Aditya Dhar’s “Dhurandhar” duology has emerged as a watershed moment for Hindi cinema, indicating a dramatic shift in Bollywood’s subject matter focus and ideological positions. The initial chapter, launched in December 2025, proved to be 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” actively dominating cinemas across the country, the espionage thriller is positioned to establish what various commentators view as a troubling shift in Indian commercial cinema: the wholesale embrace of patriotic-inflected tales that deliberately pursue government favour and exploit national pride. The films’ overt blending of commercial entertainment and state narratives has revived debates about Bollywood’s ties to political authority, notably under Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s administration.
From Espionage Thriller to Political Manifesto
The narrative structure of the “Dhurandhar” duology demonstrates a calculated progression from escapism to ideological advocacy. 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 foreign and domestic threats. This strategic timing enables the story to present Modi’s subsequent rise to power as the answer to the nation’s prayers, converting what appears to be a standard espionage film into an elaborate endorsement of the administration’s stance on homeland defence and armed action.
The sequel heightens this promotional agenda by presenting Modi himself as an virtually ever-present supporting character through strategically placed news footage and government broadcasts. Rather than allowing the fictional narrative to exist separately, the filmmakers have woven the Prime Minister’s genuine appearance and rhetoric throughout the story, substantially obscuring the boundaries between entertainment and official discourse. This intentional storytelling decision distinguishes the “Dhurandhar” films from earlier examples of Bollywood’s ideological affiliation, advancing them from muted ideological content to direct state promotion that transforms cinema into a vehicle for political legitimacy.
- First film prays for a powerful leader before Modi’s election victory
- Sequel includes Modi as a supporting character through news clips
- Narrative blends fictional heroism with government policy approval
- Films obscure the distinction between entertainment and also state propaganda deliberately
The Development of Bollywood’s Ideological Evolution
The box office performance 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 close ties with political structures, the explicit character of these films represents a meaningful change in how directly cinema now channels state communications. The franchise’s commercial supremacy—with the opening film emerging as the highest-grossing Hindi-language film in India following its December launch—shows that audiences are increasingly receptive to entertainment that seamlessly integrates political propaganda. This receptiveness indicates a basic shift in what Indian viewers regard as acceptable film content, progressing past the understated ideological framing of prior cinema towards explicit state advocacy.
The consequences of this transition go beyond simple entertainment metrics. By attaining extraordinary financial performance whilst explicitly merging cinematic heroics with state policy, the “Dhurandhar” films have effectively endorsed a novel framework for Indian film production. Future filmmakers now possess a proven blueprint for blending nationalist sentiment with box office returns, potentially establishing propagandistic cinema as a viable and lucrative category. This shift indicates wider social changes within India, where the dividing lines separating cinema, patriotism, and official discourse have become increasingly porous, raising significant inquiries about film’s function in forming public awareness of politics and sense of nationhood.
A Trend of National Cinema
The “Dhurandhar” duology does not appear in a vacuum but rather represents the apotheosis of a expanding movement within modern Indian film. Recent years have seen a surge of films employing nationalist rhetoric and anti-Muslim narratives, including “The Kashmir Files,” “The Kerala Story,” and “The Taj Story.” These productions share a common ideological framework that recasts Indian history through a Hindu-centred perspective 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 difference proves particularly concerning because the “Dhurandhar” duology’s production quality and audience engagement conceal its inherently ideological nature. Where films like “The Kashmir Files” serve as simplistic propagandist instruments, the “Dhurandhar” series utilises cinematic craft to render its political messaging acceptable to mass audiences. The franchise thus embodies a concerning development: messaging refined through expert direction into what resembles state-sanctioned cinema. This polished strategy to ideological content may prove more influential in shaping public opinion than more obviously inflammatory films, as audiences may absorb political messaging when it arrives wrapped in compelling entertainment.
Cinematic Technique Versus Political Narratives
The “Dhurandhar” duology’s most troubling quality lies in its combination of cinematic mastery with nationalist ideology. Director Aditya Dhar demonstrates impressive command of the action-thriller format, constructing sequences of raw power and storytelling drive that captivate audiences. This technical competence becomes concerning precisely because it functions as a conduit for nationalist propaganda, transforming what might otherwise be blunt political content into something considerably alluring and convincing. The films’ refined visual presentation, accomplished visual composition, and strong performances by actors like Ranveer Singh lend credibility to their fundamentally divisive narratives, turning their ideological messaging more acceptable to wider audiences who might otherwise reject explicitly provocative content.
This intersection of artistic merit and propagandistic intent establishes a distinctive difficulty for film criticism and cultural commentary. Audiences frequently struggle to separate artistic enjoyment from political critique, especially when entertainment appeal demonstrates genuine appeal. The “Dhurandhar” films exploit this conflict intentionally, relying on the notion that viewers absorbed in exciting action scenes will absorb their underlying messages without critical resistance. The danger intensifies because the films’ technical achievements bestow them legitimacy within critical conversation, enabling their nationalist ideology to spread more extensively and shape public opinion more effectively than earlier, more simplistic examples 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 propagandistic content into mainstream entertainment
- Advanced cinematography masks political messaging from rigorous analysis
- Cinematic craft raises patriotic messaging past blunt inflammatory language
The Troubling Consequences for Indian Cinema
The box office and critical success of the “Dhurandhar” duology indicates a concerning trajectory for Indian cinema, one in which nationalist fervour grows to influence box office performance and cultural importance. Where once Bollywood operated as a forum for diverse narratives and competing viewpoints, the rise of these nationalist action films suggests a reduction of acceptable discourse. The films’ remarkable achievement indicates that audiences are becoming more drawn to entertainment that explicitly validates state power and positions dissent as treachery. This shift demonstrates wider social division, yet cinema’s unique capacity to shape collective imagination means its political orientation carry significant influence in shaping popular opinion and political attitudes.
The consequences go further than simple viewing habits. When a nation’s cinema sector consistently produces stories that lionise government authority and vilify foreign adversaries, it runs the danger of ossifying collective views and restricting meaningful dialogue with intricate international political dynamics. The “Dhurandhar” movies demonstrate this danger by presenting their worldview not as one perspective among many, but as objective truth wrapped in technical excellence and star power. For commentators and media analysts, this marks a watershed moment: Indian film industry’s transition from occasionally accommodating state interests to actively functioning as a propaganda apparatus, albeit one considerably more refined than its earlier incarnations.
Propaganda Presented as Entertainment
The pernicious nature of the “Dhurandhar” duology lies in its intentional concealment of political messaging within layers of cinematic craft. Director Aditya Dhar crafts elaborate action sequences and character arcs that demand viewer engagement, effectively distracting from the films’ constant endorsement of nationalist ideology and unquestioning faith in state institutions. The protagonist’s journey, purportedly a personal quest for redemption, functions simultaneously as a glorification of governmental power and military might. By embedding propagandistic content inside compelling stories, the films accomplish what cruder political messaging cannot: they transform ideology into spectacle, rendering viewers complicit in their own ideological conditioning whilst believing themselves merely entertained.
This strategy demonstrates particularly successful because it functions beneath active perception. Viewers engrossed by thrilling set pieces and poignant character development take in the films’ core themes—that decisive governmental control is required, that adversaries lack redemption, that personal sacrifice for governmental objectives is worthy—without acknowledging the manipulation occurring. The polished camera work, engaging portrayals, and real technical skill add legitimacy to these narratives, allowing them to look less like persuasive messaging and more like true storytelling. This veneer of legitimacy permits the films’ polarising worldview to infiltrate popular awareness far more effectively than openly divisive messaging ever would.
What This Signifies for Worldwide Audiences
The international success of the “Dhurandhar” duology raises a troubling pattern for how state-aligned cinema can transcend geographical boundaries and cultural contexts. As streaming platforms like Netflix release these films worldwide, audiences in Western countries and beyond encounter sophisticated propaganda 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 messaging, overseas audiences may unknowingly absorb and validate Indian state ideology, effectively extending the reach of propagandistic content far outside their original domestic viewership. This worldwide distribution of politically sensitive material raises urgent questions about platform accountability and the ethical implications of distributing state-sponsored cinema to unsuspecting international audiences.
Furthermore, the “Dhurandhar” films create a concerning template that other countries might attempt to emulate. If state-aligned cinema can secure both critical praise and box office success whilst promoting nationalist agendas, other states—particularly those with authoritarian leanings—may recognise cinema as a exceptionally influential tool for ideological propagation. The films demonstrate that propaganda doesn’t need to be crude or obvious to be effective; rather, when coupled with real artistic ability and considerable resources, it becomes virtually unavoidable. For global audiences and movie reviewers, the duology’s success signals a troubling outlook where entertainment and state messaging become progressively harder to distinguish.
