Aditya Dhar’s “Dhurandhar” duology has emerged as a pivotal turning point for Hindi cinema, signalling a dramatic shift in Bollywood’s subject matter focus and political leanings. The first instalment, 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 second instalment “Dhurandhar: The Revenge” currently dominating cinemas across the country, the intelligence-based narrative is poised to cement what many observers regard as a worrying change in Indian popular cinema: the wholesale embrace of patriotic-inflected tales that openly seek official support and leverage nationalist sentiment. The films’ overt blending of entertainment and state propaganda has rekindled debates about Bollywood’s ties to political authority, notably under PM Narendra Modi’s administration.
From Spy Thriller to Political Declaration
The narrative structure of the “Dhurandhar” duology reveals a calculated progression from entertainment to ideological advocacy. The first film deliberately positioned before Modi’s 2014 electoral triumph, establishes its ideological framework through characters who repeatedly voice their desperation for a figure prepared to pursue decisive action against both foreign and domestic threats. This strategic timing allows the narrative to frame Modi’s later ascent to leadership as the answer to the nation’s prayers, converting what appears to be a conventional spy thriller into an comprehensive validation of the ruling government’s approach to homeland defence and military aggression.
The sequel heightens this promotional agenda by presenting Modi himself as an almost omnipresent supporting character through carefully positioned news footage and government broadcasts. Rather than permitting the fictional narrative to exist separately, the filmmakers have interwoven the Prime Minister’s real likeness and rhetoric throughout the story, significantly erasing the boundaries between entertainment and state communication. This calculated narrative approach distinguishes the “Dhurandhar” films from previous instances of Bollywood’s political positioning, elevating them from understated ideological messaging to explicit governmental advocacy that transforms cinema into a instrument for political credibility.
- First film prays for a strong leader before Modi’s electoral triumph
- Sequel features Modi in a supporting character through news clips
- Narrative conflates fictional heroism with government policy approval
- Films obscure the boundaries between entertainment and also state propaganda deliberately
The Transformation of Bollywood’s Philosophical Change
The commercial success of the “Dhurandhar” duology indicates a significant shift in Bollywood’s connection to nationalist thought and government authority. Whilst the Indian cinema sector has traditionally upheld close ties with political structures, the brazen nature of these films represents a qualitative shift in how directly cinema now conveys state communications. The franchise’s commercial supremacy—with the opening film emerging as the highest-grossing Hindi-language film in India upon its December release—shows that viewers are growing more receptive to content that smoothly incorporates political propaganda. This receptiveness suggests a basic shift in what Indian viewers regard as acceptable cinematic content, moving beyond the understated ideological framing of earlier films toward explicit state advocacy.
The implications of this transition go beyond mere entertainment metrics. By achieving unprecedented commercial success whilst directly blending fictional heroism with state policy, the “Dhurandhar” films have effectively legitimised a novel framework for Bollywood production. Upcoming directors now have access to a proven blueprint for merging nationalist sentiment with commercial success, arguably creating propagandistic cinema as a enduring and profitable genre. This development indicates broader societal transformations within India, where the boundaries between cinema, patriotism, and official discourse have become increasingly porous, raising critical questions about film’s function in shaping public awareness of politics and sense of nationhood.
A Trend 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 witnessed a proliferation of films utilising nationalist rhetoric and anti-Muslim framing, including “The Kashmir Files,” “The Kerala Story,” and “The Taj Story.” These productions possess a shared ideological structure that recasts Indian history through a Hindu-centric lens whilst portraying Muslims as fundamental dangers. However, what distinguishes the “Dhurandhar” films from these predecessors is their superior cinematic execution and production values, which give their propaganda a veneer of artistic legitimacy that more crude anti-Muslim productions lack.
This difference shows especially troubling because the “Dhurandhar” two-film series’ technical sophistication and popular appeal mask its inherently ideological nature. Where films like “The Kashmir Files” serve as blunt political instruments, the “Dhurandhar” series deploys professional technique to render its nationalist agenda appealing to mainstream audiences. The franchise thus constitutes a dangerous evolution: messaging refined through sophisticated production into what resembles officially-backed production. This sophisticated approach to ideological content may exert greater influence in shaping public opinion than more obviously inflammatory films, as audiences may absorb political messaging when it comes packaged in absorbing narrative.
Filmmaking Artistry Versus Political Messaging
The “Dhurandhar” duology’s most insidious quality lies in its fusion of production sophistication with political radicalism. Director Aditya Dhar displays considerable mastery of the action thriller genre, assembling sequences of visceral intensity and narrative momentum that enthrall audiences. This filmmaking skill becomes contentious precisely because it serves as a medium for political propaganda, reshaping what might otherwise be overt political rhetoric into something far more compelling and influential. The films’ refined visual presentation, skilled camera work, and compelling performances by actors like Ranveer Singh provide plausibility to their fundamentally divisive narratives, making their ideological messaging more palatable to mainstream viewers who might otherwise spurn explicitly provocative content.
This intersection of artistic merit and propagandistic intent creates a unique challenge for film criticism and cultural analysis. Audiences frequently struggle to distinguish between aesthetic appreciation from political analysis, particularly when entertainment value proves genuinely compelling. The “Dhurandhar” films leverage this conflict intentionally, banking on the notion that viewers absorbed in exciting action scenes will absorb their underlying messages without critical resistance. The risk intensifies because the films’ technical achievements grant them credibility within critical discourse, enabling their nationalist ideals to circulate more widely and shape public opinion 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 |
- Technical excellence turns ideological material into popular media
- Sophisticated filmmaking conceals political messaging from close examination
- Filmmaking skill lifts nationalist rhetoric beyond blunt inflammatory language
The Concerning Ramifications for Indian Film Industry
The commercial and critical success of the “Dhurandhar” duology suggests a concerning trajectory for Indian cinema, one in which patriotic fervor progressively shapes box office performance and cultural importance. Where once Bollywood served as a forum for varied storytelling and alternative standpoints, the emergence of these jingoistic thrillers suggests a narrowing of acceptable discourse. The films’ remarkable achievement indicates that audiences are becoming more drawn to entertainment that openly champions state power and frames disagreement as treachery. This shift demonstrates increased public polarization, yet cinema’s distinctive ability to shape collective imagination means its political orientation carry considerable importance in shaping popular opinion and political attitudes.
The implications extend beyond mere entertainment preferences. When a nation’s film industry consistently produces narratives that lionise state power and vilify external enemies, it risks hardening public opinion and restricting meaningful dialogue with intricate geopolitical realities. The “Dhurandhar” films demonstrate this threat by portraying their worldview not as a single viewpoint amongst others, but as factual reality combined with production quality and celebrity appeal. For commentators and media analysts, this represents a pivotal turning point: Indian film industry’s evolution from sometimes serving state interests to actively functioning as a propaganda apparatus, albeit one far more sophisticated than its historical predecessors.
Propaganda Disguised as Entertainment
The troubling nature of the “Dhurandhar” duology rests upon its deliberate obfuscation of political messaging under layers of cinematic craft. Director Aditya Dhar constructs complex action scenes and character arcs that command viewer attention, effectively distracting from the films’ constant endorsement of nationalist ideology and blind faith in state institutions. The protagonist’s journey, ostensibly a personal quest for redemption, operates concurrently as a celebration of governmental power and military might. By embedding propagandistic content throughout engaging narratives, the films achieve 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 demonstrates particularly successful because it operates beneath conscious awareness. Viewers engrossed by gripping dramatic moments and intimate character scenes absorb the films’ underlying messages—that strong-handed government action is necessary, that opponents cannot change, that individual sacrifice for state interests is worthy—without detecting the manipulation at work. The sophisticated cinematography, engaging portrayals, and real technical skill provide authenticity to these narratives, allowing them to look less like persuasive messaging and more like true storytelling. This veneer of legitimacy enables the films’ contentious beliefs to penetrate mainstream consciousness far more effectively than openly divisive messaging ever could.
What This Implies for Global Audiences
The global popularity of the “Dhurandhar” duology raises a concerning precedent for how state-backed cinema can cross geographical boundaries and cultural contexts. As streaming services like Netflix distribute these films worldwide, audiences in Western nations and beyond 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, international viewers may unknowingly absorb and validate Indian state ideology, substantially broadening the reach of propagandistic narratives far outside their intended domestic audience. This globalisation of politically sensitive material poses urgent questions about platform accountability and the ethical implications of circulating state-backed films to unaware overseas viewers.
Furthermore, the “Dhurandhar” films set a disquieting template that rival states may seek to emulate. If state-sponsored filmmaking can secure both critical recognition and financial returns whilst furthering nationalist agendas, rival administrations—particularly those with authoritarian tendencies—may acknowledge cinema as a distinctly potent tool for ideological dissemination. The films demonstrate that propaganda doesn’t have to be crude or obvious to be effective; rather, when coupled with real artistic ability and substantial budgets, it becomes virtually unavoidable. For international viewers and film critics, the duology’s success suggests a worrying prospect where popular entertainment and state communication become increasingly indistinguishable.
