'Dhurandhar: The Revenge' is celebrated even as 'Punjab 95' continues to be stuck with the censor board.
(Questioning hate and propaganda in films is a key part of our work and often comes with threats to the organisation and the writers. Help us preserve our editorial independence by becomoing a member.)
The Hindi film industry, once celebrated for its willingness to interrogate power, question social hierarchies, and engage with uncomfortable truths, now appears increasingly aligned with the ideological currents of the ruling regime.
This alignment is not always overt; at times, it operates subtly, through narrative framing, character construction, and selective storytelling. At other times, it is unmistakably explicit, with films that directly echo and amplify political rhetoric.
Together, these trends suggest a cinematic ecosystem that is no longer merely reflecting society but actively participating in shaping a particular political narrative.
The latest example of this is Dhurandhar, whose second part Dhurandhar: The Revenge was released earlier in March.
Dhurandhar 2 feels like every Hindutva supporter's fantasy captured on screen by Aditya Dhar. It portrays Muslims as barbaric and Sikhs as drug addicts. Sikh rebel groups are shown as being in cahoots with the ISI in transporting drugs.
Even though the main protagonist played by Ranveer Singh is also a Sikh, he is acceptable only because he aligns with their version of nationalism.
In one instance, the protagonist's old friend comes to Karachi with two other turbaned Sikhs involved in drug transport from Pakistan. The friend, Pinda, tells the protagonist Hamza/Jaskirat that he will take him to Punjab "when we get freedom", directly linking the separatist movement with drugs and an ISI-led conspiracy.
Sikhs are accepted only when they fight for the nation. The moment they demand rights, they are labelled separatists, accused of being in cahoots with the ISI, and delegitimised.
During the farmers' protest, a similar narrative was pushed by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-aligned media organisations—that these were "Khalistanis" and part of an international conspiracy to defame the government.
Meanwhile, Punjab is still waiting for the release of a film on one of its most prominent human rights defenders, Bhai Jaswant Singh Khalra: Punjab 95, which has been stuck with the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) for the past three years. A CBFC member reportedly told the film's director Honey Trehan—"itna sach kaun dikhaata hai". This is not a casual remark. It reveals who controls cinema, and with cinema, the narrative.
Diljit Dosanjh, who plays Khalra, is celebrated as a hero in Border 2, where he plays a patriotic role against Pakistan. But the same Diljit in Punjab 95 faces censorship—because that story goes against the state's narrative.
The biopic on Jaswant Singh Khalra is being held up due to cuts by the CBFC.
(Kamran Akhter/The Quint)
The construction of the protagonist in Dhurandhar further illustrates how identity is strategically deployed. The main character, Jaskirat Singh Rangi, played by Ranveer Singh, is given a distinctly Sikh name. However, his Sikh identity is largely superficial within the narrative.
He is shown smoking and drinking, actions that are generally discouraged within Sikh religious practice.
When Major Iqbal played by Arjun Rampal says let's fund a Punjab rebel group, it just portrays Punjab as a disturbed region, though the ground reality is very different in Punjab in the period referred to in the film.
This selective use of identity is significant. By assigning the character a Sikh name while stripping away the substantive elements of Sikh identity, the film perpetuates a particular trope: that "real" Sikhs are defined primarily by their nationalism and their willingness to sacrifice for the country. This aligns with a broader ideological project that seeks to incorporate Sikh identity into a homogenised national framework, rather than acknowledging its distinct religious and cultural foundations.
Then there are films like Animal, Uri, and Chhaava, which do not openly declare ideological allegiance but reinforce similar ideas through their storytelling. These films operate more insidiously, embedding political messaging within character arcs and emotional narratives.
Animal, for instance, offers a telling example. Ranbir Kapoor's character is depicted as having mixed Hindu-Sikh heritage, a detail that may appear incidental but carries deeper ideological implications.
The character is shown smoking, participating in Hindu rituals such as havan, and even consuming gau-mutr. These choices are not merely about character development; they subtly gesture toward a broader project of cultural assimilation, one that aligns with the idea of subsuming Sikh identity within a larger Hindu framework.
