Aditya Dhar’s “Dhurandhar” duology has established itself as a landmark achievement for Hindi cinema, marking a pronounced transformation in Bollywood’s subject matter focus and political allegiances. The opening film, released in December 2025, proved to be the highest-grossing Hindi-language film in India before being separated into two parts in the post-production phase. Now, with the sequel “Dhurandhar: The Revenge” actively dominating cinemas throughout the nation, the espionage thriller is poised to cement what numerous critics consider to be a worrying change in Indian mainstream film: the comprehensive adoption of patriotic-inflected tales that deliberately pursue government favour and exploit national pride. The films’ overt blending of entertainment and state propaganda has revived debates about Bollywood’s connections with political influence, notably under PM Narendra Modi’s administration.
From Spy Thriller to Political Manifesto
The storytelling framework of the “Dhurandhar” duology reveals a calculated progression from entertainment to ideological advocacy. The opening instalment strategically set before Modi’s 2014 electoral triumph, sets up its political foundation through characters who repeatedly voice their yearning for a figure prepared to pursue decisive action against both foreign and domestic threats. This strategic timing allows the narrative to present Modi’s subsequent rise to power as the solution for the country’s aspirations, transforming what seems like a standard espionage film into an comprehensive validation of the administration’s stance on national security and armed action.
The sequel intensifies this propagandistic impulse by presenting Modi himself as an near-constant supporting character through carefully positioned news footage and government broadcasts. Rather than enabling the fictional narrative to exist separately, the filmmakers have interwoven the Prime Minister’s actual image and rhetoric throughout the story, substantially obscuring the boundaries between entertainment and government messaging. This intentional storytelling decision distinguishes the “Dhurandhar” films from prior cases of Bollywood’s political positioning, raising them from muted ideological content to direct state promotion that transforms cinema into a instrument for political credibility.
- First film prays for a powerful leader before Modi’s electoral triumph
- Sequel presents Modi as a supporting character through news clips
- Narrative merges fictional heroism with government policy endorsement
- Films erase the boundaries between entertainment and also state propaganda intentionally
The Evolution of Bollywood’s Ideological Evolution
The box office performance of the “Dhurandhar” duology indicates a significant shift in Bollywood’s connection to nationalist thought and state power. Whilst the Indian cinema sector 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 opening film becoming the top-earning Hindi film in India following its December launch—demonstrates 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 film content, progressing past the subtle ideological positioning of earlier films toward direct governmental promotion.
The ramifications of this transition extend beyond mere commercial performance. By achieving unprecedented commercial success whilst openly conflating fictional heroism with state policy, the “Dhurandhar” films have successfully established a fresh blueprint for Bollywood production. Future filmmakers now have access to a proven blueprint for merging nationalist sentiment with commercial success, arguably creating politically-driven cinema as a viable and lucrative genre. This development indicates larger cultural shifts within India, where the boundaries between entertainment, nationalism, and state messaging have become less distinct, raising important concerns about cinema’s role in influencing public awareness of politics and sense of nationhood.
A Pattern of Patriotic Cinema
The “Dhurandhar” duology does not emerge in a vacuum but rather constitutes the apotheosis of a growing trend within modern Indian film. Recent years have witnessed a proliferation of films utilising nationalist messaging 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 existential threats. However, what sets apart the “Dhurandhar” films from these earlier works is their superior cinematic execution and production values, which give their propaganda a veneer of artistic legitimacy that more crude anti-Muslim productions do not possess.
This differentiation shows particularly concerning because the “Dhurandhar” two-film series’ cinematic craft and audience engagement obscure its inherently ideological nature. Where films like “The Kashmir Files” function as simplistic propagandist instruments, the “Dhurandhar” series utilises cinematic craft to make its ideological content palatable to mass audiences. The franchise thus constitutes a troubling progression: messaging refined through sophisticated production into something approaching government-endorsed filmmaking. This refined method to nationalist messaging may become increasingly impactful in affecting popular sentiment than more obviously inflammatory films, as audiences may embrace ideological content when it is presented in engaging storytelling.
Cinematic Technique Versus Political Communication
The “Dhurandhar” duology’s most pernicious quality lies in its combination of cinematic mastery with ideological extremism. Director Aditya Dhar displays substantial expertise of the action thriller genre, crafting sequences of visceral intensity and storytelling drive that captivate audiences. This technical competence becomes contentious precisely because it acts as a medium for nationalist propaganda, transforming what might otherwise be blunt political content into something significantly alluring and convincing. The films’ refined visual presentation, accomplished visual composition, and powerful acting by actors like Ranveer Singh lend credibility to their deeply divisive narratives, turning their ideological messaging more acceptable to wider audiences who might otherwise spurn explicitly provocative content.
This combination of artistic merit and ideological messaging establishes a unique challenge for cinematic analysis and cultural commentary. Audiences often find it difficult to distinguish between artistic enjoyment from political analysis, especially when entertainment value demonstrates genuine appeal. The “Dhurandhar” films exploit this conflict intentionally, relying on the idea that audiences engaged with exciting action scenes will internalise their underlying messages without critical resistance. The danger grows because the films’ technical achievements grant them credibility within critical discourse, allowing 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 propagandistic content into popular media
- Advanced cinematography conceals ideological messaging from rigorous analysis
- Filmmaking skill lifts nationalist rhetoric above raw inflammatory speech
The Concerning Implications for Indian Cinema
The commercial and critical success of the “Dhurandhar” duology indicates a concerning trajectory for Indian cinema, one in which nationalistic sentiment increasingly determines box office performance and cultural importance. Where once Bollywood functioned as a forum for multiple perspectives and alternative standpoints, the rise of these patriotic suspense films suggests a contraction in acceptable discourse. The films’ extraordinary performance indicates that audiences are increasingly receptive to entertainment that openly champions state power and frames disagreement as treachery. This shift mirrors wider social division, yet cinema’s particular power to shape public imagination means its ideological leanings carry significant influence in shaping popular opinion and political attitudes.
The implications go further than mere viewing habits. When a nation’s film industry regularly generates narratives that celebrate state power and vilify foreign adversaries, it risks ossifying collective views and limiting critical engagement with intricate geopolitical realities. The “Dhurandhar” films demonstrate this risk by presenting their worldview not as one perspective among many, but as objective truth packaged with technical excellence and star power. For critics and cultural observers, this marks a watershed moment: Indian cinema’s evolution from occasionally accommodating state interests to deliberately operating as a propaganda machine, albeit one far more sophisticated than its historical predecessors.
Propaganda Dressed up as Entertainment
The insidious nature of the “Dhurandhar” duology stems from its deliberate obfuscation of political messaging beneath layers of cinematic craft. Director Aditya Dhar crafts intricate action set-pieces and character arcs that capture audience attention, effectively distracting from the films’ relentless promotion of nationalist ideology and uncritical belief in state institutions. The protagonist’s journey, ostensibly a personal quest for redemption, functions simultaneously as a celebration of governmental power and military might. By incorporating propagandistic content inside compelling stories, the films attain what cruder political messaging cannot: they convert ideology into spectacle, turning audiences complicit in their own ideological conditioning whilst regarding themselves as merely entertained.
This strategy proves particularly successful because it operates beneath active perception. Viewers captivated by exhilarating action sequences and intimate character scenes internalise the films’ fundamental narratives—that forceful state intervention is essential, that opponents cannot change, that individual sacrifice for state interests is worthy—without recognising the manipulation taking place. The polished camera work, engaging portrayals, and genuine technical accomplishment provide authenticity to these narratives, allowing them to look less like persuasive messaging and more like authentic storytelling. This appearance of authenticity allows the films’ divisive ideology to reach general understanding 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 precedent for how state-backed cinema can transcend geographic borders and cultural differences. As streaming services like Netflix release these films globally, audiences in Western nations and elsewhere encounter advanced propagandistic content wrapped in the recognizable style of espionage thrillers and action cinema. Without the understanding of cultural and political contexts needed to interpret the films’ nationalist messaging, international viewers may inadvertently absorb and validate Indian state ideology, effectively extending the reach of propagandistic narratives far outside their intended domestic audience. This globalisation of politically charged content raises urgent questions about platform accountability and the ethical implications of circulating state-backed films to unsuspecting international audiences.
Furthermore, the “Dhurandhar” films establish a concerning template that other countries may seek to emulate. If state-sponsored filmmaking can secure both critical acclaim and box office success whilst advancing nationalist agendas, other governments—particularly those prone to authoritarianism—may acknowledge 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 paired with authentic creative talent and considerable resources, it becomes virtually unavoidable. For global audiences and film critics, the duology’s success signals a worrying prospect where entertainment and government messaging become increasingly indistinguishable.
