The Propaganda‑Profit Paradox of Dhurandhar

By Nagesh Bhushan Chuppala

When Ranveer Singh’s latest spy thriller, Dhurandhar, roared onto the Indian box‑office, it did so with the subtlety of a fireworks display at a tea ceremony. Sixteen days later the film had amassed roughly ₹800 crore (about US$ 95 million) worldwide, joining an exclusive club of Indian blockbusters that could comfortably fund a small nation’s defence budget. Yet, as the cash registers rang, a very different kind of audit began: a forensic review by YouTube commentator Dhruv Rathee.

The “Well‑Made” Threat

Rathee’s verdict was unequivocal: Dhurandhar is “dangerous propaganda.” In a thirty‑minute video titled Reality of Dhurandhar, he argued that the film masquerades as “fictional / inspired by real events” while, in reality, it cherry‑picks genuine terror attacks, dates, locales and even archival footage. The result, he warned, is a politically‑tinged narrative cloaked in cinematic gloss, a combination that, in his view, is more insidious than a poorly‑made melodrama. “Well‑made propaganda is more dangerous,” he declared, echoing a maxim that would make Orwell smile.

His criticism did not stop at ideology. Rathee likened the film’s graphic violence to the unsettling imagery of ISIS beheading videos, asking whether the gore served any narrative purpose beyond “desensitising the young generation.” He accused director Aditya Dhar of a “lust for money” that borders on the reckless, suggesting that the film’s spectacular action sequences were less about storytelling than about monetising shock.

A Wider Chorus of Dissent

Rathee’s video is only the loudest voice in a growing chorus of criticism:

• Hyper‑nationalist tone – Reviewers across the BBC, The Wire and Swarajya note that the film’s “unflinching nationalistic tone” flattens complex Indo‑Pakistani history into a binary of hero versus villain. The antagonists are unmistakably Pakistani militants, a choice that some critics deem “dangerously explicit” in a market where political nuance is often softenedswarajyamag.com.

• Selective rewriting of anti‑terror history – Indian Express op‑eds argue that Dhurandhar rewrites India’s anti‑terror narrative, omitting inconvenient facts while foregrounding a mythic Indian spy‑hero archetypeindianexpress.com.

• Accusations of propaganda masquerading as cinema – The Film Critics Guild has condemned a wave of harassment aimed at reviewers who dared to call the film “propaganda”, warning that “targeted attacks on critics set a dangerous precedent”thewire.in.

• Moral policing of artistic choices – Some commentators, such as Uday Bhatia of The Hindu, contend that the film “flattens nuanced geopolitics into a black‑and‑white morality play”, while others, like Shobhaa De, dismiss the controversy as “nonsense” and urge audiences to watch the film “without any ideological lens”ndtv.com.

• Violence as spectacle – Multiple outlets compare the film’s gore to extremist propaganda, suggesting that the graphic scenes are “cheap thrills” rather than narrative necessitiesindianexpress.com.

Collectively, these critiques paint a picture of a film that is as much a political statement as it is a commercial product.

The Cast’s Counter‑Strike

The film’s defenders, unsurprisingly, were not silent. Supporting actors Ankit Sagar and Danish Pandor stepped forward on social media to defend the political messaging, insisting that the story’s intent was to illuminate a fraught geopolitical reality rather than to indoctrinate. Their rebuttals, however, were measured; none of the marquee names—Ranveer Singh, Akshaye Khanna, R Madhavan, Arjun Rampal, or Sanjay Dutt—issued a public statement, perhaps preferring to let the box‑office numbers speak louder than words.

Numbers That Talk

From a purely commercial perspective, the film’s performance is nothing short of spectacular:

Metric	Figure
Worldwide gross	≈ ₹800 crore (US$ 95 M)
Domestic (India) gross	₹500 crore in 16 days
Milestones	First Hindi film to breach the ₹500 crore club in just over two weeks

These figures place Dhurandhar among the highest‑earning Indian releases of 2024, a testament to the market’s appetite for high‑octane, politically charged spectacles.

The Economics of Controversy

What does this clash tell us about the modern film economy? In the age of instant commentary, a single YouTube video can threaten to “destroy a ₹300 crore propaganda film,” as Rathee warned on X. Yet the data suggests that controversy may be a feature, not a bug. The film’s earnings continued to climb even as the debate raged, hinting that the very accusations of propaganda may have acted as free publicity, drawing curious viewers eager to judge the claims for themselves.

A Balanced Verdict

For the discerning cinephile, Dhurandhar offers a technically polished spy thriller—tight screenplay, impressive set pieces, and a star‑studded cast. For the politically vigilant, it presents a case study in how contemporary cinema can blur the line between art and advocacy, leveraging real‑world trauma for dramatic effect.

Whether one views the film as a masterclass in filmmaking or a well‑crafted vehicle for ideology, the economics are clear: controversy sells, and in the Indian market, it sells in the billions of rupees. As Rathee’s critique illustrates, the cultural impact of a film can be as potent as its box‑office receipts—perhaps even more so when the two intersect.

In the end, the audience decides. And as the numbers show, they’re willing to pay handsomely for a story that feels both thrilling and, to some, dangerously persuasive.