Dhurandhar has generated a great deal of discussion outside the theaters since its premiere and enormous box office success. While many viewers applaud Dhurandhar as a potent mass entertainer with compelling action and emotional depth, some have posed a more serious query: is it a propaganda movie? Audiences, critics, and social media pundits have been divided by this debate, therefore it’s critical to look closely at the problem rather than boiling it down to catchphrases or extremes.
One must first comprehend what propaganda in film genuinely entails in order to determine whether Dhurandhar qualifies as such. The purpose of a propaganda film is usually to discourage critical thinking and opposing viewpoints while purposefully promoting a particular ideology, party, leader, or worldview. These movies frequently tell a biased story, exalt a specific ideology, and reduce complicated social realities to simple right-or-wrong dichotomies. Propaganda does not always apply to politically sensitive or socially relevant movies; aim, execution, and narrative balance are important considerations.
Fundamentally, Dhurandhar is the tale of a man rising up against institutional failure, criminal networks, and corruption. In Indian cinema, these topics are nothing new. For many years, popular movies have shown irate heroes against unfair systems, frequently mirroring the public’s dissatisfaction with lawlessness, injustice, and governance. In this way, rather than presenting a fresh ideological objective, Dhurandhar adheres to a well-known cinematic tradition. A movie does not necessarily become propagandistic just because it features corrupt politicians, power systems, and moral deterioration; rather, it frequently reflects societal worries that already exist.
However, the way these components are presented is the source of the complaint. The protagonist of Dhurandhar is portrayed as an almost legendary character whose violent acts are frequently excused by the story. Individual vigilantism is presented as the sole viable remedy, while institutions like the police, bureaucracy, and political systems are primarily depicted as ineffectual or morally tainted. This framing seems to encourage a worldview in which domination and aggression are not only essential but also justified, according to some viewers. Critics contend that by implying that total authority and terror are the only ways to restore order, such portrayals tacitly support authoritarian ideologies.
In response, proponents of the movie point out that Dhurandhar is essentially a character-driven drama rather than a declaration of politics. The protagonist is not portrayed as perfect; he is plagued by loss, shame, and the fallout from his deeds. The cost of violence, including collateral harm and personal sacrifice, is frequently highlighted in the movie. From this angle, Dhurandhar might be interpreted as a warning story rather than a joyful manifesto, showing what happens when people are driven to extremes and systems break down.
The film’s emotional impact and widespread appeal are additional factors contributing to the ongoing propaganda argument. Strong emotions, simplified conflicts, and symbolic images are frequently used in mass cinema to appeal to broad audiences. Punch speech, dramatic confrontations, and slogans are genre devices rather than necessarily methods of ideological indoctrination. However, audiences may see these tactics as deliberate message rather than narrative elements when they closely correspond with current political or social themes. The distinction between reinforcement and resonance gets hazy.
Depending on how it is interpreted, the movie’s depiction of nationality, identity, or authority also contributes to the controversy. Some viewers believe that Dhurandhar perpetuates a narrative that exalts power, dominance, and cultural pride without offering enough criticism. Others contend that the movie never specifically specifies a real-world agenda or advocates a political viewpoint. Rather, it functions in a fictitious realm with unrestricted symbolism. The claim that the movie is structured propaganda in the literal sense is undermined by the lack of overt political alignment.
Audience agency must also be taken into account. Messages are not passively received by viewers. The same scenes can be interpreted drastically differently by various persons. Dhurandhar may be interpreted by some as a hazardous glorification of violence, by others as a critique of societal failure, and by yet others as a vision of justice. A propaganda movie usually restricts interpretation, but despite its intensity, Dhurandhar allows for discussion, which is exactly why the debates surrounding it are so intense.
In conclusion, characterizing Dhurandhar as a propaganda movie might be more indicative of the sociopolitical environment of today than of the movie itself. It is unquestionably political in tone and emotionally charged in its depiction of justice and power, but it lacks the ideological purity and clarity of purpose that characterize true propaganda film. Rather, Dhurandhar lives in a murky area that combines elements of social commentary, moral fantasy, and commercial entertainment. Its effectiveness comes from eliciting a response rather than imparting knowledge. The viewer’s perspective ultimately determines whether they find it inspiring, scary, or just amusing.