Listen to the article
In a recent interview, actress Gul Panag weighed in on the ongoing debate surrounding Aditya Dhar’s blockbuster film “Dhurandhar,” which has been labeled as propaganda by some critics despite its impressive box office performance.
Speaking to The Lallantop, Panag offered a nuanced perspective on the controversy, suggesting that the “propaganda” label often depends on one’s political alignment. “Every film is an artistic expression,” she explained. “If it has a political subtext that you don’t like, it gets tagged as propaganda. Similarly, if you like it, then it is considered nuanced. That’s the difference.”
To illustrate her point, Panag referenced the science fiction film “District 9,” describing it as “a very political film” that was praised because it resonated with certain audiences and proved commercially successful. She emphasized that all films contain socio-political viewpoints, and the reception often depends on whether viewers agree with those perspectives.
“For me personally, I look at whether the story is effective and forces thought in your mind, regardless of the outcome of the movie – that’s an important criterion,” Panag stated. She added that her own choice to work on a project is a strategic rather than tactical decision, noting her aspiration to build a career she won’t regret a decade later.
Interestingly, Panag suggested that actor Akshaye Khanna would be better positioned to address questions about “Dhurandhar’s” political dimensions. She recalled that Khanna was two years her senior in boarding school, and mentioned that his father, the late actor Vinod Khanna, would have had “the perfect answer” to questions about the film’s political messaging.
When pressed for clarification about what she found problematic in the film, Panag pointed to the stereotypical portrayal of Arjun Rampal’s character, who is shown smoking. She observed that “there will always be some subtext in your socio-political filmmaking as a filmmaker.”
“Dhurandhar” continues to dominate the box office, having emerged as the highest-grossing Hindi film with over ₹831 crore in domestic earnings. This impressive performance has allowed it to surpass the Hindi version of Allu Arjun’s 2023 hit “Pushpa 2: The Rule,” which earned ₹830 crore.
The film’s commercial success comes despite – or perhaps partially because of – the heated discourse surrounding its political messaging. This phenomenon reflects a broader trend in Indian cinema where films with nationalist themes have found significant commercial success in recent years, often sparking debates about the intersection of entertainment and political messaging.
Fans of the franchise can look forward to “Dhurandhar Part 2,” which is scheduled for release on March 19, 2026. The sequel will face competition from Yash’s “Toxic,” setting up a potential box office clash between two major productions.
For those who haven’t caught the current installment in theaters, “Dhurandhar” is expected to arrive on Netflix on January 30, 2026, following India’s standard eight-week window between theatrical and OTT releases.
The ongoing discussion around “Dhurandhar” highlights the increasingly polarized reception of films with political subtexts in India’s contemporary cinema landscape, where commercial success and critical reception don’t always align.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
16 Comments
Gul Panag makes a fair point that all films have some degree of socio-political viewpoint. The question is whether that viewpoint is presented in a thoughtful, balanced way or comes across as overt propaganda.
Agreed, the line between ‘political commentary’ and ‘propaganda’ can be blurry. It often comes down to the execution and the filmmaker’s intent.
Gul Panag’s comparison to District 9 is a good one – a politically-charged film that was praised by some and criticized by others. It highlights how audiences can have very different interpretations of the same work.
Exactly, the success or failure of a film often comes down to whether the political messaging resonates with the viewer. Reasonable people can disagree on these complex issues.
The ‘propaganda’ debate around Dhurandhar highlights the challenge of creating art with political themes. Gul Panag’s nuanced view that it ultimately comes down to the viewer’s own alignment is a fair assessment.
Agreed, these debates often get bogged down in partisan positions. Panag’s call for focusing on the storytelling and its impact, rather than just the political messaging, is a thoughtful approach.
Gul Panag’s comments on the ‘propaganda’ label being dependent on one’s political views are insightful. It highlights the challenges of creating art in a polarized environment, where the same work can be interpreted very differently.
Absolutely, the ‘propaganda’ debate is often more about the viewer’s own biases than the actual content of the film. A more open-minded, critical analysis is needed to have a constructive discussion.
Interesting to hear Panag reminisce about working with Vinod Khanna. His legacy as an accomplished actor and producer adds an interesting context to this discussion on Dhurandhar and the concept of ‘propaganda’ in films.
Yes, Vinod Khanna’s experience and perspective would have been valuable. His ability to navigate complex political themes in his acting work could have provided useful insights.
I’m curious to hear Akshaye Khanna’s take on the ‘propaganda’ claims against Dhurandhar. As an experienced actor, his perspective could provide additional nuance to this debate.
Khanna’s insights would be valuable, given his deep understanding of the film industry. He may be able to shed light on the motivations and creative choices behind Dhurandhar.
Panag’s perspective on films with political undertones is thought-provoking. The idea that a film’s reception depends on whether the viewer agrees with its messaging is an interesting point to consider.
Yes, it’s a nuanced issue without easy answers. Panag’s call to focus on the storytelling and its impact, rather than just the political subtext, is a wise approach in these debates.
Interesting perspective from Gul Panag on the ‘propaganda’ debate around the film Dhurandhar. She makes a fair point that the reception often depends on one’s political alignment. It’s a nuanced issue without simple answers.
I agree, the ‘propaganda’ label can be quite subjective. Films often have political undertones, and whether that’s seen as problematic or not depends a lot on the viewer’s own views.