Summary of this article
In recent years, overtly ideological storytelling in Bollywood has become more pronounced and visible.
“Propaganda”, once reviled and feared, has now found surprising acceptance in the vocabulary of Bollywood.
What distinguishes Dhurandhar and its sequel as propaganda films is their apparent attempt to weave real events and characters into its storyline, contributing significantly to the controversy surrounding the film.
Move over SRK and sex! Bollywood may well have stumbled on a new magic word to revive the box office with the astounding success of Dhurandhar duology now.
If Joseph Goebbels were alive today, he might be amused to observe the curious afterlife of that very word so closely associated with his name—not in the corridors of global power, but in the world of arc lights. “Propaganda”, once reviled and feared, has now found surprising acceptance in the vocabulary of Bollywood.
The use of cinema as a medium for deliberate projection of a particular idea or ideology is not new, though. Filmmakers and actors worldwide have, over decades, employed storytelling to advance viewpoints, shape narratives and influence public sentiment. Yet, in recent years, overtly ideological storytelling in Bollywood has become more pronounced and visible.
The much talked-about spy thriller, Dhurandhar (2025), directed by the young filmmaker Aditya Dhar, and its recently released sequel, Dhurandhar: The Revenge (2026) have brought this phenomenon into sharp focus, almost redefining the contemporary understanding of propaganda in Hindi cinema.
Dhar, of the Uri: The Surgical Strike (2019) fame, has been accused by several critics of using his films to promote the perceived agenda of the current regime. According to detractors, his films employ the language of nationalism to present scenes and situations that bear little resemblance to reality.
While such allegations are not unprecedented in Indian cinema, the intensity of the reaction to Dhurandhar has, in particular, been unusually strong. This is perhaps because the film did not merely invite debate—it shattered box office records by collecting a staggering Rs 1,300 crore. Its sequel appears poised to surpass the feat of even its predecessor.
Over the past decade, Bollywood has undergone a noticeable shift. Traditionally regarded as a largely secular space—one where religion and caste seldom dictated professional or creative alignments—the industry now appears more ideologically divided.
For years, it was often said that while Bollywood had its share of problems, communal or ideological polarisation was not among them. That perception, however, appears to have gradually changed.
Films dealing with nationalism, political conflict and India’s relationship with Pakistan have, of course, existed for decades. Pakistan has frequently been portrayed as a rogue nation in popular narratives. Yet, in earlier times, filmmakers approached such themes with a certain restraint. Even when actors like Manoj “Bharat” Kumar explored patriotic subjects, their films rarely veered into aggressive nationalism.
Kumar’s Shaheed (1965), inspired by the lives of Bhagat Singh and fellow revolutionaries, and the blockbuster Kranti (1981), which revolved around a bunch of unsung heroes of the freedom struggle against British rule, reflected a more measured approach. Later, in Clerk (1989), he even cast prominent Pakistani actors such as Mohammad Ali and Zeba, suggesting a willingness to engage across borders.
In recent years, however, the tone has shifted. Actors such as Akshay Kumar have headlined films like Baby (2015) and Kesari (2019), rooted in themes of counter-terrorism and nationalism respectively. At the same time, filmmakers such as Vivek Agnihotri have presented movies like the mega-hit The Kashmir Files (2022), which many critics labelled as nothing short of propaganda, despite the director's insistence that the narrative was based entirely on facts.
Biographical films on figures such as former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and current Prime Minister Narendra Modi have also been produced, while projects on Indira Gandhi and the Emergency have attracted similar accusations. Notably, most of these films failed to achieve sustained commercial success. After initial waves of attention and criticism, many quietly faded into obscurity.
The Dhurandhar duology, however, has followed a different trajectory. Its box office success has been extraordinary. The film tells the story of a covert Indian agent who infiltrates Pakistan to thwart alleged anti-India conspiracies. On the surface, such a premise is hardly novel; Bollywood has long been fascinated with stories of undercover agents operating in hostile territory. Actors such as Salman Khan have built successful franchises around similar narratives. Yet, these earlier films were largely treated as fictional escapism, with little claim to realism.
What distinguishes Dhurandhar and its sequel is their apparent attempt to weave real events and characters into its storyline. This blending of fact and fiction has contributed significantly to the controversy surrounding the film. Critics argue that the narrative selectively interprets reality to advance a particular viewpoint, transforming entertainment into propaganda.
The debate intensified with the release of the sequel earlier this week, drawing even those who had dismissed the original film back into cinemas—sometimes out of curiosity, sometimes out of scepticism.
Despite the criticism, the film’s commercial performance has remained unaffected. If anything, the controversy appears to have amplified public interest. Both the original and its sequel have drawn large audiences, demonstrating once again that box office success operates on principles not always aligned with critical approval.
This raises an important question: can propaganda alone ensure a film’s success? The evidence suggests otherwise. While cinema’s vast reach certainly makes it a potential tool for ideological messaging, audiences ultimately respond to a combination of factors – storytelling, execution, performances, and overall engagement.
A film may generate debate and attract attention, but it cannot sustain itself at the box office without compelling content.
In the case of Dhurandhar, its success can be attributed not merely to its thematic positioning but also to Dhar’s direction and craftsmanship. The film appears to be backed by considerable research, lending it a degree of authenticity that resonates with viewers.
More importantly, its audience seems largely indifferent to whether the film qualifies as propaganda. For them, the primary concern is whether the film entertains on a larger-than-life canvas.
This, perhaps, is the most important aspect of Bollywood’s relationship with propaganda. A film may be promoted through controversy, and debates may be deliberately or inadvertently triggered. Yet, in the final analysis, it is the audience that determines its fate. The box office remains the ultimate arbiter.
And as has always been the case with Bollywood, what sells is what survives. If the success of Dhurandhar encourages a proliferation of similar films, the industry will undoubtedly follow that path blindly. After all, Bollywood’s defining instinct has never been ideological commitment to the craft of filmmaking; it has been commercial instinct.
Giridhar Jha is a bilingual journalist, textbook author, and National Award-winning film critic with over four decades of experience writing about cinema and just about everything else.
