Recent Bollywood films like *Dhurandhar* and *Dhurandar* have sparked discussions about cinema’s role in shaping perceptions of power and foreign policy in India.
Recent Bollywood blockbusters such as *Dhurandhar* (2025) and *Dhurandar* (2026) have ignited intense debate regarding whether cinema is influencing public understanding of the state, power, and foreign policy. The reactions, particularly surrounding *Dhurandhar*, reveal a deeper concern: are we beginning to interpret films as factual representations of political realities? This perspective could lead to misunderstandings.
Cinema is not a policy document; it does not explain the state but rather performs it. However, to entirely dismiss films would be equally misguided. As renowned filmmaker Satyajit Ray once noted, “Cinema’s characteristic forte is its ability to capture and communicate the intimacies of the human mind.” It is within these nuances—emotional arcs, cultural cues, and minor details—that films subtly reflect the political culture of their time.
When approached thoughtfully, cinema becomes less a source of facts and more a diagnostic tool. It reveals how a nation perceives itself on the global stage. Films such as *Purab Aur Pachhim*, *Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge*, and *Dangal* do not directly narrate Indian foreign policy. Yet, through their silences, symbols, and character choices, they trace the evolution of India’s relationship with its diaspora and its broader global self-image.
The India depicted in *Purab Aur Pachhim* (1971) emerged from a period marked by economic fragility and geopolitical caution. The years following independence were characterized by the Non-Aligned Movement, during which India sought autonomy from both Western and Soviet influences. In this context, the diaspora was often perceived not as an asset but as a sign of lost talent and loyalty.
The film encapsulates this anxiety through its protagonist, Bharat, who travels to the West not to integrate but to correct. The West is portrayed as morally unmoored, while India is depicted as a bastion of discipline and tradition. These portrayals do not serve as explicit policy statements, but they resonate with a broader foreign policy instinct: one that is defensive, cautious, and protective of identity. In this narrative, soft power functions as a shield, focusing on preserving the self rather than influencing others. The cinematic narrative reflects a state still grappling with its place in the global order.
By the time *Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge* (1995) was released, India had undergone significant structural transformation. The economic reforms of 1991 altered the state’s relationship with the world. Liberalization not only opened markets but also reshaped national imagination. The Indian abroad was no longer viewed with suspicion; instead, they became potential partners in growth.
The character of Raj embodies this shift. He is Western in lifestyle yet firmly rooted in what the film refers to as “Indian values.” His moral legitimacy derives from balance rather than rejection. This subtle recalibration mirrors the state’s evolving approach toward the diaspora. Initiatives aimed at engaging the diaspora and recognizing overseas Indians as stakeholders reflected a new logic: connection as capital.
During this period, soft power became transactional, albeit without overt acknowledgment. Cinema reassured the diaspora that their sense of belonging remained intact, even across borders. The message shifted from a defensive posture to one of invitation. India was no longer urging its people abroad to return; instead, it encouraged them to maintain their connections. The emotional economy of the film aligned with a policy goal of building influence through networks, investment, and advocacy. The state began to view itself not as isolated but as extended.
With *Dangal* (2016), the narrative grammar shifted once more. India was no longer addressing solely its diaspora; it was reaching out to the world. The film’s remarkable reception in non-Western markets, particularly in Asia, signaled a transformation in how Indian stories were perceived. They no longer relied on exoticism or nostalgia for the diaspora but drew on universal themes such as discipline, aspiration, and familial tension that resonate across cultural boundaries.
This evolution is not coincidental. It reflects a broader transformation in India’s foreign policy, where initiatives centered around global cooperation and leadership have become paramount. Cultural exports now serve as instruments of presence, carrying narratives of resilience and merit that align with the image India seeks to project internationally.
In this phase, soft power is no longer merely protective or connective; it is assertive. It does not seek validation; it assumes relevance. The success of *Dangal* indicates that Indian cinema can function as a global language without mediation. This marks a significant departure from earlier decades, where cultural legitimacy often hinged on Western recognition.
To treat these films as factual accounts of foreign policy would be reductive. Cinema simplifies, exaggerates, and dramatizes. It creates coherence where reality is often fragmented. Yet, within that simplification lies valuable insight. Films capture the emotional climate in which policies are conceived and received, revealing how the state wishes to be perceived and how society negotiates that vision.
The progression from *Purab Aur Pachhim* to *Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge* to *Dangal* is not a straightforward timeline of policy change. It represents a subtler cultural echo of India’s journey from caution to engagement and ultimately to assertion. This shift is not merely reflected in policy documents or diplomatic speeches; it is embedded in storytelling, character behavior, and audience responses.
As discussions around contemporary cinema intensify, it is crucial to remember that films are neither propaganda tools nor policy briefs. They are cultural texts, and their value lies in what they suggest rather than what they declare. By examining them closely—especially in their pauses, contradictions, and emotional cues—we gain insights not only into India’s actions on the global stage but also into how it perceives its place within it.
Cinema may not provide the factual details of foreign policy, but it offers something equally significant: the imagination behind it.
The author is a final-year political science student and geopolitical researcher specializing in great power politics, climate security, and international strategic affairs. The views expressed are personal. He can be contacted at piyushchaudhary2125@gmail.com.
According to News India Times.