflammatory material ever could.
What This Signifies for Global Audiences
The international popularity of the “Dhurandhar” duology presents a troubling precedent for how state-backed cinema can transcend geographical boundaries and cultural differences. As streaming services like Netflix release these films globally, audiences in Western countries and elsewhere encounter advanced propagandistic content wrapped in the recognizable style of espionage thrillers and action cinema. Without the understanding of cultural and political contexts required to decode the films’ nationalist rhetoric, overseas audiences may unknowingly consume and legitimise Indian state ideology, substantially broadening the reach of propagandistic content far beyond their original domestic viewership. This globalisation of politically sensitive material poses critical concerns about platform accountability and the ethical implications of distributing state-backed films to unaware overseas viewers.
Furthermore, the “Dhurandhar” films create a troubling template that other countries could try to emulate. If state-sponsored filmmaking can attain both critical recognition and box office success whilst furthering nationalist agendas, rival administrations—particularly those with authoritarian tendencies—may acknowledge cinema as a exceptionally influential tool for ideological propagation. The films illustrate that propaganda need not be crude or obvious to be effective; rather, when coupled with real artistic ability and significant funding, it becomes nearly irresistible. For global audiences and film critics, the duology’s success signals a troubling outlook where entertainment and government messaging become ever more difficult to tell apart.
