ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Lens of condescension: Why The Economist misreads the Indian soul
To suggest that a record-shattering ₹1,400+ crore success is purely the result of a populace being “browbeaten” by messaging is beyond patronizing—it’s insulting
-
Dr. Vinay Nalwa - Thu, 02, Apr 2026
- 08:19 EDT
- 37
Ranveer Singh in a still from 'Dhurandhar 2' / Courtesy: Instagram/Ranveer Singh
Across global media, a predictable and frankly, exhausting pattern has emerged. Any expression of Indian cultural confidence is immediately labelled "majoritarianism." Any story of national security is dismissed as "propaganda."
The Economist’s recent critique of the blockbuster film Dhurandhar: The Revenge (“Is Bollywood’s latest megahit propaganda for Narendra Modi?”, March 29, 2026) is a textbook example of this selective framing. It isn't just a film review. It’s an exercise in cultural gatekeeping that pathologizes a billion people for simply liking a movie.
Also Read: ‘Dhurandhar - The Revenge’ rakes in whopping $144.33 million globally
The article opens with a series of bizarre metaphors, likening the movie-going experience to a “hit of amphetamines” and “three packs of Marlboro Reds.” This isn't critique; it’s a sneer. By using the language of addiction, the author implies that the Indian audience lacks the intellectual agency to appreciate art. Apparently, we aren't art lovers; we are just "chasing a high."
To suggest that a record-shattering ₹1,400+ crore success is purely the result of a populace being “browbeaten” by messaging is beyond patronizing—it’s insulting. It reveals a deep-seated "Elite Anxiety." Foreign gatekeepers are used to deciding what is “good” or “true” for India. Now that they’ve lost control of the narrative, they’ve decided the audience must be "addicted."
The critic dismisses the film’s "stylized ultraviolence" and "catharsis." But they miss a deeper, more painful truth. Catharsis is not a drug. It is a response to decades of perceived restraint without closure. The film draws from real, documented national traumas: the 1999 hijacking of IC-814, the 2001 Parliament attack, and the 2008 Mumbai siege.
These aren't "imagined grievances" or "one-paragraph summaries." They are unhealed wounds. To dismiss this as "propaganda" is to ignore the Exodus of Kashmiri Pandits or the brutal torture of soldiers like Capt. Saurabh Kalia. These are the realities that inform our cinema without looking for approval.
The Economist’s institutional bias is on full display when it labels the film’s "what-if" narrative “historical revisionism.” It’s a curious choice of words. When Western films like Inglourious Basterds rewrite history to kill Hitler in a cinema, they are celebrated as "bold art." Why is Indian assertion treated as a "lie"?
The critic even throws in a geopolitical jab, mocking India's alleged "exposure" in Canada while scoffing at the film’s depiction of competence. This binary is clear: India in reality is limited; India in cinema is delusional. It is a deliberate attempt to diminish national capability. Hollywood has built a century of cinema on American omnipotence. Those movies are called "storytelling." Ours are called "conditioning."
What is being labeled as “propaganda” today is actually a shift in narrative ownership. For years, Indian cinema stayed within an ideological comfort zone that made the global elite feel safe. That framework was never called "propaganda," even when it was deeply biased against institutions, culture, Hindu identity.
What has changed isn't the presence of ideology , it's the direction. Films like The Kashmir Files, The Kerala Story, and now Dhurandhar represent an India that is no longer content being narrated to. We are beginning to narrate ourselves.
The discomfort of the global critic isn't really about the violence on the screen. It’s about the confidence off it. India’s rise is usually discussed in terms of GDP or demographics. But there is another dimension: narrative confidence. We are finally willing to tell stories for self-definition, not for approval.
To label this as propaganda is to miss the entire point of the moment. What is being contested here isn't a film. It is the legitimacy of a nation finally choosing to see itself differently.
The writer is an author and columnist.
Related
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
E Paper
Video
Comments
Start the conversation
Become a member of New India Abroad to start commenting.
Sign Up Now
Already have an account? Login