Listen to the article
Can Propaganda Be Art? The Debate Over Nationalist Cinema in India
Can propaganda be art? This question has long divided critics, artists, and audiences worldwide. From Leni Riefenstahl’s films glorifying Nazism to Soviet poster art, history offers examples of propaganda that many argue transcended their political purpose to become enduring artistic works.
This debate has recently resurfaced in India with the success of Aditya Dhar’s Hindi film “Dhurandar.” While critics have condemned the film for blending real-life events with fiction to advance an ultra-nationalist narrative, defenders praise its technical excellence, immersive storytelling, and emotional intensity.
In a recent discussion moderated by Anuj Kumar, scholars Asim Siddiqui and Sudhanva Deshpande explored the complex relationship between art and propaganda in contemporary Indian cinema.
Siddiqui offers a nuanced view of propaganda, noting that while all art communicates ideas, modern propaganda makes “selective use of facts, ideas, and images to persuade people to accept a particular point of view.” It deliberately appeals to raw emotions to shape public opinion.
Deshpande emphasizes that propaganda exists within broader ecosystems: “Propaganda is typically not something that one person does alone. There are organised forces behind the work that is seen as propaganda.”
When discussing “Dhurandar” in comparison to other controversial films like “The Kashmir Files” and “The Kerala Story,” both scholars place it within what they describe as a coordinated effort by Hindutva forces to influence the Hindi film industry.
“In the Hindi film industry, there has been a concerted effort by forces of Hindutva to take control in some ways,” Deshpande explains. This control operates through multiple channels: government institutions, non-state actors, trolls, vigilantes, and funding networks. He points to instances where BJP-led states gave employees time off to see “The Kashmir Files” or purchased tickets for them.
Siddiqui notes a shift in institutional recognition, expressing surprise that “The Kashmir Files” received a National Award for national integration, which he calls “ironic” given its divisive content.
The discussion highlights a crucial distinction between propaganda serving power and art challenging it. Deshpande argues that artists must decide whether they support the status quo or believe it needs to change. “If you believe that the poor and those marginalized for centuries need to become stakeholders in society, your art will argue that. But that is not propaganda; you are going against the grain of power.”
Regarding “Dhurandar,” Siddiqui points out subtle “dog whistles” in the film’s treatment of Indian Muslims. Though no Muslim characters appear, certain dialogues imply “enemies within India.” Deshpande places this in historical context, noting that the “othering of Muslims” in Indian cinema intensified alongside the Ram Janmabhoomi movement in the mid-1980s.
Both scholars reject comparisons between today’s nationalist cinema and the progressive films of the 1950s-70s. Deshpande calls it a “false equivalence,” stating, “I can’t think of a single film inspired by the progressive writers’ movement that actively encouraged its audience to feel hatred toward a particular caste or community.”
He also highlights how today’s propaganda operates not just through what is produced but what is prevented: “In a film on Jyotirao Phule, there was a need to remove caste names of caste groups.”
On whether one can ethically appreciate propaganda’s artistic qualities while rejecting its message, Siddiqui acknowledges the complexity: “When you are engrossed in a film, you can enjoy the visuals, songs, images, and acting. The discourse that arises from a film comes later.”
Despite propaganda’s influence, both scholars remain optimistic about critical thinking. Siddiqui believes it “can never be dead,” while Deshpande offers a personal example of how propaganda against Urdu language actually sparked his interest in Urdu literature.
As Indian cinema navigates these politically charged waters, the line between art and propaganda remains contested territory—raising questions not just about filmmaking but about the future of India’s cultural discourse itself.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
16 Comments
This is a fascinating exploration of the intersection between propaganda and art. While technical mastery and emotional resonance are hallmarks of great art, when these elements are used to advance a specific ideological agenda, it becomes more problematic.
I agree. The discussion highlights the need to scrutinize works that blend fact and fiction, no matter how artistically accomplished they may be. Preserving the integrity of art is crucial, even as we grapple with the complexities of propaganda.
Propaganda often leverages visceral emotions to shape narratives. While this can produce compelling art, we must remain vigilant about the underlying motives and potential for abuse. The nuances of this debate are worth exploring further.
I share your concerns. The line between propaganda and art is blurry, and we must critically examine works that seem to cross it, regardless of their aesthetic merits.
The debate over whether propaganda can be considered art is a complex one, with valid arguments on both sides. While the technical and aesthetic merits of a work should be acknowledged, we must also be mindful of the underlying political motives and potential for manipulation.
Well said. This discussion underscores the importance of critical thinking and nuanced analysis when evaluating works that straddle the line between art and propaganda. Maintaining a balanced perspective is key.
This is a thought-provoking exploration of the blurred boundaries between propaganda and art. While artistic excellence and emotional impact are important, we must also remain vigilant about the potential for propaganda to distort facts and shape narratives for political ends.
I agree completely. The discussion highlights the need to approach such works with a critical eye, discerning genuine artistic expression from deliberate attempts to sway public opinion through selective use of information and imagery.
The success of “Dhurandar” highlights how propaganda can masquerade as art, especially when it taps into powerful nationalist sentiments. Careful analysis is needed to distinguish genuine artistic merit from political manipulation.
Excellent point. We should be wary of art that deliberately distorts facts to sway public opinion, no matter how technically accomplished it may be.
The debate over propaganda as art is a longstanding one, and this latest discussion sheds valuable light on the nuances involved. It’s a delicate balance between acknowledging technical prowess and remaining wary of ideological agendas.
Exactly. We must be discerning consumers of art, especially when it seems to carry political undertones. Maintaining a critical eye is essential to navigating this complex terrain.
This is a thought-provoking discussion on a complex issue. While propaganda can exhibit artistic excellence, its primary purpose is to manipulate, not enlighten. Maintaining a clear-eyed understanding of this distinction is crucial.
Well said. Appreciating the artistry of propaganda shouldn’t blind us to its underlying agenda. Rigorous scrutiny is needed to separate genuine artistic expression from political messaging.
This is a fascinating debate on the blurred lines between propaganda and art. While propaganda can leverage technical excellence and emotional resonance, it often distorts facts to push an agenda. It’s a complex issue that deserves nuanced discussion.
I agree, the relationship between art and propaganda is multilayered. Riefenstahl’s films are a prime example of how aesthetic brilliance can be co-opted for political ends.