When Dhurandhar released in cinemas in December 2025, it did not arrive quietly. Directed by Aditya Dhar and starring Ranveer Singh, Akshaye Khanna and Sanjay Dutt, the film positioned itself as a large-scale espionage thriller rooted in contemporary geopolitics. It was marketed as a spectacle driven by action, intrigue and patriotism, but it quickly became something more than just a movie. Dhurandhar turned into a cultural event, a political flashpoint and a case study in how modern Indian blockbusters operate within a polarised public sphere. Its box office numbers were historic. Its backlash was international. Its reception was sharply divided. Together, these forces reveal how cinema, politics and culture wars now collide in the age of social media and global streaming.
From a commercial perspective, Dhurandhar was a phenomenon. Trade publications reported that the film became the highest grossing Indian release of 2025 worldwide, earning well over US $ one hundred million in global box office revenue and ultimately surpassing US $ one hundred fifty million worldwide. It also set a record for Hindi cinema within India, becoming the highest grossing Hindi language film domestically with ticket sales estimated at roughly one hundred million dollars within the Indian market alone. While it did not surpass all time Indian box office champions across languages and eras, it firmly placed itself among the top tier of Indian films ever released. The film performed strongly in North America, the United Kingdom and Australia, markets that increasingly define the international success of Indian spectacles. This success came despite the film not releasing theatrically in several Middle Eastern territories and Pakistan, regions that historically contribute significant overseas revenue to Indian films. Distributors later stated that the film lost a major portion of potential earnings because of these restrictions, making its final worldwide total even more striking.
The reasons behind the bans and non-releases were political. Dhurandhar is set partly in Karachi and revolves around an Indian intelligence operative infiltrating criminal and terror networks. Authorities in several Gulf countries declined theatrical release permissions on the grounds that the film promoted an anti-Pakistan narrative. Pakistan itself has not permitted Indian films in cinemas for years, but Dhurandhar’s subject matter made it particularly sensitive. These decisions transformed the film into a geopolitical object. It was no longer simply entertainment. It became a symbol of competing national narratives and regional tensions. The controversy was amplified when the film later premiered on Netflix and quickly began trending in Pakistan, reportedly reaching the number one position on the platform there. This paradox of being banned theatrically yet widely watched on streaming illustrated the limits of state level controls in a digital media environment. The attempt to block access only heightened curiosity and viewership.
Inside India, the backlash took on a different tone. Critics and commentators argued that Dhurandhar was not merely a fictional thriller but a film that blurred the boundary between dramatic storytelling and ideological messaging. Several reviews accused it of presenting a one-sided political worldview, one that cast certain groups and geographies in permanently hostile terms. The film was described by some critics as using high production values and emotional storytelling to normalise an aggressive nationalistic narrative. Supporters of the film rejected this reading, arguing that it was simply reflecting geopolitical realities and that spy thrillers by nature involve antagonists rooted in real world conflicts. This debate became one of the central culture war flashpoints around the film. Was Dhurandhar a legitimate expression of national security anxieties or was it propaganda dressed up as entertainment.
The intensity of this argument mirrored broader political polarisation within India, where cinema has increasingly become a site of ideological struggle rather than neutral storytelling.
The film also faced controversy from within marginalised communities. After its release, objections were raised by members of the Baloch community over the film’s use of terminology and references that they argued were defamatory. Legal notices were issued, and in response the producers altered the digital cinema package distributed to theatres in India, muting specific references. This episode highlighted a growing phenomenon in Indian cinema where films are modified after release due to social and legal pressure. It also revealed the tension between using real world cultural and political identities for narrative realism and the responsibility filmmakers bear when depicting communities that already face political marginalisation. The fact that these edits happened after audiences had already seen the original version underscored how fluid and contested the meaning of a film can become once it enters the public sphere.
Another layer of backlash emerged around promotional activity. Ranveer Singh faced criticism and legal complaints after mimicking a sacred ritual associated with the Bhoota Kola tradition during publicity events. Although he later apologised, the incident added to the sense that Dhurandhar was surrounded by cultural insensitivity and controversy at multiple levels. For critics of the film, these moments reinforced the idea that the project was careless in its engagement with religious and cultural symbolism. For fans, they were distractions that did not detract from the film’s technical achievements and entertainment value.
Despite these controversies, audience response in India was overwhelmingly strong in terms of turnout. Theatres reported packed shows in metropolitan centres and sustained attendance in smaller cities well into its theatrical run. Many viewers praised the film’s scale, action choreography and performances. Ranveer Singh’s intense physical transformation and Akshaye Khanna’s controlled, menacing screen presence were widely cited as highlights. The film’s pacing, long runtime and elaborate set pieces contributed to its image as an event film that demanded to be experienced in cinemas rather than on personal screens. For a large segment of the audience, Dhurandhar delivered what contemporary blockbuster cinema promises. High spectacle, emotional stakes and a sense of national triumph.
The overseas response complicated the narrative further. While several Middle Eastern countries did not allow theatrical screenings, audiences in Western markets embraced the film. In the United Kingdom and North America, Dhurandhar drew not only diaspora viewers but also non-Indian audiences interested in global action cinema. Reviews in international trade publications focused less on the political controversy and more on the film’s role in revitalising post pandemic box office momentum for Indian cinema. At the same time, Pakistani viewers who accessed the film on streaming platforms offered unexpectedly nuanced feedback online. Some praised the film’s technical quality and performances, while also calling for more balanced portrayals of characters linked to Pakistan in the sequel. This reaction revealed that audiences can separate craft from politics, appreciating cinematic quality even when disagreeing with ideological framing.
The culture war around Dhurandhar also reveals how controversy functions as marketing in the digital era. News of bans, edits and backlash circulated rapidly on social media, keeping the film in public conversation for weeks. Every debate thread, critical column and political argument effectively served as publicity. For younger audiences in particular, watching Dhurandhar became part of participating in a cultural moment.
To have an opinion on the film was to signal one’s position within a larger ideological landscape. In this way, Dhurandhar was not just consumed as a story but as a social statement. This dynamic illustrates how modern blockbusters often rely on polarisation to maintain relevance beyond opening weekend numbers.
The legacy of Dhurandhar will likely extend beyond its box office records. It stands as a marker of how Indian mainstream cinema is increasingly intertwined with political identity formation. Films are no longer judged solely on narrative coherence or cinematic craft. They are assessed for ideological alignment, representational ethics and geopolitical messaging. This does not mean that cinema has become purely political. Dhurandhar succeeded because it also delivered spectacle and star power. But it demonstrates that in today’s media environment, spectacle alone is no longer the full story. Blockbusters now operate within a charged public arena where every narrative choice can be read as a political act.
As the sequel approaches release, the expectations and anxieties surrounding Dhurandhar will likely intensify. Will the filmmakers double down on the ideological tone that fuelled both its success and backlash. Will they soften it in response to criticism and edits. Or will they attempt to reframe the narrative in a way that broadens its appeal without losing its core audience. Whatever path is chosen, Dhurandhar has already altered the terrain of Hindi blockbuster cinema. It has shown that the most commercially successful films of the moment are also the most politically contentious. In the current climate, box office triumph and cultural conflict are not opposing outcomes. They are increasingly part of the same phenomenon.
