Javed Akhtar Defends Controversial Films, Praises Dhurandhar’s Work

In a forceful defense of artistic expression, celebrated lyricist and screenwriter Javed Akhtar has questioned the growing practice of labeling films as “propaganda” based on their narrative viewpoints. Speaking to journalists in Kolkata, where he received a special award from a prominent jewellery brand, Akhtar articulated his concerns about how creative works are increasingly being categorized and dismissed.

“Every story takes some stand,” Akhtar remarked, challenging the notion that films should be branded as propaganda simply because they present perspectives that certain audience segments disagree with. The 79-year-old industry veteran suggested that filmmakers are primarily concerned with conveying what they perceive as truth through their artistic vision.

Akhtar specifically mentioned his appreciation for “Dhurandhar,” noting his preference for the first installment over its sequel. His comments come at a time when Indian cinema, particularly mainstream Bollywood productions, faces intensifying scrutiny regarding political undertones and nationalistic themes.

The award-winning writer, known for his work on classics like “Sholay” and “Zanjeer,” elaborated on how even fantasy-based narratives carry ideological elements. According to Akhtar, all storytelling inherently contains moral positioning, though audiences may interpret these elements differently based on their own values and perspectives.

“Films are like mirrors,” he explained, suggesting that cinema inevitably reflects the prevailing social values and concerns of its time. As society evolves, so do concepts of morality and aspiration, which in turn influence the stories being told on screen. This cyclical relationship between art and society has been particularly evident in Indian cinema’s evolution over recent decades, as the industry responds to changing cultural and political landscapes.

The Indian film industry, valued at approximately $2.4 billion and producing over 1,500 films annually across various languages, has increasingly become a battleground for competing ideologies. Several recent big-budget productions have faced accusations of promoting nationalist narratives or government-friendly perspectives, while others have been criticized for challenging traditional values.

When questioned about a warrant issued against Bengali poet Srijato Bandyopadhyay concerning a poem written years ago, Akhtar declined to comment, citing insufficient information about the case. The poet’s situation reflects growing concerns about artistic freedom in India, where creators across mediums face increasing legal and social challenges to controversial work.

Akhtar, who has never shied away from his atheist identity, characterized atheism as a rational and prejudice-free worldview. He also referenced a previous invitation from the West Bengal Urdu Academy that was later rescinded, attributing the cancellation to intolerance among certain groups. Such incidents highlight the complex relationship between creative expression and religious sensitivities in contemporary India.

Reflecting on broader political shifts, including the Bharatiya Janata Party’s rise to power at the national level in 2014, Akhtar acknowledged that change is inevitable in any society. While acknowledging that not all change is beneficial, he expressed optimism about future generations, confident they will work toward building a better society.

Looking to his own creative future, the veteran writer expressed his desire to develop a mainstream film that successfully bridges the gap between commercial appeal and artistic merit—connecting with both “class and mass” audiences. This ambition reflects Akhtar’s ongoing commitment to meaningful storytelling that resonates across India’s diverse population.

As the conversation around propaganda in Indian cinema continues to evolve, Akhtar’s measured defense of artistic intent serves as a reminder of film’s enduring power as both artistic expression and social commentary.