Vikas Divyakirti, ex-IPS and founder of Drishti IAS, has shared a nuanced view of the conversation taking place around it. Aditya DharDhurandhar franchise, starring Ranveer Singhaddressing questions of propaganda, creative freedom and the social impact of cinema.In a recent interview with Teen Taal, when asked if the film’s exaggerated and seductive use of facts and media reports amounts to propaganda — like in Dhurandhar or Rang De Basanti — Divyakirti replied, “I have no problem with that.”
“There is creative freedom, but consequences matter”
While advocating for cinematic freedom, Divyakirti emphasized that filmmakers cannot ignore the impact of their work.“I see cinema as cinema, but I also appreciate its social impact,” he explained. “If a film shows a method of committing a crime and people start copying it, that’s a concern. You can’t say it’s creative freedom and walk away.”He clarified that he does not defend strict control. “I’m not saying that everything should be limited, but literature and cinema have a responsibility. That can’t be ignored.”
“Political attitude is the director’s choice”
Whether films should avoid political messages or not, Divyakirti made it clear that it is ultimately up to the filmmaker.“If a film benefits a political party, so be it. Others are free to make their own films. As long as the censorship guidelines are followed, what’s the problem?” he said
History vs fiction
Delving into the debate over historical accuracy, Divyakirti hit upon a famous idea attributed to Munshi Premchand.“In history, names, dates and events are correct – everything else may not be. In literature, names, dates and events may be false – but the essence is true,” he said.He added, “If you expect a movie to follow history exactly, then it’s no longer fiction. Of course, completely distorting history is a concern, but mixing imagination with real events is part of storytelling.”
“India vs Pakistan is fine, but internal division is not”
Regarding the film’s nationalist undertones, Divyakirti said she has no problem with narratives criticizing Pakistan.“If they criticize Pakistan, that’s fine. If they make films criticizing India, that’s fine too. What’s the problem?” he statedHowever, he expressed a more sensitive concern: how audiences interpret such narratives.“Sometimes, viewers represent India vs Pakistan as Hindu vs Muslim in their minds. That’s where the real problem starts,” he said.
“The real question is what emotion the filmmaker creates”
Referring to Dr. Nagendra’s literary theory, Divyakirti explained how cinema affects the audience at a deeper level.“What ultimately reaches the audience is the emotional intent of the creator. If a filmmaker wants to create love for India and hatred for Pakistan, he can. But if that subtly turns into hatred towards a community, that is also possible.’Summarizing his position, Divyakirti emphasized that the problem is not creative freedom, but its consequences.“Using history with imagination is fine. There is no problem. But the result should not create problems within the country,” he said.“External conflict is one thing, but internal damage is the real concern.”
