Dhurandhar, Uri, And The Kerala Story Represent A New Bollywood That Is No Longer Apologetic About India
The release and reception of films such as Uri: The Surgical Strike, The Kerala Story, and now Dhurandhar mark a clear shift in the tone of mainstream Hindi cinema. For decades, Bollywood approached themes of nationalism, terrorism, and geopolitical conflict with caution. Patriotism was often wrapped in nostalgia or emotional symbolism, and contemporary security issues were rarely addressed head-on. The success of these newer films suggests that the industry is entering a different phase. Bollywood is no longer hesitant about telling stories that foreground national security, terrorism, and ideological conflict, and audiences appear to be responding strongly to this change.
The End Of Bollywood’s Apologetic Patriotism
For many years, overtly assertive patriotism in Bollywood was relatively rare. Films celebrated the nation, but they usually did so through historical nostalgia or personal sacrifice rather than modern strategic realities. Even when the military appeared on screen, the focus tended to be emotional storytelling rather than operational detail or contemporary threats.
Uri marked a clear turning point. By depicting India’s surgical strike response to terrorism in a confident and direct manner, the film departed from the earlier tendency to soften national security narratives. It treated patriotism not as a delicate theme that required careful balancing but as a legitimate subject worthy of cinematic attention. The strong public response demonstrated that audiences were ready for stories portraying India’s defence forces and strategic responses without hesitation.
The Kerala Story And The Debate Over Uncomfortable Realities
Few recent films have triggered as much controversy as The Kerala Story. Even before its release, the film was labelled propaganda by sections of critics and commentators. Supporters argued that the film attempted to address the issue of radicalisation and extremist recruitment, topics that mainstream cinema had often approached cautiously.
The debate surrounding the film revealed a deeper divide. For some critics, the narrative represented a politicisation of cinema. For many viewers, however, the film reflected a willingness to discuss security concerns that had rarely been addressed directly in Bollywood storytelling.
The intensity of the reaction showed that the discomfort was not merely about filmmaking choices. It reflected anxiety over the growing presence of narratives that deal openly with terrorism, ideological extremism, and national security.
Dhurandhar And The Rise Of Assertive Storytelling
The emergence of Dhurandhar appears to continue this evolving pattern. Instead of avoiding controversial themes, filmmakers are increasingly willing to explore them directly. Stories about intelligence agencies, cross-border conflicts, terrorism networks, and ideological battles are moving into the centre of mainstream cinema.
This shift mirrors a broader change in public discourse. Indian audiences today are more informed about global geopolitics and national security issues than earlier generations. News cycles, digital media, and real-time global information flows have made discussions about terrorism, strategic competition, and ideological conflict part of everyday conversation.
Cinema naturally reflects the environment in which it exists. When audiences are already engaging with these issues in public debate, films that address them resonate more strongly.
The Critics’ Discomfort With The New Era
The strongest backlash against this new wave of films has come from sections of the film establishment and cultural commentators who quickly label such works as propaganda. Yet Bollywood has always contained ideological narratives. Films that criticised the state, emphasised identity politics, or highlighted human rights narratives were long accepted as legitimate artistic expressions.
The sudden eagerness to apply the propaganda label to films that emphasise national security raises a legitimate question about consistency. If cinema has always reflected the worldview of its creators, then it is difficult to argue that only one particular ideological perspective deserves space within mainstream storytelling.
The current criticism therefore appears less about artistic standards and more about discomfort with a shift in narrative emphasis.
Raazi And The Admission Of Distortion
The debate becomes even more revealing when one looks at the case of Raazi. The film was based on the book Calling Sehmat by Harinder Sikka and was widely praised upon release. Yet the author himself later criticised the adaptation, stating that key aspects of the story had been altered in the cinematic version.
According to Sikka, elements of the mission, character motivations, and narrative details differed significantly from what was described in the original book. Such changes are common in filmmaking, where directors often modify source material to suit dramatic storytelling.
However, the episode highlights an important point. When filmmakers alter facts in films that align with certain narratives, those changes are often defended as creative freedom. The controversy around Raazi demonstrates how loosely cinema can treat factual material without attracting the same level of outrage.
Creative Liberties Have Always Existed In Bollywood
Raazi is far from the only example. Bollywood has long taken creative liberties with historical events, biographies, and source material.
Sanju presented the life of actor Sanjay Dutt largely from his own perspective while downplaying several controversies. Jodhaa Akbar acknowledged dramatic liberties in portraying the relationship between Akbar and Jodha. Bajirao Mastani reshaped historical court politics for cinematic storytelling. Article 15 merged multiple real incidents into a fictional narrative. Lagaan created an entirely fictional story within the colonial period.
In each case, filmmakers openly admitted altering facts or combining events for narrative impact. These films were widely accepted as legitimate cinematic interpretations.
If distortion of facts were the true concern, these examples would have triggered the same outrage now directed at films such as Uri or The Kerala Story. The reality is that creative liberty has always been part of filmmaking.
Why The Audience Is Driving The Shift
The most decisive factor behind the rise of this new storytelling wave is audience response. Films such as Uri and The Kerala Story performed strongly at the box office despite intense criticism from sections of the media and cultural establishment.
Their success demonstrated that a large section of viewers wants cinema that engages directly with issues such as terrorism, national security, and geopolitical conflict. Producers and filmmakers inevitably respond to audience demand.
What is unfolding therefore is not a top-down ideological project but a bottom-up cultural shift driven by viewers themselves.
A New Phase In Bollywood’s Narrative Identity
The arrival of films like Dhurandhar suggests that Bollywood is entering a new phase in its narrative identity. Instead of operating within a narrow set of acceptable themes, the industry is beginning to accommodate a wider spectrum of perspectives about India’s past and present.
Stories centred on national security, civilisational memory, and strategic conflict are now appearing alongside social dramas and traditional entertainment. This expansion of narrative space may provoke debate, but it also reflects a maturing cinematic culture.
Cinema has always been a mirror of society. As the concerns and conversations of Indian society evolve, it is only natural that Bollywood’s storytelling evolves with them.
