Aditi Jain
Member-Core Team at IFPD
The unprecedented commercial success of Dhurandhar has reignited long-standing conversations about the commercial standing of Indian cinema.[1] Having crossed significant box-office milestones and commanding sustained domestic attention, the film has been widely interpreted as a marker of renewed confidence within mainstream Hindi cinema. Yet, alongside its domestic resonance, Dhurandhar has also generated notable international controversy, including bans and public criticism in some Gulf countries and in Pakistan[2]. This juxtaposing reaction between domestic acclaim and overseas backlash provides a useful case study to examine movies as a vehicle of public diplomacy and, more specifically, as a contributor to India’s soft power.
This essay does not evaluate the artistic merit, political accuracy, or ideological intent of the film. Instead, it adopts an academic lens grounded in public diplomacy scholarship to ask a more restrained question: what does the global reception of Dhurandhar reveal about the possibilities and limits of cinema as a source of attraction in international relations? Drawing on the work of Joseph Nye, particularly his conceptualization of soft power, this piece explores whether Dhurandhar builds cultural capital for India abroad, or whether its contested reception suggests the boundaries of cinematic influence in a plural international system[3].
Cinema as a source of Cultural Capital
Films rarely arrive as blank slates. They carry with them assumptions about authority, belonging, danger, and virtue. Long before scholars labelled this process “soft power,” cinema was already doing its quiet work of shaping how societies imagine one another. Hollywood’s global dominance during the twentieth century remains the clearest example. American films did not succeed internationally because they avoided politics; they succeeded because they made national confidence feel narratively natural.
Consider Top Gun, where military power is wrapped in youth, speed, and desire, or Air Force One, which imagines the American president as both moral center and physical defender of the nation. More recent films such as Zero Dark Thirty and American Sniper offered far bleaker portraits of American power, provoking discomfort and criticism abroad. Yet none of this prevented their global circulation. Neat perception of the American superheros defeating the perceived villains became a celebrated norm, American threats shown as a threat to humanity- yet the international community didn’t bat an eye. These films were argued over, resisted, and reinterpreted, but they were allowed to be circulated and to be watched. Their influence lay not in universal approval, but in narrative persistence.[4]
Indian cinema, however, has historically traversed along a different emotional route. For decades, Hindi films found overseas audiences through melodrama, music, and the intimate politics of family life, particularly among diaspora communities. Even while addressing themes of nationalism, filmmakers are careful in their stance to pass a political commentary. These films presented India less as a strategic actor and more as a moral and emotional world. However, with Dhurandhar, that register seems to be beginning to shift. Gritty, gore-y and unapologetic cinema seem to have taken over. Dhurandhar sits firmly within this transition.
Domestic Reception
Within India, Dhurandhar has been received as a film that resonates with contemporary sensibilities. Its protagonist is not presented as an invincible or glamorous archetype but as a restrained, embedded figure operating within morally complex environments. The narrative’s emphasis on anonymity, surveillance, and quiet endurance marks a departure from earlier stylized portrayals of state agents. For many domestic viewers, this tonal realism has been interpreted as cinematic maturity rather than ideological messaging.
Crucially, the film’s success appears less driven by overt nationalism than by audience fatigue with formulaic storytelling. Viewers have responded to its technical competence, narrative pacing, and grounded character development. In this sense, Dhurandhar has functioned domestically as a confidence-building cultural product, suggesting that Indian mainstream cinema can tell globally legible stories without relying on spectacle alone.
But cultural confidence at home does not guarantee attraction abroad. That gap, between self-recognition and external reception, sits at the heart of public diplomacy debates.[5]
Soft Power and Nye’s Logic of Attraction
According to Joseph Nye, soft power rests on the ability of a country to shape the preferences of others through attraction rather than coercion or inducement. Culture plays a central role in this process, but not all cultural output generates soft power. For attraction to occur, the cultural product must be perceived as legitimate, appealing, and non-threatening by external audiences[6].
This is where Dhurandhar becomes analytically instructive. While the film has accumulated significant cultural capital within India, its reception abroad has been uneven. In several Gulf countries, bans and public criticism framed the film as culturally insensitive or politically provocative, while Pakistan’s prohibition of its screening further highlighted divergent interpretations.[7]
From a soft power perspective, such divergence does not automatically signal diplomatic failure. Rather, it exposes a core limitation of cultural diplomacy: attraction is inherently dependent on audience. Films do not circulate in neutral space. Historical memory, political context, and regional sensitivities shape how narratives are read.
In the case of Dhurandhar, themes understood domestically as genre realism were interpreted elsewhere as symbolic or representational. This gap underscores a fundamental challenge of soft power- once cultural products cross borders, their meanings cannot be controlled. Importantly, backlash does not negate influence.
Ban or Boundary?
The bans raise a critical analytical question: do such reactions signal a deterioration in cultural relations, or do they simply mark the boundaries of cinematic reception?
From a public diplomacy standpoint, bans often reflect domestic political considerations as much as foreign cultural content. They may indicate a preference for cultural gatekeeping rather than a rejection of the producing country as a whole. Indian films continue to enjoy popularity across the Gulf region, particularly among diaspora communities, suggesting that Dhurandhar is an exception rather than a rupture[8].
Thus, rather than viewing the backlash as evidence of strained relationships, it may be more accurate to interpret it as a case where cultural expression intersects with differing normative frameworks. Soft power does not require universal acceptance; it operates through selective resonance.
Assertion Versus Attraction
One of the more subtle questions raised by Dhurandhar is whether contemporary Indian cinema is shifting from seeking external validation to prioritizing domestic authenticity. If so, this shift may recalibrate how soft power is generated.
Nye’s framework does not suggest that countries must dilute their narratives to appeal globally. Instead, he emphasizes credibility. Cultural products perceived as organic expressions of society often generate more long-term attraction than those designed explicitly for international approval. In this light, Dhurandhar may represent a form of cultural self-assurance rather than strategic signaling[9].
The key distinction lies between assertion and imposition. Assertion involves articulating a national story confidently, while imposition attempts to universalize it. The international reception of Dhurandhar suggests that the film largely operates in the former category, even if not all audiences are receptive.
Indian cinema may be entering a phase similar to American storytelling, where genre diversification invites both attraction and resistance. If sustained, this could expand India’s cultural footprint, even if individual films encounter pushback.
Conclusion: The Limits and Promise of Cinematic Soft Power
The case of Dhurandhar underscores a fundamental truth of public diplomacy: cultural influence is neither linear nor controllable. Cinema can project national narratives, but it cannot dictate interpretation. Drawing on Joseph Nye’s theory, it becomes clear that soft power is built through cumulative attraction, not singular consensus.
Domestically, Dhurandhar has reinforced confidence in Indian cinema’s evolving voice. Internationally, its contested reception highlights the plural realities of global audiences. Rather than signaling souring relationships, the backlash may simply reflect the natural friction that arises when cultural products travel across diverse normative landscapes.
Ultimately, Dhurandhar invites a broader question for scholars and practitioners of public diplomacy alike: can a nation cultivate soft power while embracing narrative complexity, even at the cost of discomfort abroad? The answer, suggested by Nye’s work, is cautiously affirmative. Attraction does not require uniform approval, only sustained engagement, credibility, and the willingness to be understood on one’s own terms.
[1] Dhurandhar (dir. Aditya Dhar, Jio Studios and B62 Studios 2025).
[2] ‘Ranveer Singh’s Dhurandhar banned in Gulf countries; overseas box office collections take a hit – report’ Times of India (online, 21 November 2024) <https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/ranveer-singhs-dhurandhar-banned-in-gulf-countries-overseas-box-office-collections-take-a-hit-report/articleshow/125920763.cms> accessed 27 December 2025.
[3] Joseph S Nye Jr, Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics (PublicAffairs 2004).
[4] Top Gun (Tony Scott, Paramount Pictures 1986); Air Force One (Wolfgang Petersen, Columbia Pictures 1997); Zero Dark Thirty (Kathryn Bigelow, Annapurna Pictures 2012); American Sniper (Clint Eastwood, Warner Bros 2014).
[5] Jan Melissen (ed), The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations (Palgrave Macmillan 2005).
[6] Nye, Soft Power (n 3) pp 19-23.
[7] Sandeep Balakrishna, ‘How Dhurandhar has Unravelled Pakistani Stooges in India’ The Dharma Dispatch (online, 16 December 2025)
<https://www.dharmadispatch.in/commentary/how-dhurandhar-has-unravelled-pakistani-stooges-in-india> accessed 30 December 2025.
[8] Rachel Dwyer, Bollywood’s India: Hindi Cinema as a Guide to Contemporary India (Reaktion Books 2014).
[9] Nye, Soft Power (n 3), pp 23-25.