The Hindi film industry, once celebrated for its willingness to interrogate power, question social hierarchies, and engage with uncomfortable truths, now appears increasingly aligned with the ideological currents of the ruling regime. This alignment is not always overt; at times, it operates subtly, through narrative framing, character construction, and selective storytelling. At other times, it is unmistakably explicit, with films that directly echo and amplify political rhetoric. Together, these trends suggest a cinematic ecosystem that is no longer merely reflecting society but actively participating in shaping a particular political narrative.The latest example of this is Dhurandhar, whose second part Dhurandhar: The Revenge was released earlier in March. Sikh Identity and Selective RepresentationDhurandhar 2 feels like every Hindutva supporter's fantasy captured on screen by Aditya Dhar. It portrays Muslims as barbaric and Sikhs as drug addicts. Sikh rebel groups are shown as being in cahoots with the ISI in transporting drugs.Even though the main protagonist played by Ranveer Singh is also a Sikh, he is acceptable only because he aligns with their version of nationalism. In one instance, the protagonist’s old friend comes to Karachi with two other turbaned Sikhs involved in drug transport from Pakistan. The friend, Pinda, tells the protagonist Hamza/Jaskirat that he will take him to Punjab “when we get freedom”, directly linking the separatist movement with drugs and an ISI-led conspiracy.Sikhs are accepted only when they fight for the nation. The moment they demand rights, they are labelled separatists, accused of being in cahoots with the ISI, and delegitimised.During the farmers’ protest, a similar narrative was pushed by BJP-aligned media organisations - that these were "Khalistanis" and part of an international conspiracy to defame the government.Meanwhile, Punjab is still waiting for the release of a film on one of its most prominent human rights defenders, Bhai Jaswant Singh Khalra: Punjab 95, which has been stuck with the CBFC for the past three years. A CBFC member reportedly told the film's director Honey Trehan—“itna sach kaun dikhaata hai”. This is not a casual remark. It reveals who controls cinema, and with cinema, the narrative.Diljit Dosanjh, who plays Khalra, is celebrated as a hero in Border 2, where he plays a patriotic role against Pakistan. But the same Diljit in Punjab 95 faces censorship—because that story goes against the state's narrative.The biopic on Jaswant Singh Khalra is being held up due to cuts by the CBFC.The construction of the protagonist in Dhurandhar further illustrates how identity is strategically deployed. The main character, Jaskirat Singh Rangi, played by Ranveer Singh, is given a distinctly Sikh name. However, his Sikh identity is largely superficial within the narrative. He is shown smoking and drinking, actions that are generally discouraged within Sikh religious practice. When Major Iqbal played by Arjun Rampal says let's fund a Punjab rebel group, it just portrays Punjab as a disturbed region, though the ground reality is very different in Punjab in the period referred to in the film.This selective use of identity is significant. By assigning the character a Sikh name while stripping away the substantive elements of Sikh identity, the film perpetuates a particular trope: that “real” Sikhs are defined primarily by their nationalism and their willingness to sacrifice for the country. This aligns with a broader ideological project that seeks to incorporate Sikh identity into a homogenised national framework, rather than acknowledging its distinct religious and cultural foundations.Then there are films like Animal, Uri, and Chhava, which do not openly declare ideological allegiance but reinforce similar ideas through their storytelling. These films operate more insidiously, embedding political messaging within character arcs and emotional narratives. Animal, for instance, offers a telling example. Ranbir Kapoor’s character is depicted as having mixed Hindu-Sikh heritage, a detail that may appear incidental but carries deeper ideological implications. The character is shown smoking, participating in Hindu rituals such as havan, and even consuming gau-mutr. These choices are not merely about character development; they subtly gesture toward a broader project of cultural assimilation, one that aligns with the idea of subsuming Sikh identity within a larger Hindu framework.Ranbir Kapoor in a still from Animal.Coming back to Dhurandhar, when a character inspired by Ajit Doval—Ajay Sanyal—meets Hamza/Jaskirat who has been wronged by a local MLA, he recites Gurbani after smoking a cigarette. For many Sikhs, this is not just inappropriate—it borders on sacrilege, as it disrespects both Gurbani and Sikh maryada. Not surprisingly, a case has been filed against the makers of the film for hurting religious sentiments. The Bani he recites is by Bhagat Kabir:ਸੂਰਾ ਸੋ ਪਹਿਚਾਨੀਐ ਜੁ ਲਰੈ ਦੀਨ ਕੇ ਹੇਤ ॥ He alone is known as a true warrior who fights for the oppressed and for righteousness.ਪੁਰਜਾ ਪੁਰਜਾ ਕਟਿ ਮਰੈ ਕਬਹੂ ਨ ਛਾਡੈ ਖੇਤੁ ॥੨॥੨॥ Even if he is cut into pieces, he never abandons the field of battle.But the context in which this Gurbani is used becomes deeply problematic. At a time when the Modi government is accused of targeting people on the basis of religion, and when attacks on minorities are increasingly reported, invoking Gurbani to frame a fight for the nation as a religious duty distorts its meaning. It subtly suggests that a “true Sikh” is one who fights external enemies like Pakistan, while those who raise dissent within the country are labelled as Khalistanis or rebels. This contradiction exposes a paradox in Aditya Dhar’s cinematic narrative—where faith is selectively invoked to serve nationalism, while dissent is delegitimised.If Aditya Dhar really wanted to understand Punjab and Sikhs, he could have spoken to his father-in-law, Mukesh Gautam—a Punjabi director who has created several documentaries on Punjab’s cultural and spiritual figures like Sheikh Farid and Waris Shah. His work, movie Baghee di Dhee inspired by the Ghadar movement, has even won a National Award.'Animal': Why the Film Needed to Have a 'Muslim Villain'Criminalising Dissent, 'Otherising' MinoritiesDhurandhar criminalises dissent against the Modi government by linking it to Pakistan and the ISI. In one scene, Major Iqbal is confronted by his father: “Tumne itna paisa America se bhejwaya—NGOs, socialists, universities ke through. Kya hua? Inki sarkar toh aa gayi.”The implication is that Pakistan wanted a Congress government to come to power, but instead Modi has come, and now they are afraid of the “chaiwala". This echoes the right-wing narrative that international NGOs and external forces are working to remove the Modi government—thereby framing dissent not as democratic expression, but as part of a larger conspiracy. This mirrors real-life justifications for arrests of academics, human rights defenders, and critics of government policies.Aditya Dhar is not a graduate of WhatsApp University—he is its top scholar, with distinction. He mixes up fiction with real-life incidents to push a particular ideological narrative.Simultaneously, it constructs Muslims as the “other” shown as evil and barbaric. In one scene, Major Iqbal tells Hamza that every Muslim has to prove faithfulness to his religion, regardless of whether he is from India or Pakistan, depicting Indian Muslims as being tied to Pakistan because of their faith. These are the accusations that Indian Muslims have to face on a daily basis that they are somehow more loyal to Pakistan.Dhurandhar vilifies minorities to a dangerous level. It creates the impression that anyone who is against the current regime or speaks out against the Prime Minister is somehow a terrorist.How 'Dhurandhar 2' Gaslights its Own ProtagonistPro-Govt PropagandaAditya Dhar’s cinema is not patriotic—it is Modiocratic. Its idea of patriotism, nationalism, and even faith seems to revolve entirely around the Modi government. Every character ends up speaking what the government wants people to believe—about Muslims, Sikhs, Naxals, and even academics.Ultimately, the issue goes beyond individual films or filmmakers. It concerns the wider environment in which they operate. As long as dissent is seen negatively and alternative stories are pushed aside, the room for critical cinema will remain limited. In this context, the stories that are told and those that are not become deeply political acts in themselves. This is not cinema, it is just the Bollywood version of Rwanda Radio. (Nishtha Sood holds a degree in Politics and International Relations from SOAS, London, and writes on terrorism laws in India, linguistic movements, and issues of identity. Jagpreet Singh is an activist and social worker based in Chandigarh, known for his work on the ground and his active involvement in Punjab’s protest movements. This is an opinion article and the views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for them.)Kerala Story 2's Real Insult Isn't to Muslims—It's to Hindu Women