Listen to the article
Veteran actor Anupam Kher has stepped forward to defend his latest film “Dhurandhar 2” against mounting criticism that the movie promotes propaganda. Speaking at a press conference in Mumbai yesterday, Kher delivered a passionate rebuttal to critics who have questioned the film’s political undertones.
“I find it amusing how quickly certain people label a film as propaganda simply because it presents a narrative they don’t agree with,” Kher said, his voice rising with conviction. “This film tells a story that needed to be told. Rest in Peace to those people who cannot differentiate between honest storytelling and what they call propaganda.”
The political thriller, directed by acclaimed filmmaker Rajat Kapoor, has sparked intense debate since its release last Friday. The film depicts a fictional government whistleblower who uncovers corruption at the highest levels of power, with many viewers and critics noting parallels to recent real-world political events.
Industry analysts suggest the controversy surrounding “Dhurandhar 2” reflects the increasingly polarized environment in which Indian cinema operates. The film has performed impressively at the box office despite the criticism, grossing over ₹45 crore in its opening weekend.
“The audience is smarter than we give them credit for,” Kher explained. “They can distinguish between propaganda and a film that simply explores complex political themes. Our film does the latter.”
The 68-year-old actor, known for his versatility across more than 500 films, has himself been a polarizing figure in recent years due to his outspoken political views. However, Kher insisted that his personal politics should not overshadow the artistic merits of the film.
Film critic Rajeev Masand notes that the controversy is part of a larger trend in Indian cinema. “We’re seeing more politically charged content being produced, and inevitably these films become lightning rods for debate. The line between artistic expression and political messaging has become increasingly blurred.”
The film’s production house, Dharma Productions, has maintained that “Dhurandhar 2” is purely fictional and any resemblance to real events is coincidental. Producer Karan Johar released a statement emphasizing that the film “aims to entertain while provoking thought, which is what cinema at its best should do.”
Several industry colleagues have rallied behind Kher, including actress Kangana Ranaut, who took to social media to defend the film. “When truth makes people uncomfortable, they call it propaganda,” she wrote.
The controversy comes at a time when Indian cinema is increasingly engaging with politically sensitive subjects. Recent films like “The Kashmir Files” and “Uri: The Surgical Strike” have similarly faced accusations of agenda-driven storytelling while achieving commercial success.
Media analyst Shubhra Gupta points out that the debate around “Dhurandhar 2” highlights the evolving relationship between cinema and politics in India. “Films are no longer just entertainment; they’re becoming vehicles for political discourse, for better or worse.”
Despite the controversy, or perhaps because of it, “Dhurandhar 2” continues to draw audiences. Theater chains report strong advance bookings for the second week, suggesting the debate has only heightened public interest.
Kher concluded his defense by inviting critics to watch the film with an open mind. “Cinema should challenge us, make us think. If a film makes you uncomfortable, perhaps that’s not a failure of the film but an invitation to examine why you feel that way.”
As the debate continues, “Dhurandhar 2” stands as another example of how Indian cinema has become an increasingly significant battleground for competing political narratives in the world’s largest democracy.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
8 Comments
The debate around this film highlights the complexities of navigating political narratives in cinema. While healthy criticism is important, resorting to labels like ‘propaganda’ can be counterproductive. The nuances of the filmmaking deserve a fair assessment.
I’m curious to see the film and form my own opinion. Dismissing it as propaganda without engaging with the actual content seems shortsighted. As Kher said, honest storytelling and propaganda are not the same thing.
Interesting to see the debate around this film. Movies that touch on sensitive political topics often stir strong reactions, whether warranted or not. It’s important to keep an open mind and assess the merits of the storytelling, not just the message.
I agree. Dismissing a film as mere propaganda before even watching it is short-sighted. The director’s intent and the nuances of the narrative deserve a fair evaluation.
Kudos to Anupam Kher for standing up for his film. As an accomplished actor, his perspective carries weight. While healthy debate is good, resorting to labels like ‘propaganda’ can stifle meaningful discussion.
Well said. Kher makes a fair point – just because a film presents a narrative that some may disagree with, doesn’t automatically make it propaganda. Art should provoke thought, not draw hasty conclusions.
The polarized environment surrounding Indian cinema is an interesting phenomenon. Films that tackle sensitive political issues are bound to generate controversy, which can be both a blessing and a curse for their commercial success.
That’s a good observation. The film’s strong box office performance despite the criticism suggests there is an audience appetite for stories that challenge the status quo, even if they make some viewers uncomfortable.