The Hindi film *Dhurandhar*, featuring Ranveer Singh as an Indian spy infiltrating a Pakistani terror network, has
ignited both excitement and controversy. While the movie, centered around "Operation Dhurandhar," entertains, it also
exemplifies a trend of "government-embedded filmmaking," a term coined by American writer Peter Maas. This concept, in
this context, describes how a government's ideological narrative is faithfully reproduced in film. This is achieved,
according to Maas, by providing special access to military or intelligence documents to encourage positive portrayals of
*Dhurandhar* stands apart from other films in this genre through its effective combination of commercial appeal with
technical skill in areas such as direction, screenplay, cinematography, art direction, and acting. Director Aditya Dhar
incorporates a degree of realism, a departure from the melodrama found in the works of Sudipto Sen (*Kerala Story*) and
Vivek Agnihotri (*The Kashmir Files*; *The Bengal Files*).
Responses to the film have been varied. Critics and even actors like Hrithik Roshan, who have voiced dissenting
opinions, have been subjected to online harassment. Supporters of *Dhurandhar* fall into two camps. The first openly
embraces the film, regardless of whether it is propaganda, viewing it as a depiction of real terror events perpetrated
by Pakistan. They argue that patriotism in film is justified and that Bollywood has historically suppressed the "real
truths" of Pakistani terrorism, advocating instead for peace. *Dhurandhar*, therefore, is seen as a "cinematic
correction" and a "cultural counterstrike." One response to Hrithik Roshan criticized him for glorifying Akbar in
*Jodhaa Akbar* (2008) and accusing *Dhurandhar* of being propaganda. These sentiments reflect nationalism and a sense of
Hindu victimhood, extending beyond the Hindu far-right.
The second group of supporters denies that the film is propaganda, characterizing it as a nationalist-perspective
espionage drama akin to those regularly produced in Hollywood. They argue that even if the film selectively dramatizes
events, it remains within the bounds of legitimate genre conventions. This view, however, overlooks the fact that the
most effective propaganda is often subtle. *Dhurandhar* avoids overt ideological sloganeering, yet it aligns with Hindu
nationalism and the policies of the current government.
### Reinforcing an Official Narrative
Several scenes in *Dhurandhar* contribute to this narrative. One scene depicts a Kandahar plane hijacker saying, "Hindus
are cowards" (a statement with no historical basis). The film also incorporates real audio footage from the 26/11
attacks, highlighting the terrorists' brutality, while conspirators celebrate killings with chants of "Allah uh Akbar."
By omitting any depiction of Pakistani Muslims opposed to terrorism or friendly towards India, the film encourages
viewers to adopt a view of "Muslim Pakistan" versus "Hindu India."
The film also dramatizes the frustrations of intelligence chief Ajay Sanyal (played by R. Madhavan), a character
resembling National Security Advisor Ajit Doval, with the Indian State's perceived weak responses to Pakistani terror
attacks in the 1990s and 2000s. Sanyal advocates for proactive anti-terror policies like Operation Dhurandhar, rejecting
dovish initiatives such as Aman ki Asha, an India-Pakistan peace project.
While *Dhurandhar* offers mild criticism of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government during the Kandahar hijack and
2001 Parliament attacks, it directs more pointed criticism at Congress/non-BJP governments at the center and in Uttar
Pradesh. The film implies a connection between a Union Minister and a Pakistani fake currency racket in 2005, also
linking slaughterhouses in U.P. to the racket, suggesting that any action against them would lead to riots. This
reinforces the Hindu nationalist trope that India's real enemies are internal, not external. Another stereotype involves
Pakistani conspirators mocking India's perceived cowardice in its response to the 26/11 attacks.
The film contains a recurring reference to diligent intelligence work, with the hope that a future "nationalist CM" of
U.P. (a clear reference to Yogi Adityanath) can utilize it. The film concludes with the slogan "Yeh Naya Bharat Hain,
Ghar Mein Ghuske Maarta Hain" (this is new India, it will enter your [enemy's] home and attack you), echoing a popular
slogan of Prime Minister Modi. The film's lionization of a powerful security figure from the current government and its
partisan endorsement of the government's muscular military and counterterrorism strategies firmly place it within the
realm of government-embedded filmmaking.
Furthermore, despite attempts to humanize gangsters and break some stereotypes by showing modern nightlife, *Dhurandhar*
reinforces negative stereotypes about Pakistan. A character states that Pakistan is the source of all terrorism in the
world, and the film primarily depicts gangsters, ISI agents, politicians, and army officials united in their desire to
inflict harm on India. Even a gangster from the dissident Baloch community echoes this sentiment. *Dhurandhar* fails to
acknowledge Pakistani voices critical of terrorism, such as newspaper articles published after 26/11 urging Pakistanis
to recognize the horrors perpetrated in the name of Islam, or even those apologizing to Indians. The film also ignores
the fact that the Lyari neighborhood in Karachi, portrayed as a hub of crime and terror, is also known as "Mini Brazil"
for its vibrant hip hop scene and passion for football.
The success of *Dhurandhar* also reflects the current state of Bollywood filmmaking, particularly the often cartoonish
and comic military and spy thrillers, such as the Yash Raj Films Spy Universe. For its admirers, *Dhurandhar*, with its
male-centric focus and aestheticized violence, feels more relatable than thrillers that depict Indian intelligence
operatives either romancing Pakistani counterparts or betraying their country to aid the enemy.
The debate surrounding *Dhurandhar* highlights the selective nature of public memory. While some claim it represents a
cultural reclaiming of Bollywood, they overlook the surge of jingoistic films centered on Pakistani terrorism, Kashmir
Islamist militancy, Pakistan wars, and Indian agents infiltrating Pakistan that began in the 1990s (e.g., *Roja*,
*Border*, *Sarfarosh*, *Mission Kashmir*, *Maa Tujhe Salaam*, *Gadar*, *The Hero*, *LOC-Kargil*, *Ab Tumhare Hawale Hai
Watan Saathiyon*, *Attacks of 26/11*, *D-Day*, *Baby*, *Phantom*). Many of these films demonized the Pakistani people,
not just the Pakistani state and terrorists. *Dhurandhar* doesn't break new ground, but its deep and partisan alignment
with the present government's narratives, even when subtle, solidifies its place as another example of
government-embedded filmmaking.