Aditya Dhar’s “Dhurandhar” duology has emerged as a landmark achievement for Hindi cinema, marking a dramatic shift in Bollywood’s thematic preoccupations and political leanings. The opening film, unveiled in December 2025, proved to be the biggest box office success in India before being separated into two parts throughout the editing process. Now, with the second instalment “Dhurandhar: The Revenge” presently commanding cinemas across the country, the espionage thriller is positioned to establish what numerous critics view as a concerning transformation in Indian commercial cinema: the wholesale embrace of patriotic-inflected tales that openly seek government favour and capitalise on national pride. The films’ overt blending of entertainment and state propaganda has reignited debates about Bollywood’s relationship with political power, especially during Narendra Modi’s administration.
From Spy Thriller to Political Declaration
The narrative structure of the “Dhurandhar” duology demonstrates a strategic movement from entertainment to ideological advocacy. The opening instalment deliberately positioned before Modi’s 2014 electoral triumph, sets up its political foundation through characters who repeatedly voice their desperation for a figure prepared to pursue forceful measures against both foreign and domestic threats. This temporal positioning allows the narrative to frame Modi’s later ascent to leadership as the answer to the country’s aspirations, converting what appears to be a conventional spy thriller into an elaborate endorsement of the ruling government’s stance on national security and military aggression.
The sequel intensifies this propagandistic impulse by showcasing Modi himself as an near-constant supporting character through strategically placed 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, substantially obscuring the boundaries between entertainment and state communication. This deliberate narrative choice distinguishes the “Dhurandhar” films from previous instances of Bollywood’s political alignment, elevating 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 ahead of Modi’s electoral triumph
- Sequel includes Modi as a supporting character through news clips
- Narrative conflates fictional heroism alongside government policy approval
- Films blur the distinction between entertainment and also state propaganda intentionally
The Development of Bollywood’s Ideological Shift
The commercial success of the “Dhurandhar” duology signals a profound transformation in Bollywood’s relationship with nationalist thought and state power. Whilst the Indian film industry has historically maintained strong connections to political structures, the explicit character of these films represents a qualitative shift in how overtly cinema now channels state communications. The franchise’s box office dominance—with the first instalment emerging as the highest-grossing Hindi-language film in India upon its December release—shows that audiences are increasingly receptive to content that smoothly incorporates political propaganda. This acceptance suggests a fundamental change in what Indian audiences regard as acceptable cinematic content, progressing past the subtle ideological positioning of earlier films toward direct governmental promotion.
The ramifications of this change go beyond simple entertainment metrics. By attaining unprecedented commercial success whilst openly conflating fictional heroism with state policy, the “Dhurandhar” films have successfully established a new template for Bollywood production. Future filmmakers now possess a tested formula for combining patriotic feeling with box office returns, arguably creating politically-driven cinema as a enduring and profitable genre. This development demonstrates broader societal transformations within India, where the boundaries between cinema, patriotism, and official discourse have grown more blurred, raising significant inquiries about cinema’s role in influencing political consciousness and national identity.
A Example of Nationalist Cinema
The “Dhurandhar” duology does not emerge in a vacuum but rather constitutes the culmination of a expanding movement within contemporary Indian cinema. The past few years have seen a proliferation of films utilising nationalist messaging and anti-Muslim narratives, including “The Kashmir Files,” “The Kerala Story,” and “The Taj Story.” These films share a shared ideological structure that recasts Indian history through a Hindu-centred perspective whilst portraying Muslims as fundamental dangers. However, what distinguishes the “Dhurandhar” films from these earlier works is their better filmmaking craft and production quality, which give their propaganda a sheen of artistic credibility that more crude anti-Muslim productions lack.
This distinction demonstrates notably problematic because the “Dhurandhar” two-film series’ cinematic craft and audience engagement conceal its essentially propagandist nature. Where films like “The Kashmir Files” operate as blunt political instruments, the “Dhurandhar” series utilises cinematic craft to make its ideological content acceptable to mainstream audiences. The franchise thus constitutes a troubling progression: propaganda elevated through professional filmmaking into material bordering on officially-backed production. This sophisticated approach to ideological content may exert greater influence in influencing audience views than explicitly divisive films, as audiences may embrace political messaging when it arrives wrapped in compelling entertainment.
Filmmaking Artistry Versus Political Narratives
The “Dhurandhar” duology’s most pernicious quality lies in its marriage of technical excellence with ideological extremism. Director Aditya Dhar demonstrates considerable mastery of the action thriller genre, crafting sequences of raw power and storytelling drive that captivate audiences. This technical competence becomes problematic precisely because it functions as a conduit for nationalist propaganda, transforming what might otherwise be crude political messaging into something significantly seductive and persuasive. The films’ polished aesthetic, sophisticated cinematography, and powerful acting by actors like Ranveer Singh add legitimacy to their deeply divisive narratives, rendering their political message more acceptable to general audiences who might otherwise reject blatantly incendiary messaging.
This convergence 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 analysis, particularly when entertainment appeal proves genuinely compelling. The “Dhurandhar” films exploit this conflict intentionally, banking on the idea that audiences engaged with exciting action scenes will internalise their underlying messages without critical resistance. The risk intensifies because the films’ technical accomplishments bestow them credibility within critical discourse, allowing their nationalist ideals to circulate more widely and influence public consciousness more successfully 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 mass-market content
- Advanced cinematography conceals ideological undertones from close examination
- Cinematic craft raises patriotic messaging past blunt inflammatory language
The Concerning Ramifications for Indian Cinema
The commercial and critical success of the “Dhurandhar” duology suggests a potentially troubling trajectory for Indian cinema, one in which patriotic fervor increasingly determines box office performance and cultural significance. Where once Bollywood operated as a forum for multiple perspectives and differing opinions, the emergence of these patriotic suspense films 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 demonstrates wider social division, yet cinema’s particular power to shape shared cultural consciousness means its political orientation carry considerable importance in affecting political attitudes and political attitudes.
The implications go further than mere viewing habits. When a country’s cinema sector consistently produces stories that lionise state power and portray negatively external enemies, it risks hardening public opinion and restricting critical engagement with complex international political dynamics. The “Dhurandhar” films illustrate this danger by portraying their worldview not as a single viewpoint amongst others, but as objective truth packaged with technical excellence and celebrity appeal. For commentators and cultural observers, this constitutes a watershed moment: Indian film industry’s shift from occasionally accommodating government objectives to deliberately operating as a propaganda machine, albeit one considerably more refined than its earlier incarnations.
Propaganda Dressed up as Entertainment
The insidious nature of the “Dhurandhar” duology lies in its calculated obscuring of political messaging within layers of cinematic craft. Director Aditya Dhar crafts intricate action set-pieces and character arcs that command viewer attention, effectively distracting from the films’ relentless promotion of nationalist ideology and blind faith in state institutions. The protagonist’s journey, nominally a personal quest for redemption, works at once as a celebration of governmental power and military might. By embedding propagandistic content throughout engaging narratives, the films attain 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 shows particularly effective because it operates beneath active perception. Viewers engrossed by gripping dramatic moments and intimate character scenes internalise the films’ fundamental narratives—that decisive governmental control is necessary, that adversaries lack redemption, that self-sacrifice for state interests is noble—without detecting 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 surface credibility enables the films’ polarising worldview to penetrate general understanding far more effectively than overtly inflammatory material ever would.
What This Means for Global Audiences
The global success of the “Dhurandhar” duology presents a concerning pattern for how state-backed cinema can cross geographic borders and cultural differences. 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 rhetoric, overseas audiences may unknowingly absorb and validate Indian state-sponsored ideology, substantially broadening the reach of propagandistic content far outside their intended domestic audience. This globalisation of politically sensitive material poses urgent questions about platform accountability and the moral dimensions of circulating state-backed films to unsuspecting international audiences.
Furthermore, the “Dhurandhar” films create a concerning template that rival states may seek to emulate. If government-backed film can secure both critical acclaim and box office success whilst furthering nationalist agendas, rival administrations—particularly those prone to authoritarianism—may identify cinema as a exceptionally influential tool for the spread of ideology. The films demonstrate that propaganda doesn’t have to be crude or obvious to be effective; rather, when coupled with authentic creative talent and significant funding, it becomes almost inescapable. For international viewers and cinema critics, the duology’s success indicates a worrying prospect where popular entertainment and state communication become progressively harder to distinguish.
