Listen to the article
The director of the latest Bollywood blockbuster “Dhurandhar” has launched a passionate defense of his film following criticism from popular YouTuber Dhruv Rathee, who labeled the movie as “dangerous propaganda.”
Aditya Dhar, whose action thriller starring Ranveer Singh and Akshaye Khanna has become one of the year’s highest-grossing films, responded to Rathee’s critique through a series of social media posts that have intensified the debate around political messaging in Indian cinema.
“Cinema is an art form that allows creators to express their vision and perspective,” Dhar wrote. “To label a film as ‘propaganda’ simply because it presents a viewpoint different from your own reflects a narrow understanding of creative expression.”
The controversy erupted after Rathee, who has over 8 million subscribers on YouTube, released a 45-minute video analysis claiming that “Dhurandhar” distorts historical events and promotes divisive narratives under the guise of patriotism. The video has garnered over 3 million views within 48 hours of its release.
Dhar’s film, which depicts a fictionalized account of Indian security forces combating terrorism, has been praised by many for its technical excellence and performances but has also drawn criticism from some quarters for its portrayal of certain communities.
“We conducted extensive research and consulted with security experts to ensure authenticity,” Dhar explained. “Our intention was to honor the sacrifices made by our forces while delivering an engaging cinematic experience, not to push any political agenda.”
The clash highlights the growing polarization in India’s entertainment industry, where films with nationalistic themes have become both commercially successful and politically contentious. Industry analysts note that the last five years have seen a significant increase in films centered around patriotism, national security, and historical retellings with contemporary political undertones.
Ranveer Singh, who plays the lead role of an intelligence officer in the film, has maintained a diplomatic stance on the controversy. “I was drawn to this project because of the compelling storytelling and the complexity of my character. As actors, we interpret roles without necessarily endorsing every aspect of the narrative,” Singh stated at a recent promotional event.
Film critic Anupama Chopra points out that this debate reflects broader tensions in Indian society. “Films don’t exist in a vacuum. They both shape and are shaped by the cultural and political environment in which they are created,” she observed in her weekly column.
“Dhurandhar” has already collected over ₹350 crore (approximately $42 million) at the box office since its release three weeks ago, making it one of the year’s most commercially successful films. The controversy has potentially contributed to its visibility, with ticket sales reportedly increasing in the days following Rathee’s critique.
The Film Federation of India has refrained from taking an official position on the matter, stating only that “creative freedom and responsible filmmaking should coexist in a healthy democracy.”
Media scholars have noted that this incident is part of a larger global phenomenon where entertainment and political discourse increasingly intersect. Dr. Rajesh Mehta of the Centre for Media Studies explained, “In the age of social media, films are no longer just evaluated on artistic merit but are scrutinized for their ideological implications, sometimes overshadowing discussions about their cinematic qualities.”
As the debate continues, “Dhurandhar” is scheduled to release on international screens next month, potentially bringing this distinctly Indian controversy to global audiences.
Industry insiders suggest that such high-profile disputes may influence future productions, with some filmmakers becoming more cautious about politically sensitive themes while others may deliberately court controversy for publicity.
Meanwhile, both Dhar and Rathee have gained significant social media following since the dispute began, highlighting how cultural debates in contemporary India often transcend traditional entertainment boundaries to become focal points of broader political discourse.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
20 Comments
The mining, energy, and commodities sectors are often at the center of geopolitical tensions and ideological battles. It’s not surprising that films tackling these themes would become a battleground for differing perspectives.
While I may not agree with all the creative choices in the film, I appreciate the director’s defense of artistic expression. Healthy debate is crucial for a vibrant cultural landscape.
The mining, commodities, and energy sectors are often intertwined with geopolitics and national interests. It’s not surprising that a film exploring these themes would become a lightning rod for differing perspectives.
While the critic’s concerns are understandable, dismissing the film as ‘propaganda’ may be an oversimplification. Engaging in substantive, nuanced discussions can lead to a deeper understanding of the issues at hand.
This debate highlights the complex relationship between cinema, politics, and public discourse. It will be interesting to see how the conversation evolves and whether it leads to deeper reflections on the role of the arts in society.
Thoughtful criticism can push filmmakers to consider the broader implications of their work. At the same time, dismissing a film as mere ‘propaganda’ may stifle valuable discussions.
Films can certainly shape public discourse, which is why it’s critical to approach them with an open and nuanced mindset. Labeling a movie as ‘propaganda’ may be an oversimplification.
Reasonable people can disagree on the intent and impact of a film. The key is to engage in constructive dialogue rather than outright dismissal.
Interesting debate around the portrayal of complex issues in cinema. Artistic expression can spark important discussions, though opinions may differ on the balance between entertainment and political messaging.
I appreciate the director’s perspective on cinema as an art form. It’s healthy to have diverse views, even if we don’t fully agree with them.
The mining, metals, and energy sectors are often at the heart of geopolitical and ideological battles. It’s not surprising that a film tackling these themes would become a lightning rod for differing perspectives.
While the critic’s concerns may be valid, dismissing the film as mere ‘propaganda’ risks shutting down constructive dialogue. Nuanced discussion is key to understanding the complexities at play.
This debate highlights the delicate balance filmmakers must strike when tackling politically-charged topics. Reasonable people can disagree on the intent and impact of a work of art.
I appreciate the director’s defense of artistic expression, even if I may not fully agree with the film’s portrayal of events. Fostering open and thoughtful dialogue is crucial in these situations.
This debate highlights the complexities inherent in depicting politically-charged topics through the medium of film. Reasonable people can disagree on the balance between artistic expression and political messaging.
I appreciate the director’s defense of his creative vision, even if I may not fully agree with the film’s portrayal. Fostering open and thoughtful dialogue is crucial in navigating these sensitive issues.
The mining, metals, and energy sectors are closely intertwined with geopolitics and national interests. It’s not surprising that films depicting these areas can become politically charged.
Navigating the balance between artistic expression and political messaging is a delicate challenge for filmmakers. There are merits to both the director’s and the critic’s perspectives.
This debate highlights the challenges of depicting complex, politically-charged topics in an entertainment medium. It will be interesting to see how the conversation evolves and whether it leads to more nuanced explorations of these issues.
The director’s response suggests a desire to move beyond simplistic labels like ‘propaganda’. Engaging in substantive discussions around the film’s merits and flaws could yield valuable insights.