‘Dhurandhar: The Revenge’ and the perils of ‘nationalist’ violence


Study Note: 'Dhurandhar: The Revenge' and the Perils of 'Nationalist' Violence


1. At a Glance


2. Why in the News


3. Background & Evolution

Year Milestone
2019 Uri: The Surgical Strike — first major post-2014 'nationalist' blockbuster; established template of military hero + Muslim/Pakistani villain
2022 The Kashmir Files — PM publicly praised it; made tax-free in BJP-ruled states; audiences filmed raising anti-Muslim slogans in theatres [S3]
2023 The Kerala Story — claimed (falsely) 32,000 Hindu girls recruited to ISIS; banned/challenged in courts [S3]
2024 Article 370 — named after constitutional provision, framed abrogation as national triumph
2025 Dhurandhar (Part 1) — backlash against "propaganda" label from critics met with fan pushback
2026 Dhurandhar: The Revenge — messaging no longer subtle; even ardent fans acknowledged partisan content [S2]

4. Core Static Facts


5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Legal / Constitutional

Social / Democratic

Historical

Ethical / Governance

Geopolitical / Strategic

Scientific / Technological


6. Recent Developments (last 12–18 months)


7. Prelims Hooks

  1. Dhurandhar: The Revenge directed by Aditya Dhar, starring Ranveer Singh — released 19 March 2026. [S1]
  2. Film grossed ₹1,800 crore+ worldwide — second-highest-grossing Indian film of all time. [S1]
  3. It is the highest-grossing A-rated Indian film of all time. [S1]
  4. Real events referenced within the film include Operation Lyari, 2014 general election, and 2016 demonetisation. [S1]
  5. Film certification in India governed by Cinematograph Act, 1952 (amended 2023), administered by CBFC under Ministry of Information & Broadcasting. [static]
  6. The Kashmir Files (2022) was made tax-free in multiple BJP-ruled states and publicly praised by the Prime Minister. [S3]
  7. Article on nationalist violence in films authored by Nissim Mannathukkaren, published in The Hindu, dated 25 March 2026. [S2]
  8. Key legal provision on promoting enmity between groups — Section 196, BNS 2023 (formerly IPC Section 153A). [static]
  9. Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech including cinematic expression; Article 19(2) allows restrictions on grounds of public order and sovereignty. [static]
  10. Distinction drawn by critics: earlier Bollywood patriotic films = pro-state; post-2014 films = pro-ruling party (collapsing state and party). [S2]
  11. The Kerala Story (2023) falsely claimed 32,000 Hindu girls from Kerala recruited to ISIS — challenged in courts, screened after SC observation. [S3]
  12. Walter Benjamin's concept of "aestheticisation of politics" — cited in academic analysis of propaganda cinema. [S2]
  13. Uri: The Surgical Strike (2019) — first major post-2014 nationalist blockbuster; established hero-villain template. [S3]

8. Mains Relevance

GS Papers: Primarily GS-I (Society, Culture), GS-II (Polity — democracy, fundamental rights, role of media), GS-IV (Ethics — values, role of media in democratic society).

Syllabus headings: - GS-I: Role of women and women's organization, population and associated issues, poverty and developmental issues, urbanisation, their problems and their remediessocial effects of media and culture - GS-II: Functions and responsibilities of the Union and the Statesrole of government in regulating mass media; Government policies and interventions for development in various sectors - GS-IV: Role of civil societyethics of media representation; manipulation of public opinion

Plausible Mains Questions: 1. "Commercial cinema in India has increasingly blurred the line between the state and the ruling party, with grave implications for democracy." Critically examine with reference to recent Bollywood productions. (GS-II / GS-IV, 250 words) 2. "The valorisation of nationalist violence in popular culture erodes the constitutional values of fraternity and dignity." Analyse in the context of post-2014 Bollywood trends. (GS-I / GS-IV, 250 words) 3. Examine the adequacy of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and existing penal provisions in addressing content that incites communal hostility while being certified for public exhibition. (GS-II, 250 words)


9. Related Topics to Study Next

Topic Connection
CBFC & Cinematograph Act 2023 Statutory framework governing film certification; recent amendment's scope and gaps
Article 19 — Freedom of Speech & its restrictions Constitutional basis for both permitting and regulating cinematic expression
BNS Sections on Hate Speech (§196, §197, §299) Legal tools (rarely used) that could apply to incitement via mass media
Media ownership concentration in India Structural explanation for why partisan narratives face no editorial counter-pressure
Emergency (1975-77) & state propaganda Historical precedent for state-media fusion; contrast with current indirect model
Hindu nationalism (Hindutva) — ideology & political history Ideological roots of the nationalism depicted in these films
Soft Power & India's international image How Bollywood exports Indian culture globally; risk when exports carry divisive content
Right to Privacy & Surveillance Companion issue in spy-thriller genre — what norms govern intelligence depiction in fiction

10. Common Errors / Trap Areas

  1. CBFC ≠ censor board in absolute sense: CBFC certifies, does not ban films outright (banning requires court orders or executive action under public order powers) — aspirants confuse certification with censorship.
  2. Cinematograph Act 1952 amended 2023 ≠ new Act: It is an amendment to the 1952 Act, not a standalone statute — year confusion common.
  3. IPC §153A → now BNS §196: With BNS replacing IPC from 1 July 2024, the section numbers changed; aspirants citing old IPC numbers in 2024+ context will be technically wrong.
  4. 'Propaganda' label: Aspirants may conflate all patriotic/war films as propaganda; the critical distinction is pro-state (depicting national defence) vs. pro-party (depicting specific political decisions/leaders as heroic) — the article's argument hinges on this difference. [S2]
  5. Box-office success ≠ legal/policy endorsement: The film's commercial record says nothing about its legal status or government certification — do not conflate popularity with official sanction (though the op-ed critiques informal state patronage of other films like The Kashmir Files). [S3]

11. Sources