Having watched Dhurander 1, I already felt it carried a subtle but consistent Islamophobic undertone — not loud, but present enough to shape perception. In today’s sensitive social climate, such “slow poison” narratives can have real impact.
Dhurander 2 improves technically. The cinematography, performances, and background score are all commendable. The pacing is better, and the film keeps you engaged. On pure filmmaking grounds, it works. Length wise, it extended unnecessarily.
However, the deeper issue lies in its narrative construction and messaging. An emotional priming is set in the beginning to hate muslims by killing a Sikh family in Pakistan with takbeer.
Red Flags in narratives & representation of already malignant figures are casted effectively.
The film repeatedly uses religious symbols , masjid, Quran, and Islamic references , as indicators of suspicion or threat. This pattern is not incidental; it builds a subconscious association between Islam and criminality. That is deeply problematic. The whole point is what hindutva was propagated throughout their parivar handles or outlets, same thing screamed via big screen.
More concerning is the portrayal of Pakistan and its agencies. Instead of limiting it to geopolitical conflict or intelligence rivalry, the film goes a step further by tying criminal activities like drug trafficking, fake currency, and violence with Islamic identity. This is factually and ethically flawed , Islam as a religion does not permit such acts. Conflating state actions with an entire religion creates harmful generalizations. Demonetisation, a shameful and ridiculous act by Modi and authority, in the film tried to put as something master stroke. It's actually nailed the citizens inside coffins.
There are also dialogues around “conversion” and demographic fear that feel exaggerated and disconnected from reality, but effective in creating division. These are not neutral storytelling choices, they echo existing polarizing narratives. How usually the bjp or right wing supporters justifying their riots, hatreds and atrocities, all those are navigated to Pakistan in the movie.
Use of Real-World References in a Distorted Way
The film appears to draw inspiration from real incidents but reshapes them to fit a particular narrative. For example, scenes resembling high-profile killings (like that of Ateeq) seem to be reinterpreted in a way that justifies or glorifies extrajudicial outcomes instead of questioning them.
Events are shown with altered timelines, simplified contexts, or selective framing, creating a version of reality that feels engineered rather than authentic. This blurring of fact and fiction becomes dangerous when it reinforces a one-sided worldview. Portrayed the minorities as always going villains, even training the agents to use quran, read namas and languages as just over mocking. Too much vulnerable the society is, as movie says.
Political Messaging & Propaganda Layer
A significant portion of the film feels like it is pushing a political narrative rather than telling a story. New ruling, and layiri reference to chai wala is too much used to trigger the sympathy as well anger of right wing supporters.
There are clear undertones of praising the current government and leadership, indirectly branding everything as part of a “New India” success story.
Failures or internal issues are conveniently shifted outward — often towards Pakistan or specific communities.
The consistent portrayal places Hindus almost exclusively on the “good” side, while Muslims (and occasionally Sikhs) are either suspicious, compromised, or sidelined.
This binary depiction removes nuance and reduces complex realities into “us vs them,” which is the definition of polarizing storytelling.
Unrealistic Portrayal of Agencies
The intelligence and security agencies in the film are shown operating with extreme freedom — recruiting criminals, executing killings, and carrying out cross-border actions with little consequence or accountability. While cinematic liberty is understandable, this portrayal feels excessive and disconnected from how such systems actually function.
Overall Impact
What could have been a strong thriller ends up being weighed down by its ideological leaning. The film doesn’t just tell a story — it attempts to shape perception.
Cinema has power. When that power is used to reinforce division, normalize bias, or subtly push propaganda, it becomes more than entertainment.
Final Thought:
Dhurander 2 is technically solid but narratively biased. Instead of building a balanced, intelligent thriller, it leans into selective storytelling that risks deepening existing divides. A more responsible approach could have made it not just a good film, but a meaningful one.
Comments
Post a Comment