Listen to the article
A Wikipedia controversy has erupted around Ranveer Singh and Aditya Dhar’s blockbuster “Dhurandhar 2,” after the online encyclopedia labeled the film as “propaganda” amid its record-breaking box office performance.
The sequel, which has amassed an impressive ₹844 crore worldwide since its March 19, 2026 release according to entertainment tracker Sacnilk, finds itself at the center of a heated online debate about its content and messaging. The film has been dominating theaters despite its lengthy four-hour runtime.
The Wikipedia description has triggered a wave of reactions across social media platforms. Some fans expressed shock at the characterization, with one user commenting, “I had a mini stroke reading that word on the Wikipedia. Told myself to not worry, they’ll call it total propaganda anyway.” The response reflects the frustration among the film’s supporters who view the label as unfair and politically motivated.
Others appeared to embrace or agree with the description. “Of course it is.. what to feel surprised about it,” wrote one user, while another more directly stated, “What’s the issue here? It’s labeled correctly.” These divided reactions highlight the polarized reception that has accompanied the film’s commercial success.
“Dhurandhar 2” continues the storyline established in the 2025 original, featuring R Madhavan as Ajay Sanyal alongside Arjun Rampal who portrays an ISI Major. The narrative focuses on themes of revenge and features extensive action sequences that have resonated with audiences across the country.
The controversy comes at a time when Indian cinema is increasingly scrutinized for its political undertones and nationalist themes. Several recent high-budget productions have faced similar criticisms about propaganda elements, raising questions about the line between patriotic storytelling and political messaging in mainstream entertainment.
Noted filmmaker Ram Gopal Varma has publicly defended the film against these accusations. In an interview with ANI, Varma praised director Aditya Dhar’s vision, saying, “I should thank him because he showed a new way of Indian cinema.” The veteran director further elaborated on what sets the film apart: “Calling ‘Dhurandhar’ just a ‘film’ doesn’t feel right, because maybe in the last 20-30 years, no film has come like this, its scale, its twists, and even without relying heavily on story twists, its structure itself.”
The Wikipedia classification raises broader questions about who determines what constitutes propaganda in artistic works and the criteria used for such designations. Online encyclopedias and information platforms wield significant influence in shaping public perception, and categorizations of this nature can impact how films are received and remembered.
Industry analysts note that the controversy may actually be boosting the film’s visibility and box office performance, as debates about its content drive curiosity among potential viewers. The film continues to perform well in theaters nationwide despite—or perhaps partially because of—the ongoing discussion about its themes and messaging.
Neither the filmmakers nor Wikipedia representatives have officially commented on the specific rationale behind the “propaganda” label as of this reporting.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
16 Comments
This controversy highlights the subjective nature of assessing artistic works with political themes. While Wikipedia may have legitimate concerns, their ‘propaganda’ label is bound to spark heated debate. A more contextual, balanced analysis would better serve the public interest.
Exactly. Classifying a popular, acclaimed film as ‘propaganda’ is a weighty decision that deserves thorough justification. Without a clear, well-reasoned rationale, Wikipedia risks undermining public trust and stifling productive discussion around the film’s content and messaging.
A ‘propaganda’ label is a heavy charge. I wonder what specific elements of the film’s content or messaging led Wikipedia to make that determination. It’s an impactful decision that deserves careful consideration.
That’s a fair point. Without more context from Wikipedia, it’s difficult to assess the merits of their assessment. The public deserves a transparent rationale for such a consequential labeling.
The ‘propaganda’ label on this film is sure to be divisive. While some may agree with Wikipedia’s assessment, others will likely view it as an attempt to discredit the work. Meaningful dialogue requires an objective, evidence-based approach that considers multiple perspectives.
Well said. Dismissing a commercially successful, culturally significant film as ‘propaganda’ without a robust, transparent explanation is problematic. Wikipedia should provide a detailed, impartial analysis to support their characterization and invite further informed discussion.
The ‘propaganda’ label is bound to be polarizing. Reasonable people can disagree on the merits of the film and its messaging. Wikipedia should provide a clear, well-reasoned justification to support their characterization and invite further debate.
I concur. Without a transparent explanation, this decision risks being perceived as politically motivated rather than an objective assessment. A more nuanced, contextual analysis would better serve the public interest.
Calling a popular, commercially successful film ‘propaganda’ is a bold and potentially controversial move by Wikipedia. While they may have valid reasons, the public deserves a thorough, impartial explanation to understand the basis for this assessment.
Agreed. Given the film’s significant box office performance, the ‘propaganda’ label warrants a robust justification. Thoughtful, evidence-based discourse is essential when grappling with complex issues of art, politics, and public perception.
This is certainly a controversial labeling by Wikipedia. While some may view the film as propaganda, others see it as an important artistic expression. The online debate reflects the complex and subjective nature of these assessments.
I agree, the ‘propaganda’ label is bound to stir strong reactions on both sides. It will be interesting to see how this plays out and whether Wikipedia provides further justification for their characterization.
This situation highlights the challenges of navigating artistic expression and political messaging. While some may see the film as propaganda, others clearly view it as an important work. Meaningful discourse requires nuance and open-mindedness.
Exactly. Labeling art as ‘propaganda’ is a heavy-handed move that can shut down productive discussion. A more balanced, evidence-based approach is needed to have a constructive dialogue around the film’s content and themes.
The ‘propaganda’ label on this film raises important questions about the line between artistic expression and political messaging. While some may see the film as biased, others view it as an impactful work. Wikipedia should provide a clear, balanced rationale to support their characterization.
Well said. Navigating these nuanced issues requires an open-minded, evidence-based approach. Simply labeling the film as ‘propaganda’ without a detailed explanation risks oversimplifying a complex situation and stifling meaningful dialogue.