Aditya Dhar’s “Dhurandhar” duology has emerged as a pivotal turning point for Hindi cinema, signalling a significant change in Bollywood’s thematic preoccupations and ideological positions. The initial chapter, released in December 2025, turned out 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 spy saga is poised to cement what many observers regard as a worrying change in Indian commercial cinema: the wholesale embrace of jingoistic narratives that explicitly court government favour and capitalise on nationalist sentiment. The films’ unabashed fusion of entertainment and governmental messaging has rekindled discussions concerning Bollywood’s relationship with political power, notably under Narendra Modi’s administration.
From Espionage Thriller to Political Manifesto
The narrative structure of the “Dhurandhar” duology demonstrates a strategic movement from escapism to political messaging. The first film deliberately positioned before Modi’s 2014 electoral triumph, establishes its political foundation through characters who repeatedly voice their desperation for a figure prepared to pursue forceful measures against both external and internal dangers. This strategic timing allows the narrative to present Modi’s later ascent to leadership as the solution for the nation’s prayers, transforming what appears to be a conventional spy thriller into an comprehensive validation of the ruling government’s stance on national security and military aggression.
The sequel amplifies this promotional agenda by showcasing Modi himself as an near-constant supporting character through carefully positioned news footage and government broadcasts. Rather than allowing the fictional narrative to exist separately, the filmmakers have threaded the Prime Minister’s real likeness and rhetoric throughout the story, significantly erasing the boundaries between entertainment and government messaging. This deliberate narrative choice 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 instrument for political credibility.
- First film appeals for a powerful leader ahead of Modi’s electoral triumph
- Sequel features Modi in a supporting character via news clips
- Narrative blends fictional heroism with government policy endorsement
- Films erase the boundaries between entertainment and state propaganda intentionally
The Transformation of Bollywood’s Ideological Shift
The box office performance of the “Dhurandhar” duology indicates a significant shift in Bollywood’s connection to nationalist thought and government authority. Whilst the Indian film industry has historically maintained close ties with 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 becoming the top-earning Hindi film in India following its December launch—demonstrates that viewers are growing more receptive to entertainment that seamlessly integrates state messaging. This acceptance suggests a fundamental change in what Indian audiences regard as acceptable film content, progressing past the subtle ideological positioning of prior cinema towards explicit state advocacy.
The consequences of this shift go beyond simple entertainment metrics. By attaining unprecedented commercial success whilst explicitly merging fictional heroism with state policy, the “Dhurandhar” films have effectively legitimised a fresh blueprint for Indian film production. Upcoming directors now have access to a established model for merging nationalist sentiment with box office returns, conceivably fostering state-aligned filmmaking as a enduring and profitable genre. This shift reflects larger cultural shifts within India, where the boundaries between cinema, patriotism, and official discourse have grown more blurred, raising critical questions about cinema’s role in influencing public awareness of politics and national identity.
A Example of Patriotic Cinema
The “Dhurandhar” duology does not appear in a vacuum but rather constitutes the apotheosis of a growing trend within contemporary Indian cinema. The past few years have seen a surge of films utilising nationalist messaging and anti-Muslim narratives, including “The Kashmir Files,” “The Kerala Story,” and “The Taj Story.” These films possess a common ideological framework that recasts Indian history through a Hindu-centred perspective whilst portraying Muslims as existential threats. However, what distinguishes 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 crude anti-Muslim productions do not possess.
This distinction proves especially concerning because the “Dhurandhar” duology’s cinematic craft and audience engagement obscure its essentially propagandist nature. Where films like “The Kashmir Files” serve as blunt political instruments, the “Dhurandhar” series utilises professional technique to present its nationalist agenda palatable to mainstream audiences. The franchise thus constitutes a troubling progression: messaging refined through sophisticated production into something approaching state-sanctioned cinema. This refined method to ideological content may become increasingly impactful in shaping public opinion than overtly provocative films, as audiences may accept propagandistic material when it arrives wrapped in compelling entertainment.
Cinematic Technique Versus Political Messaging
The “Dhurandhar” duology’s most insidious quality lies in its marriage of technical excellence with political radicalism. Director Aditya Dhar demonstrates considerable mastery of the action thriller genre, constructing sequences of visceral intensity and plot propulsion that captivate audiences. This technical competence becomes concerning precisely because it functions as a vehicle for political propaganda, transforming what might otherwise be crude political messaging into something far more alluring and convincing. The films’ polished aesthetic, accomplished visual composition, and powerful acting by actors like Ranveer Singh provide plausibility to their deeply divisive narratives, making their ideological messaging more digestible to general audiences who might otherwise spurn explicitly provocative content.
This combination of creative excellence and propagandistic intent presents a distinctive difficulty for cinematic analysis and cultural commentary. Audiences frequently struggle to distinguish between artistic enjoyment from political critique, especially when entertainment value proves genuinely compelling. The “Dhurandhar” films exploit this conflict intentionally, relying on the idea that viewers absorbed in exciting action scenes will internalise their embedded messaging without critical scrutiny. The risk grows because the films’ technical achievements bestow them legitimacy within critical discourse, allowing their nationalist ideology to circulate more widely and influence public opinion more successfully 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 conceals political messaging from critical scrutiny
- Filmmaking skill lifts nationalist rhetoric above raw inflammatory speech
The Problematic 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 served as a forum for multiple perspectives and differing opinions, the emergence of these nationalist action films suggests a contraction in acceptable discourse. The films’ unprecedented success indicates that audiences are growing more accepting of entertainment that explicitly validates state power and characterises opposition as treachery. This shift reflects increased public polarization, yet cinema’s unique capacity to shape public imagination means its ideological leanings carry particular weight in influencing public consciousness and political attitudes.
The ramifications go further than simple entertainment preferences. When a country’s cinema sector regularly generates stories that glorify state power and portray negatively external enemies, it risks hardening public opinion and limiting meaningful dialogue with complex geopolitical realities. The “Dhurandhar” movies demonstrate this danger by portraying their perspective not as one perspective among many, but as objective truth packaged with production quality and celebrity appeal. For commentators and cultural observers, this represents a pivotal turning point: Indian cinema’s evolution from occasionally accommodating government objectives to actively functioning as a propaganda apparatus, albeit one far more sophisticated than its historical predecessors.
Propaganda Disguised as Entertainment
The insidious nature of the “Dhurandhar” duology lies in its intentional concealment of political messaging under layers of cinematic craft. Director Aditya Dhar constructs intricate action set-pieces and character arcs that command viewer attention, deftly deflecting from the films’ relentless promotion of nationalist ideology and unquestioning faith in state institutions. The protagonist’s journey, ostensibly a personal quest for redemption, operates concurrently as a exaltation of governmental power and military might. By incorporating propagandistic content throughout engaging narratives, the films accomplish what cruder political messaging cannot: they convert ideology into spectacle, turning audiences complicit in their own ideological conditioning whilst believing themselves merely entertained.
This strategy proves particularly compelling because it functions beneath conscious awareness. Viewers absorbed in gripping dramatic moments and poignant character development take in the films’ fundamental narratives—that forceful state intervention is essential, that opponents cannot change, that personal sacrifice for governmental objectives is worthy—without recognising the manipulation at work. The refined visual composition, compelling performances, and authentic craftsmanship provide authenticity to these stories, causing them to seem less like persuasive messaging and more like genuine narrative. This veneer of legitimacy permits the films’ contentious beliefs to penetrate general understanding far with greater success than overtly inflammatory material ever would.
What This Signifies for International Viewers
The international success of the “Dhurandhar” duology raises a concerning pattern for how state-backed cinema can transcend geographic borders and cultural differences. As streaming platforms like Netflix distribute these films globally, audiences in Western nations and beyond encounter advanced propagandistic content wrapped in the familiar language of espionage thrillers and action cinema. Without the understanding of cultural and political contexts needed to interpret the films’ nationalist messaging, overseas audiences may inadvertently absorb and validate Indian state-sponsored ideology, substantially broadening the reach of propagandistic content far beyond their original domestic viewership. This worldwide distribution of politically charged content raises urgent questions about platform accountability and the moral dimensions of distributing state-sponsored cinema to unaware overseas viewers.
Furthermore, the “Dhurandhar” films set a disquieting template that other nations may seek to emulate. If government-backed film can achieve both critical acclaim and financial returns whilst promoting nationalist agendas, other governments—particularly those with authoritarian leanings—may recognise cinema as a distinctly potent tool for ideological dissemination. The films show that propaganda doesn’t need to be crude or obvious to be effective; rather, when paired with real artistic ability and substantial budgets, it becomes nearly irresistible. For worldwide audiences and film critics, the duology’s success signals a troubling outlook where popular entertainment and state communication become ever more difficult to tell apart.
