Political Storm Erupts Over ‘Dhurandhar’ as Parties Clash on Propaganda, Terrorism, and Creative Freedom

Indian Spy Thriller ‘Dhurandhar’ Ignites Political Controversy Amid International Bans

Aditya Dhar’s latest spy thriller “Dhurandhar,” featuring Ranveer Singh in the lead role, has become the center of a heated national debate since its release on December 5. The film, which chronicles covert intelligence operations against the backdrop of major terrorist events in India’s recent history, has drawn both praise for its cinematic execution and criticism for its alleged political undertones.

The high-octane thriller depicts significant historical incidents including the Kandahar plane hijacking, the 2001 Parliament terror attack, and the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks. While many viewers have applauded its ambitious storytelling and gripping narrative, others have expressed concerns about what they describe as its hyper-nationalist tone and graphic portrayal of violence.

Adding to the controversy, reports indicate that several Gulf countries have blocked the film’s release due to its content. This isn’t unprecedented, as Indian films with sensitive themes or perceived anti-Pakistan narratives have faced similar restrictions in the region before.

The political response within India has been sharply divided along party lines. BJP national spokesperson Rohan Gupta defended the film, arguing against mixing creativity with religious criticism. “Dhurandhar is a film based on a true story, and the purpose of any film is to present reality to the audience,” Gupta stated. “Linking everything to religion, even creativity, doesn’t seem right to me.”

His sentiments were echoed by BJP MP Bhim Singh, who addressed the religious angle more directly: “The film depicts terrorism, and it so happens that some terrorists are associated with Islam. If the terrorists happen to practise Islam, how is that the filmmakers’ problem? There should not be any objection to the film.”

Opposition parties, however, have taken a markedly different stance. Samajwadi Party spokesperson Ameeque Jamei acknowledged the quality of acting in the film but accused the production of serving as “part of the government’s propaganda machinery.” Jamei specifically criticized how the film portrays intelligence operations, including interactions with Pakistan and the Parliament attack, suggesting the narrative aligns too closely with government perspectives.

Congress MP Tariq Anwar took a more cautious approach, noting that while he hadn’t personally viewed the film, its reported banning in multiple countries warranted an investigation into potentially “objectionable content.”

The controversy highlights the increasingly complex relationship between Indian cinema and politics, particularly when dealing with sensitive national security issues and cross-border tensions. Films depicting terrorism and intelligence operations have become cultural flashpoints in recent years, with audiences and politicians alike scrutinizing their narratives for potential bias or agenda.

The Indian film industry has seen several productions in recent years that tackle terrorism and national security themes, with varying degrees of commercial success and critical reception. “Dhurandhar” stands out for its ambitious scope, covering multiple significant terrorist incidents that have shaped India’s security landscape over the past few decades.

The Centre has maintained that it has no influence over the film’s content or production, insisting that “Dhurandhar” merely depicts terrorism without any government involvement. Nevertheless, the heated debate surrounding the film underscores the charged political environment in which such creative works are now evaluated.

As “Dhurandhar” continues its theatrical run in India, the controversy appears likely to enhance rather than diminish public interest in the film, potentially driving more viewers to form their own opinions about its content and messaging.