The Rise of Dhurandhar: Blockbuster and Battlefield
Dhurandhar is not a small-scale film. Directed by Aditya Dhar and featuring a stellar cast including Ranveer Singh, Akshaye Khanna, R. Madhavan and Sanjay Dutt, it has smashed box office records — even outperforming previous Indian cinematic giants on key weekends.
Officially classified as a spy thriller inspired by real events — from the IC-814 hijack to the Parliament attack and Mumbai terror attacks — the film blends fictional narrative with historical touchpoints.
The sheer scale of its release and its commercial success has meant that Dhurandhar is not just another Bollywood spectacle; it is a cultural moment. And with cultural moments come political reactions — both praise and pushback.
When Cinema Meets Nationalism
A defining theme in the current debate around Dhurandhar is its portrayal of intelligence operations and national identity. Supporters of the film describe it as a bold depiction of Indian bravery, exposing geopolitics and terrorism in stark terms rarely seen on mainstream screens. This view positions the film as cinema with conviction — not propaganda.
Politicians and voices in media have echoed this sentiment, suggesting that the film reveals truths usually buried in diplomatic silence.Indeed, during its release, some celebrated how the narrative foregrounded Indian operatives’ sacrifices and strategic battles.
Yet the lines blur when celebrations of patriotism merge with selective nationalism — the tendency to highlight one nation’s virtues at the expense of nuanced truth. It is here that the argument for propaganda emerges.
The Propaganda Lens: Critics Speak Out
Critics — ranging from political commentators to social media influencers — argue that Dhurandhar crosses a line. One prominent voice, Dhruv Rathee, criticised the film on a widely viewed video labelled “Reality of Dhurandhar Film”, suggesting that viewers are not always able to distinguish dramatic art from historical account.
Rathee’s core point is this: when real events are woven into a fictional plot without context, audiences may absorb the narrative as truth without critical thought. He warns that powerful visuals can reshape public memory without realisation, leaving lasting impressions that feel convincing but are not complete history.
These concerns are not unique to Dhurandhar. Across decades, films have contested the boundary between truth and storytelling — from historical epics to modern thrillers. But when cinema deals with deeply political subjects like terrorism, international conflict or intelligence operations, the stakes of misinterpretation become much higher.
Real Events vs. Narrative Fiction: Where Does Cinema Fit?
A crucial issue in this debate is how films use real events. Dhurandhar includes scenes linked to well-documented incidents. Yet, as with many films inspired by history, the narrative compresses events, amplifies drama and creates composite characters to serve storytelling aims.
This method is common in cinema globally, but it presents a challenge: many viewers may not realise they are watching fiction inspired by reality, not factual recounting. Once emotion enters — adrenaline, revenge, grief — the film’s internal truth can overwhelm the external one. That is precisely where storytelling moves toward persuasion.
In academic terms, what we see here is the slippery slope between docu-fiction and propaganda. When intentions are artistic, the film remains art. When intentions nudge viewers toward a fixed political interpretation, the film edges into propaganda territory.
Selective Memory and Public Discourse
Another dimension is how films affect public memory. Narratives like Dhurandhar’s can become part of what people “know” about history — even if their understanding is shaped more by cinematic licence than by factual record.
This is not just theoretical. After its release, authorities in Sindh (Pakistan) publicly denounced the film’s portrayal of areas like Lyari, calling it misrepresentation and announcing their own film to tell a counter-story.
This cross-border cinematic pushback illustrates how film narratives can influence perceptions between nations — a powerful indicator of how cinema intersects with influence, identity and diplomacy.
Propaganda in Other Indian Films: A Broader Pattern
If we look beyond Dhurandhar, other Indian films have also courted controversy for perceived political messaging. For example, PM Narendra Modi (2019) was widely described as a propaganda film, narrowly aligned with the political rise of a serving prime minister and facing bans due to election regulations.
Similarly, movies that centre on contemporary figures or sensitive historical debates often trigger discussion about cinema’s influence on political sentiment. This is not about censorship, but about awareness — recognising that films are emotional languages that can powerfully shape how audiences perceive people, events and nations.
Intelligence, Nationalism and Emotional Engagement
Why does propaganda matter? It matters because emotion influences belief. Films are designed to be immersive. They make you feel anger, pride, fear, sadness — and when these feelings align with a political worldview, they can solidify shortcuts in thinking that bypass critical analysis.
Consider Dhurandhar’s depiction of intelligence failure or covert operations. Critics warn that such portrayals — especially when paired with intense drama — can lead viewers to accept a simplified binary view of “us vs them.” When audiences are stirred emotionally, they are less likely to ask tough questions about complexity, context, or competing narratives.
This psychological shift is what distinguishes persuasive storytelling from mere entertainment.
The Role of the Viewer: Critical Engagement is Key
The solution is not to dismiss films like Dhurandhar entirely. Nor should we vilify cinema as inherently manipulative. Rather, viewers must cultivate critical awareness — to enjoy cinematic artistry while distinguishing narrative fiction from documented fact.
Good cinema can educate and provoke thought. Great cinema can do so without narrowing interpretation or suppressing complexity. The onus lies with audiences to ask where imagination ends and historical record begins.
Conclusion: Why the Line Matters
In an age where visual media saturates daily life, the power of cinema to shape public consciousness cannot be underestimated. Films like Dhurandhar are culturally significant, reflecting societal anxieties and artistic ambitions. But they also underscore how easily storytelling can shade into persuasion, intent or ideology.
By recognising this dynamic, viewers can reclaim their role not just as passive consumers, but as critical thinkers — aware of cinema’s emotional pull and mindful of its influence on collective memory.
In the end, the line between story and propaganda matters because it safeguards informed understanding in an increasingly image-driven world. Understanding that line — and the psychology behind it — is perhaps the most important lesson any film can teach.
No comments:
Post a Comment