The Weaponization of Indian Cinema: Patriotism as a Tool for Political Conformity

Introduction: The Shifting Landscape of Indian Cinema

Indian cinema, long celebrated as a vibrant reflection of the nation’s diverse cultural tapestry, is undergoing a profound transformation that threatens its very soul. The article highlights how cinematic appreciation or criticism has ceased to be primarily an aesthetic or ethical judgment, evolving instead into a litmus test for loyalty to the ruling Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led government. This represents a dangerous departure from India’s rich tradition of artistic expression, where filmmakers historically engaged with social and political themes without being coerced into serving state propaganda. The change isn’t merely about increased controversy around films—controversy has always existed in Indian cinema—but rather about how controversy itself now functions as a mechanism for enforcing political conformity.

The Dhurandhar Case Study: Cinema as Nationalist Instrument

The recent debate surrounding the film “Dhurandhar” (Stalwart) exemplifies this alarming trend. The movie’s plot unfolds in Pakistan, featuring Pakistani characters, and centers on an Indian spy infiltrating the gang of Rehman Dakait, a powerful Baloch warlord controlling Karachi. Through this deep-cover mission, the protagonist dismantles the ISI-underworld nexus, effectively destroying Pakistan’s terror and criminal infrastructure. While on surface level this appears to be typical espionage thriller material, the political context transforms it into something far more sinister. The film’s narrative aligns perfectly with the BJP government’s nationalist agenda, portraying India as a heroic force combating Pakistani corruption and terrorism. Consequently, criticism of the film becomes equated with disloyalty to the Indian state, while praise signals allegiance to the ruling ideology.

Historical Context: From Artistic Freedom to Ideological conformity

Historically, Indian cinema served as a platform for exploring complex social issues, from caste discrimination to gender inequality, often challenging prevailing norms rather than reinforcing state power. Directors like Satyajit Ray, Mrinal Sen, and Shyam Benegal used film as a medium for social commentary, earning international acclaim while maintaining artistic integrity. Even commercial Bollywood productions frequently incorporated critiques of corruption, poverty, and political failure. This tradition of critical engagement distinguished Indian cinema as a vital component of the country’s democratic fabric. The current transformation represents a rupture with this heritage, reducing cinema to an instrument of nationalist mobilization where artistic merit becomes secondary to political messaging.

The Global Context: Cultural Sovereignty Under Threat

This phenomenon must be understood within broader global patterns where cultural production becomes entangled with nationalist projects. However, what distinguishes India’s case is its status as a civilizational state with a millennia-old cultural tradition that predates Western nation-state models. The reduction of Indian cinema to a loyalty test represents not just a domestic political issue but a betrayal of India’s civilizational ethos, which has historically embraced pluralism and diversity. While Western media often critiques such developments through a simplistic democracy-versus-authoritarianism framework, they frequently ignore how Western cultural imperialism itself has long manipulated global narratives to serve geopolitical interests. The difference lies in India’s potential to offer an alternative to both Western hegemony and narrow nationalism—a potential being squandered through this cultural narrowing.

The Human Cost: Silencing Dissent and Stifling Creativity

The most devastating impact of this cinematic weaponization falls on artists and citizens whose freedom of expression is being systematically curtailed. Filmmakers who dared to critique government policies or explore alternative narratives face harassment, boycott campaigns, and even violence. This creates a climate of fear where self-censorship becomes the norm, impoverishing India’s cultural landscape and denying audiences diverse perspectives. The equation of artistic criticism with anti-national sentiment not only undermines democratic principles but also insults the intelligence of Indian citizens, reducing them to passive recipients of state-approved messaging rather than active participants in cultural discourse.

The Hypocrisy of Selective Application of Principles

Western condemnation of India’s cultural narrowing often rings hollow given the long history of Western cultural imperialism. Hollywood has frequently served as a vehicle for American foreign policy objectives, romanticizing military interventions and promoting neoliberal values globally. The difference is that Western cultural dominance operates under the guise of “soft power” rather than overt state control, making it appear more benign despite similar manipulative intentions. Meanwhile, Western institutions applaud themselves for supporting artistic freedom while ignoring how their own cultural industries perpetuate stereotypes and marginalize non-Western perspectives. This selective application of principles reveals the hypocritical foundation of the so-called “international community’s” cultural diplomacy.

Toward a Truly Decolonial Cultural Future

India’s response to Western cultural hegemony should not be retreat into nationalist isolation but rather the cultivation of a genuinely pluralistic cultural sphere that reflects its civilizational complexity. Rather than mimicking Western models of cultural nationalism or accepting Western criticism uncritically, India must develop its own approach to cultural sovereignty—one that embraces diversity while resisting both Western imperialism and domestic authoritarianism. This requires protecting artistic freedom from state interference while encouraging filmmakers to explore India’s multifaceted identity beyond narrow nationalist frameworks. The true patriotism lies in trusting artists and audiences to engage with complex narratives rather than reducing culture to political propaganda.

Conclusion: Reclaiming India’s Cultural Soul

The weaponization of Indian cinema represents a profound crisis that demands urgent attention from all who value cultural freedom and democratic pluralism. By transforming art into a loyalty test, the current political establishment betrays India’s rich intellectual tradition and compromises its standing as a leader in the Global South. The solution lies not in replacing one form of cultural domination with another but in creating space for multiple voices to coexist and contest meanings—a truly civilizational approach that honors India’s historical commitment to diversity. Only by resisting both Western cultural imperialism and domestic nationalist coercion can Indian cinema fulfill its potential as a vibrant expression of human creativity and social consciousness.