Even as Aditya Dhar’s Dhurandhar 2: The Revenge continues to shatter box office records and draw praise from across the industry, the film, much like its predecessor, has also sparked a parallel debate. Sections of viewers and commentators have questioned its political undertones, with some calling it propaganda and accusing it of pushing a specific ideological narrative.Amid this conversation, YouTuber Dhruv Rathee, who had earlier criticised Dhurandhar, has now released a detailed video analysing the sequel. This time, Rathee says, the concerns he raised before have intensified.In the video, Rathee argues that the film is not a work of entertainment cinema but a political instrument.“Dhurandhar 2 is not a film made for entertainment… it is the BJP’s most expensive election advertisement, for which you pay Rs 500 to watch,” he said, calling the film’s director a “sycophant”.Blurring lines between fiction and realityFollowing the film’s own narration style, Rathee also divided his video into various chapters. Rathee first questioned the film’s positioning as a fictional story inspired by real events. According to him, that distinction becomes blurred when real faces, names and archival footage are woven into dramatised storytelling.“You show Narendra Modi’s real face and real footage… use real names like Dawood Ibrahim… and then say it’s all coincidental?” he said. He further described such disclaimers as “a legal cheat code used to manipulate the audience so they cannot tell where truth ends and imagination begins.”Story continues below this adMood-setting and emotional cuesRathee also draws attention to particular scenes in the film that he believes are designed to evoke strong emotional reactions. He describes this as a deliberate narrative device rather than organic storytelling.Calling it emotional priming, he said, “First generate emotion, then build your narrative on top of it.”He added that some of these scenes could be removed without impacting the plot, yet they play a key role in shaping audience perception.“It’s like feeding someone an extremely spicy chili so their tongue burns, and then they are forced to buy sweets. Aditya Dhar burns the audience emotionally so they easily consume whatever propaganda is served afterward,” he said.When villains speak, audiences listenRathee also points to scenes where antagonists praise India’s leadership, including a line given to a character based on Dawood Ibrahim, calling it a deliberate and psychologically calculated storytelling choice.Story continues below this ad“If the hero praises someone, it has less impact. But if the biggest villain does it, the audience gets convinced at another level,” he said.What is shown and what isn’tRathee’s video also examines how the film engages with real-world events. He claims the narrative presents the 2016 demonetisation as a targeted national security operation, while downplaying its broader consequences. He argues the film’s glorification of demonetisation deliberately obscures the economic disruption the policy caused, including reports of deaths due to cash shortages.He also referenced a sequence inspired by the 2023 killing of Atiq Ahmed, the gangster-turned-politician shot dead on live television while in police custody, noting that the film presents the incident differently from how it unfolded in reality.Rathee further pointed out that the ISI character played by Arjun Rampal is based on a real individual who died in 2011.Story continues below this ad“This is where Aditya Dhar’s so-called ‘attention to detail’ completely falls apart. The villain had to be kept alive to fulfill the client’s brief and build the narrative of the product being sold,” he said.Rathee also points to what he described as notable omissions, moments from recent political history that do not appear in the narrative. He mentions PM Modi’s surprise visit to Pakistan on December 25, 2015, the first by an Indian Prime Minister in over a decade, during which Modi met Nawaz Sharif at his home for a 90-minute meeting and meal.“This is not shown in the film because it goes against the narrative being sold,” Rathee added.Reinterpretation of recent eventsRathee argues that many events referenced in the film are not distant or unverifiable history, they are part of recent, living public memory. He said that reinterpretations of such events can materially shape how audiences process their own recollections of reality.Story continues below this ad“You saw the ATM lines… And now the film tells you what you saw wasn’t real,” he said.Rathee calls it ‘gaslighting’Rathee described the film’s approach as “gaslighting.”“When this kind of gaslighting happens on a massive scale… it stops being just a film. It becomes a weapon,” he said.He concluded by calling Dhurandhar 2 “peak advertising” rather than “peak cinema”.Story continues below this adDhruv Rathee had earlier criticised the film on X, writing, “I called Aditya Dhar a BJP propagandist 3 months ago. Now everyone will see it. It was subtle in the previous film, but he went so blatant this time in overconfidence. Remember how I said, well-made propaganda is more dangerous? Ab toh well-made bhi nahi raha. Lol.”Dhurandhar 2 box office collectionMeanwhile, Ranveer starrer has collected Rs 805.32 crore gross in India, with a domestic net of Rs 674.17 crore. It’s worldwide total is Rs 1,067.24 crore, making it one of the biggest blockbusters in recent years.This article provides an editorial overview of public commentary and film criticism regarding a cinematic release. The views and analyses presented are those of the individual commentator and do not constitute factual reporting or legal verification of the events depicted. Readers are encouraged to maintain independent judgment when distinguishing between dramatised entertainment and documented historical facts.