Aditya Dhar’s “Dhurandhar” duology has become a landmark achievement for Hindi cinema, marking a dramatic shift in Bollywood’s narrative priorities and political allegiances. The opening film, unveiled in December 2025, became the top-earning Hindi film in India before being separated into two parts during post-production. Now, with the sequel “Dhurandhar: The Revenge” presently commanding cinemas throughout the nation, the intelligence-based narrative is set to solidify what many observers regard as a worrying change in Indian commercial cinema: the blanket endorsement of jingoistic narratives that explicitly court state approval and capitalise on nationalist sentiment. The films’ overt blending of commercial entertainment and state narratives has revived conversations around Bollywood’s ties to political authority, especially during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s administration.
From Espionage Thriller to Political Manifesto
The narrative structure of the “Dhurandhar” duology demonstrates a calculated progression from entertainment to ideological advocacy. The opening instalment strategically set before Modi’s 2014 electoral triumph, establishes its ideological framework through characters who repeatedly voice their yearning for a leader willing to take decisive action against both foreign and domestic dangers. This temporal positioning allows the narrative to present Modi’s subsequent rise to power as the solution for the nation’s prayers, converting what appears to be a standard espionage film into an comprehensive validation of the ruling government’s approach to national security and military aggression.
The sequel amplifies this propagandistic impulse by presenting Modi himself as an near-constant supporting character through strategically placed news footage and government broadcasts. Rather than allowing the fictional narrative to operate on its own, the filmmakers have interwoven the Prime Minister’s real likeness and rhetoric throughout the story, substantially obscuring the boundaries between entertainment and state communication. This deliberate narrative choice distinguishes the “Dhurandhar” films from earlier examples of Bollywood’s political alignment, raising them from subtle ideological positioning to overt political backing that transforms cinema into a tool for political validation.
- First film calls for a strong leader before Modi’s electoral triumph
- Sequel includes Modi as a supporting character through news clips
- Narrative conflates fictional heroism with government policy approval
- Films erase the boundaries between entertainment and also state propaganda by design
The Evolution of Bollywood’s Ideological Shift
The commercial success of the “Dhurandhar” duology signals a significant shift in Bollywood’s relationship with nationalist ideology and government authority. Whilst the Indian film industry has traditionally upheld strong connections to political structures, the explicit character of these films constitutes a meaningful change in how overtly cinema now channels state communications. The franchise’s commercial supremacy—with the first instalment emerging as the top-earning Hindi film in India upon its December release—demonstrates that viewers are growing more receptive to content that smoothly incorporates state messaging. This acceptance indicates a basic shift in what Indian viewers regard as acceptable cinematic content, progressing past the subtle ideological positioning of earlier films towards direct governmental promotion.
The ramifications of this transition go beyond mere commercial performance. By attaining extraordinary financial performance whilst openly conflating cinematic heroics with state policy, the “Dhurandhar” films have effectively legitimised a novel framework for Bollywood production. Future filmmakers now have access to a established model for blending patriotic feeling with box office returns, arguably creating propagandistic cinema as a sustainable and profitable category. This evolution demonstrates larger cultural shifts within India, where the dividing lines separating entertainment, nationalism, and state messaging have become increasingly porous, raising significant inquiries about the cinema’s influence in influencing political consciousness and national identity.
A Pattern of Nationalist Cinema
The “Dhurandhar” duology does not emerge in a vacuum but rather represents the culmination 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 films possess a shared ideological structure that recasts Indian history through a Hindu-centric lens whilst portraying Muslims as fundamental dangers. However, what sets apart the “Dhurandhar” films from these predecessors is their better filmmaking craft and production values, which lend their propaganda a sheen of artistic credibility that more artless Islamophobic films lack.
This distinction proves notably concerning because the “Dhurandhar” duology’s technical sophistication and audience engagement obscure its fundamentally propagandistic nature. Where films like “The Kashmir Files” serve as blunt political instruments, the “Dhurandhar” series utilises professional technique to render its political messaging appealing to mass audiences. The franchise thus represents a concerning development: ideological content enhanced through professional filmmaking into material bordering on officially-backed production. This sophisticated approach to nationalist messaging may exert greater influence in influencing audience views than more obviously inflammatory films, as audiences may absorb ideological content when it comes packaged in engaging storytelling.
Filmmaking Artistry Versus Political Messaging
The “Dhurandhar” duology’s most pernicious quality lies in its marriage of technical excellence with nationalist ideology. Director Aditya Dhar demonstrates considerable mastery of the action thriller genre, constructing sequences of emotional force and plot propulsion that engage audiences. This cinematic proficiency becomes problematic precisely because it functions as a conduit for ideological messaging, reshaping what might otherwise be blunt political content into something considerably seductive and persuasive. The films’ refined visual presentation, sophisticated cinematography, and strong performances by actors like Ranveer Singh add legitimacy to their fundamentally divisive narratives, rendering their political content more digestible to general audiences who might otherwise spurn blatantly incendiary messaging.
This intersection of artistic merit and propagandistic intent creates a distinctive difficulty for film criticism and cultural commentary. Audiences often find it difficult to separate artistic enjoyment from political analysis, especially when entertainment value proves genuinely compelling. The “Dhurandhar” films leverage this tension deliberately, relying on the idea that audiences engaged with thrilling action sequences will absorb their underlying messages without critical scrutiny. The danger intensifies because the films’ technical accomplishments grant them legitimacy within critical discourse, enabling their nationalist ideals to spread more extensively 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 converts ideological material into popular media
- Polished production techniques obscures ideological undertones from close examination
- Filmmaking skill elevates patriotic messaging past raw inflammatory speech
The Concerning 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 patriotic fervor progressively shapes box office performance and cultural relevance. Where once Bollywood functioned as a forum for diverse narratives and differing opinions, the ascendancy of these nationalist action films suggests a narrowing of acceptable discourse. The films’ remarkable achievement indicates that audiences are growing more accepting of entertainment that openly champions state power and frames disagreement as treachery. This shift mirrors increased public polarization, yet cinema’s distinctive ability to shape collective imagination means its ideological stance carry significant influence in shaping popular opinion and political attitudes.
The implications extend beyond simple viewing habits. When a country’s film industry regularly generates stories that glorify government authority and demonise external enemies, it runs the danger of ossifying public opinion and limiting critical engagement with intricate geopolitical realities. The “Dhurandhar” films exemplify this threat by portraying their worldview not as a single viewpoint amongst others, but as factual reality wrapped in production quality and celebrity appeal. For critics and media analysts, this marks a pivotal turning point: Indian cinema’s evolution from sometimes serving state interests to deliberately operating as a propaganda machine, albeit one far more sophisticated than its historical predecessors.
Propaganda Presented as Entertainment
The insidious nature of the “Dhurandhar” duology lies in its intentional concealment of political messaging beneath layers of cinematic craft. Director Aditya Dhar develops intricate action set-pieces and character arcs that demand viewer engagement, deftly deflecting from the films’ relentless promotion of nationalist ideology and blind faith in state institutions. The protagonist’s journey, nominally a personal quest for redemption, functions simultaneously as a celebration of governmental power and military might. By embedding propagandistic content inside compelling stories, the films accomplish what cruder political messaging cannot: they convert ideology into spectacle, making audiences complicit in their own ideological conditioning whilst believing themselves merely entertained.
This strategy proves particularly successful because it functions beneath deliberate notice. Viewers captivated by gripping dramatic moments and emotional character moments take in the films’ underlying messages—that forceful state intervention is required, that adversaries lack redemption, that personal sacrifice for governmental objectives is noble—without acknowledging the manipulation occurring. The polished camera work, compelling performances, and authentic craftsmanship provide authenticity to these narratives, allowing them to look less like propaganda and more like genuine narrative. This surface credibility enables the films’ divisive ideology to infiltrate mainstream consciousness far more successfully than overtly inflammatory material ever would.
What This Implies for Worldwide Audiences
The international success of the “Dhurandhar” duology presents a concerning 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 cultural and political literacy required to decode the films’ nationalist rhetoric, overseas audiences may inadvertently absorb and validate Indian state ideology, substantially broadening the reach of propagandistic narratives far outside their intended domestic audience. This globalisation of politically charged content raises urgent questions about platform responsibility and the ethical implications of circulating state-backed films to unaware overseas viewers.
Furthermore, the “Dhurandhar” films create a disquieting template that rival states might attempt to emulate. If government-backed film can attain both critical recognition and financial returns whilst promoting nationalist agendas, other states—particularly those prone to authoritarianism—may identify cinema as a distinctly potent tool for ideological propagation. The films show that propaganda doesn’t have to be crude or obvious to be effective; rather, when coupled with genuine artistic talent and substantial budgets, it becomes almost inescapable. For global audiences and movie reviewers, the duology’s success signals a worrying prospect where entertainment and government messaging become ever more difficult to tell apart.
