By T N Ashok
Bollywood has always flirted with politics. From Indira Gandhi’s state-funded documentaries to Modi-era blockbusters, cinema has been a pliable tool for power. But with Dhurandhar 2, the line between entertainment and propaganda doesn’t just blur—it collapses entirely. What masquerades as a patriotic thriller is, in reality, a cinematic sermon dressed up as mass entertainment, a reel-world rewriting of history where economic blunders are reframed as heroic acts of correction.
Directed by Aditya Dhar, Dhurandhar 2 is marketed as a national security saga. Yet its most striking inclusions are not fictional battles but real political milestones: Narendra Modi’s 2014 swearing-in ceremony and his 2016 demonetisation address. These are not throwaway references. They are deliberate anchors, designed to embed the film within the mythology of decisive governance.
The problem? Demonetisation was no triumph. It was one of India’s most economically disruptive policies, leaving the informal sector shattered, millions jobless, and small businesses gasping for survival. The government claimed it eliminated black money, disrupted terror funding, and boosted the digital economy.
In reality, most of the cash returned to the system, terror attacks continued, and the digital push was uneven at best. GDP took a severe hit, with the informal sector bearing the brunt. Yet in Dhurandhar 2, this catastrophe is reframed as a masterstroke of national correction—a cinematic sleight of hand that insults lived reality.
This is not new. Indian cinema has long been political. Under Indira Gandhi, propaganda was overt, institutional, and state-funded. Films like Our Indira (1973) and We Have Promises to Keep (1975) were produced by the Films Division and distributed with minimal dissent. They were clumsy, heavy-handed, and unmistakably government propaganda.
Modi’s era, however, has perfected the art of subtlety. Propaganda today is privately funded, ideologically aligned, and market amplified. Films like Uri: The Surgical Strike (2019), The Kashmir Files (2022), The Kerala Story (2023), and PM Narendra Modi (2019) have all carried the unmistakable scent of political messaging.
They are not government productions, but their narratives dovetail neatly with ruling party ideology. They glorify militarism, exaggerate threats, and selectively frame history to suit the nationalist script. Dhurandhar 2 is simply the latest—and perhaps most brazen—addition to this canon.
Supporters of Dhurandhar 2 argue that calling it propaganda is ideological bias. After all, films like Haider (2014) critiqued the army and were hailed as artistic freedom. Mulk (2018) highlighted minority injustice and was praised as a social mirror.
Why then is Dhurandhar 2 dismissed as propaganda when it champions national security? The answer lies in intent. Haider and Mulk interrogated power; Dhurandhar 2 amplified it. One challenges the state, the other echoes it. That distinction is crucial. Art that questions authority is freedom. Cinema that parrots authority is propaganda.
The hollowness of Dhurandhar 2 is most evident in its treatment of demonetisation. The film presents it as a bold strike against terror funding. Yet reality tells a different story. Major attacks—the Uri strike in 2016, Pulwama in 2019—occurred after demonetisation. If the policy truly disrupted terror financing, why did these attacks happen? Cinema simplifies what governance cannot resolve. In this case, it distorts.
By turning a failed economic experiment into a patriotic triumph, Dhurandhar 2 doesn’t just mislead—it gaslights. It asks audiences to forget the queues outside banks, the deaths linked to cash shortages, the collapse of small traders, and instead cheer for a fictional narrative of strength.
Critics allege that Dhurandhar 2 reads like a script drafted in the BJP headquarters. While there is no evidence of direct party involvement, the ideological overlap is undeniable. The timing of its release—amid a hyper-polarised political climate—only sharpens suspicion. Whether or not the BJP dictated the script, the film’s narrative convergence with government messaging is unmistakable.
The uproar around Dhurandhar 2 is not accidental. It is structural. Three forces drive it: Hyper-Polarised Politics: Every cultural product is now decoded politically. Digital Amplification: Social media turns films into ideological battlegrounds overnight. Election Timing: Cinema is increasingly seen as soft political messaging. In this ecosystem, Dhurandhar 2 is not just a film. It is a campaign tool.
What makes Dhurandhar 2 dangerous is not its quality—it is a slick, well-produced film—but its template. It shows how Bollywood can be weaponized: privately funded, ideologically aligned, commercially successful, and politically resonant. It is propaganda without the fingerprints of the state, a narrative ecosystem that thrives in the marketplace.
This is the new face of propaganda. Not clumsy documentaries produced by Films Division, but blockbuster thrillers that rewrite history, glorify failed policies, and amplify ruling party ideology. It is propaganda disguised as entertainment, and it works because it entertains while it indoctrinates.
Is Dhurandhar 2 propaganda? Not in the classical sense. It is not state-funded or directive. But in the modern sense—ideologically aligned, politically resonant, and narratively manipulative—it absolutely is. It is part of a larger trend where Bollywood becomes the echo chamber of power, turning cinema into a tool of messaging rather than art.
The sharper truth is this: Indian cinema has always been political. The difference is that today, propaganda no longer needs government funding. It thrives in aligned ecosystems, amplified by markets, and legitimised by audiences who mistake narrative for truth.
From Indira Gandhi’s documentaries to Modi’s blockbusters, the motive has remained constant: control the story, and you influence the nation. Dhurandhar 2 is not an exception. It is the new template. A film that rewrites economic devastation as patriotic triumph, that turns propaganda into entertainment, and that exposes the hollowness of Bollywood’s latest trend.
In the end, Dhurandhar 2 is less about national security than narrative security. It secures the ruling party’s story, even at the cost of truth. And that is the real danger: when cinema stops entertaining and starts indoctrinating, the audience is no longer watching a film. They are watching a campaign.
But who cares, no one does, its reportedly jingling at the box office from Mumbai’s multiplexes to Delhi’s cine chains to New York’s AMCs to UK, Malaysia, Singapore, Australia’s movie chains as block buster entertainers hailed by the supporters, critiqued by opposition and the Indian diaspora posting pictures of themselves on the social media as if they just came out of a 100th anniversary of Indian Independence Day.
The mantra is sophisticated today. Fueling nationalism and patriotism through cinema as Goebbels did idolizing Hitler, Indira Gandhi followed it through as a crude template in the state run films division. While the nation debates the pros and cons, Aditya Dhar and his wife Yami Gautam are laughing their way from the box office to their bank accounts raking in millions. (IPA Service)
