Listen to the article
In the wake of growing debate surrounding the political messaging of spy thriller “Dhurandhar,” filmmaker Rumi Jaffrey has stepped forward to defend director Aditya Dhar’s blockbuster against accusations of being propaganda, adding his voice to the ongoing conversation about the film’s content and intentions.
“Dhurandhar is not a propaganda film. I have watched it twice. It is a 3-hour film, and people walk out by then. But Dhurandhar keeps people engaged,” Jaffrey stated during a recent event in conversation with AajTak, pushing back against criticism of the film’s political undertones.
The espionage thriller, which follows protagonist Hamza (played by Ranveer Singh) as he infiltrates Pakistani criminal networks to gather intelligence critical to Indian security, has become a box office phenomenon since its release over a month ago. The film has amassed more than ₹1,264 crore worldwide, with ₹992.74 crore from domestic markets and ₹272.25 crore internationally as of January 8.
Despite its commercial success, “Dhurandhar” has sparked conversations about its political messaging. Notable industry figures including director Anurag Kashyap and actor Hrithik Roshan publicly praised the film’s cinematic qualities while distancing themselves from its politics.
Roshan particularly faced backlash after sharing on Instagram: “I love cinema, I love people who climb into a vortex and let the story take control, spin them shake them until what they want to say is purged out of them onto that screen. DHURANDAR is an example of that. Loved the storytelling. It’s cinema. I may disagree with the politics of it, and argue about the responsibilities us filmmakers should bear as citizens of the world.” The actor later posted another story with additional praise for the film following the criticism.
The controversy highlights a growing trend in Indian cinema where high-budget action thrillers with nationalistic themes have dominated the box office in recent years. Industry analysts note that such films often generate polarized responses, with some viewers celebrating their patriotic narratives while others question whether they cross into jingoistic territory.
“Dhurandhar” features an ensemble cast including Akshaye Khanna, Sanjay Dutt, R. Madhavan, and Arjun Rampal supporting Singh in the lead role. The film’s end credits revealed plans for a sequel, with “Dhurandhar Part 2” scheduled for release on March 19, 2026—setting up a high-profile box office clash with Kannada star Yash’s upcoming film “Toxic.”
The film’s commercial performance has been nothing short of exceptional, breaking multiple records along the way. It has surpassed Shah Rukh Khan starrers “Jawan” and “Pathaan” to become the highest-grossing Indian film of 2025. Additionally, it ranks as the second-highest-grossing Hindi film of all time, the fifth-highest-grossing Indian film across all languages, and holds the distinction of being the highest-grossing A-certified Indian film ever.
The debate around “Dhurandhar” reflects larger questions facing the Indian film industry about the responsibility of filmmakers when addressing sensitive geopolitical issues, particularly those involving India-Pakistan relations. While some industry insiders argue that filmmakers should have creative license to explore nationalistic narratives, others maintain that such portrayals require nuance to avoid reinforcing stereotypes or inflaming tensions.
As “Dhurandhar” continues its box office dominance and anticipation builds for its sequel, the conversation about the relationship between commercial cinema, politics, and social responsibility in Indian filmmaking seems poised to continue well beyond this particular film.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
14 Comments
The director’s clarification that his film is not intended as propaganda, but rather an engaging espionage thriller, is a valid perspective. While the political messaging may be debated, the commercial success suggests the film has struck a chord with a significant audience.
It’s understandable that a film with such prominent political themes would spark discussion and debate. The director’s attempt to defend his work as an artistic endeavor rather than a propaganda piece adds an interesting layer to the ongoing conversation.
It’s interesting to see the director defend his film against accusations of propaganda. While the film’s political messaging is certainly up for debate, it seems the director believes it is simply an engaging espionage thriller, not a deliberate propaganda piece.
I appreciate the director’s perspective, though I imagine the political undertones will continue to be discussed. Regardless, the film’s commercial success suggests it has resonated with audiences.
While the political undertones of this film may be up for debate, the director’s defense of his work as an engaging espionage thriller rather than a propaganda piece is a valid perspective. The audience response indicates there is a demand for this type of storytelling.
It’s understandable that a film with such prominent political themes would spark debate and discussion. The director’s clarification provides an interesting counterpoint to the accusations of propaganda, though the conversation is likely to continue.
Filmmaking is a complex art form, and it’s not always easy to separate a work’s artistic merit from its potential political messaging. I appreciate the director’s attempt to clarify his intentions, even if the debate is likely to continue.
The commercial success of this film suggests there is a significant audience interested in this type of espionage thriller, regardless of the political discussions surrounding it. It will be intriguing to see how the conversation evolves.
The box office numbers for this film are quite impressive, despite the controversy around its political messaging. It will be interesting to see how this debate evolves as more people engage with the film.
I’m curious to hear more from the director about his intentions with the film. While the political aspects may be debatable, it’s clear the film has struck a chord with many viewers.
It’s intriguing to see the director push back against accusations of propaganda regarding his film. The commercial success suggests there is an audience interested in this type of espionage narrative, even if the political undertones remain a point of discussion.
The director’s defense of the film as an engaging thriller rather than a propaganda piece provides an interesting counterpoint to the ongoing debate. Regardless of the political messaging, the audience response indicates the film has resonated with viewers.
The commercial success of this film suggests there is a significant audience interested in this type of espionage narrative, regardless of the political discussions surrounding it. The director’s defense of his work as an engaging thriller rather than propaganda is a reasonable perspective.
While the political messaging of the film may be up for debate, the director’s attempt to clarify his intentions is a valid response. The ongoing conversation around the film’s content and impact will likely continue to evolve.