Desi Talk

www.desitalk.com – that’s all you need to know 14 COVER STORY April 10, 2026 R ecent Bollywood blockbusters like Dhurandhar (2025) and Dhurandar (2026), have triggered intense debate about whether cinema is shaping public understanding of the state, power, and even foreign policy. The reac- tions, especially around Dhurandhar, reveal a deeper anxiety: are we beginning to read films as factual representations of political reality? That would be a mistake. Cinema is not a policy document. It does not explain the state; it performs it. Yet, to dismiss films entirely would be equally flawed. As Satyajit Ray once suggested in a different context, “Cinema’s characteristic forte is its ability to capture and communi- cate the intimacies of the human mind.” It is precisely in these intimacies, in the minor details, emotional arcs, and cultural cues, that films quietly reflect the political culture of their time. Employees prepare a hoarding of Bolly- wood movie “Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge” (The Big HeartedWill Take the Bride), starring actor Shah Rukh Khan, inside Maratha Mandir theatre in Mumbai December 12, 2014. Photo: Reuters, Danish Siddiqui If approached carefully, cinema becomes less a source of facts and more a diagnostic tool. It reveals how a nation imagines itself in the world. Three films across decades like Purab Aur Pachhim, Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge, and Dangal do not narrate Indian foreign policy directly. But in their silences, symbols, and character choices, they trace the evolution of India’s relationship with its diaspora and, more broadly, its global self- image. CULTURAL ANXIETY AND DEFENSIVE STATE The India of Purab Aur Pachhim (1971) emerged from a time of economic fragility and geopolitical caution. The decades follow- ing independence were marked by the logic of the Non-Aligned Movement, where India sought autonomy from bothWestern and So- viet blocs. In this environment, the diaspora was not yet an asset; it was often viewed as a sign of, loss of talent, of loyalty, of cultural grounding. The film encodes this anxiety through its protagonist, Bharat, who travels to theWest not to integrate but to correct. TheWest appears morally unmoored, while India is presented as a repository of discipline and tradition. These are not policy statements, but they echo a broader foreign policy instinct: defensive, cautious, and protective of identity. Soft power here operates as a shield. It is less about influ- encing others and more about preserving the self. The cinematic narrative becomes an extension of a state still unsure of its place in the global order. DIASPORA AS STRATEGIC BRIDGE By the time Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge (1995) ar- rived, India had undergone a structural transformation. The economic reforms of 1991 had altered the state’s relationship with the world. Liberalisation did not just open markets; it reshaped imagination. The Indian abroad was no longer a figure of suspicion but a poten- tial partner in growth. The character of Raj embodies this shift. He isWest- ern in lifestyle yet rooted in what the film repeatedly calls “Indian values.” His moral legitimacy comes from balance, not rejection. This subtle recalibration mir- rors the state’s evolving approach toward the diaspora. Initiatives such as the institutionalisation of diaspora engagement and policy frameworks that recognised overseas Indians as stakeholders reflected a new logic: connection as capital. In this phase, soft power becomes transactional with- out appearing so. Cinema reassures the diaspora that belonging is intact, even across borders. The message is not defensive but inviting. India is no longer asking its people abroad to return; it is asking them to remain connected. The emotional economy of the film aligns with a policy goal of building influence through networks, investment, and advocacy. The state begins to see itself not as isolated, but as extended. FROM CONNECTION TO ASSERTION With Dangal (2016), the grammar changes again. India is no longer speaking only to its diaspora; it is speaking to the world. The film’s extraordinary reception in non-Western mar- kets, particularly in Asia, signals a shift in how Indian stories travel. They do not rely on exoti- cism or diaspora nostalgia. Instead, they draw on universal themes like discipline, aspiration, familial tension; that resonate across cultural boundaries. This is not accidental. It reflects a broader transformation in India’s foreign policy pos- ture, where initiatives framed around global cooperation and leadership have become central. Cultural exports now function as in- struments of presence. They carry narratives of resilience and merit that align with the image India seeks to project internationally. Soft power, in this phase, is no longer protec- tive or merely connective. It is assertive. It does not ask for validation; it assumes relevance. The success of Dangal suggests that Indian cin- ema can operate as a global language without mediation. This is a significant departure from earlier decades, where cultural legitimacy often depended onWestern recognition. CINEMA IS NOT REALITY To treat these films as factual accounts of foreign policy would be reductive. Cinema sim- plifies, exaggerates, and dramatizes. It creates coherence where reality is often fragmented. But within that simplification lies insight. Films capture the emotional climate in which policies are imagined and received. They reveal how the state wishes to be seen and how soci- ety negotiates that vision. The progression from Purab Aur Pachhim to Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge to Dangal is not a neat policy timeline. It is something subtler: a cultural echo of India’s journey from caution to engagement to assertion. The shift is not just in policy documents or diplomatic speeches; it is embedded in how stories are told, how charac- ters behave, and how audiences respond. As debates around contemporary cinema intensify, it is worth remembering that films are neither propaganda manuals nor policy briefs. They are cultural texts. Their value lies in what they suggest, not what they declare. In reading them carefully, especially in the pauses, the contradictions, the emotional cues, we begin to understand not just what India does in the world, but how it feels about its place within it. Cinema may not give us the facts of foreign policy. But it gives us something equally important – the imagi- nation (behind it). (The author is a final-year political science student and geo- political researcher specializing in great power politics, climate security, and international strategic affairs who writes on contemporary global issues with a policy-oriented lens. Views expressed are personal. He can be contacted at piyushchaud- hary2125@gmail.com ) (Used under special arrangementwith South Asia Monitor) Cinema Is Not Policy, But Films Like Dhurandhar Culturally Reflect India’s Place In The World By Piyush Chaudhary Employees prepare a hoarding of Bollywood movie “Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge” (The Big Hearted Will Takethe Bride), starring actor Shah Rukh Khan, inside Maratha Mandir theatre in Mumbai December 12, 2014. PHOTO:REUTERS,DANISH SIDDIQUI PHOTO:TRAILERVIDEO GRAB PHOTO:SPICE PR Aamir Khan in the record-smashing Dangal. Manoj Kumar enacts Dulhan chali in Purab Aur Pacchim.