The roaring commercial success of recent films like Dhurandhar, which is en route to earning Rs 400 crore, has ignited a fierce debate that extends far beyond box office numbers. This conversation questions whether there is a rapidly diminishing space for good-faith criticism and scrutiny of cinema in India, especially for movies that align with a certain popular or ideological mood.
The Box Office Juggernaut and the Critique
The debate was spurred by allegations that non-rapturous reviews for Dhurandhar and similar films were ideologically motivated. This set of films, which includes The Kashmir Files (2022), The Kerala Story (2023), Section 370 (2024), and The Bengal Files (2025), often embrace themes of hyper-nationalism, machismo, and violence. Their financial success is undeniable. Beyond Dhurandhar's staggering collection, The Kashmir Files earned over Rs 250 crore, and The Kerala Story, with Rs 240 crore, was the seventh-highest-grossing film of its year.
This commercial triumph has been bolstered by strong public opinion and even institutional support, with some states making films like Chhaava (2025) and The Sabarmati Report (2024) tax-free. The combined power of the box office, popular sentiment, and government backing has largely overshadowed voices pointing out these films' narrative shortcuts, plot holes, or disquieting underlying ideologies.
A Paradoxical Victimhood?
This context makes the persistent narrative of persecution from certain quarters especially baffling. When films achieve historic commercial success, win awards, and receive official endorsements, who exactly is being persecuted? This claimed victimhood stands in stark contrast to the documented ordeal of other filmmakers.
Creators have faced legal battles and public pressure leading to changed titles, as seen in cases like Janaki V vs State of Kerala and Padmaavat, or have been forced to make arbitrary cuts, as happened with Phule and Homebound. The question then arises: what are the proponents of these commercially dominant films being denied when they protest a lukewarm review?
The answer may lie in the nature of propaganda, which seeks not just approval but moral submission. From a totalizing worldview, any critique is perceived as sabotage. Consequently, any review short of ecstatic praise is framed as evidence of bias or gatekeeping by a supposed elite cabal controlling taste.
The Real Cost: Harassment and Shrinking Discourse
The dangers of conflating criticism with persecution are no longer theoretical. Prominent film critics like Anupama Chopra and Sucharita Tyagi faced intense online harassment and abuse for their less-than-effusive reviews of Dhurandhar. In another instance, actor-musician Saba Azad was subjected to Islamophobic and sexist trolling simply because her partner, actor Hrithik Roshan, expressed a mild political disagreement with the film in a tweet that was otherwise full of praise.
This toxic environment signals a rapid erosion of the room for nuanced, good-faith criticism. It is crucial to remember that criticism is not gatekeeping. The gatekeepers in cinema have always existed, determining funding and distribution, but they are not static. Today, a new class of creators, aligned with the dominant popular and ideological mood, has emerged powerfully.
History shows that propaganda and art are not mutually exclusive. Films from Battleship Potemkin to Top Gun have served propaganda purposes, and even aesthetically accomplished films can carry abhorrent ideologies. Critics have also been famously wrong about films that later became classics. This complexity is the messy reality of cultural life.
However, the current climate, where commercial success is wielded as a shield against all scrutiny and critics are harassed into silence, is what should truly give us pause. The aftermath of the Dhurandhar debate underscores that the space for honest, critical engagement with cinema in India is under severe strain, a loss far more significant than any single negative review.
