What Is Wrong With Propaganda? – Javed Akhtar on Dhurandhars Success – Image for illustrative purposes only (Image credits: Pixabay)
Amid growing debates over films accused of pushing agendas, veteran lyricist and screenwriter Javed Akhtar offered a pointed rebuttal. Speaking at a jewellery brand event where he accepted a special award, Akhtar praised recent releases like Dhurandhar and questioned why certain stories draw the “propaganda” tag. His remarks highlight tensions in Indian cinema between creative expression and audience expectations.
Spotlight on Dhurandhar’s Appeal
Akhtar made clear his admiration for Dhurandhar, calling it an excellent film during his interaction with reporters. He noted a preference for the first installment over the second, emphasizing the project’s strong storytelling. This endorsement comes as the movie garners both acclaim and backlash in public discourse.
The conversation unfolded against a backdrop of polarized reactions to films with overt messages. Akhtar’s support underscores a divide: some viewers celebrate bold narratives, while others dismiss them outright. His comments invite reflection on what truly defines cinematic quality.
Every Story Carries a Viewpoint
Akhtar challenged the selective use of “propaganda” as a pejorative term. He argued that all art inherently reflects its creator’s perspective, making neutrality impossible. “Every story takes some stand, but does it become propaganda because the narrative isn’t suited to a section of the audience?” he asked reporters.
Artists, in his view, hold a basic right to share their ideas. Labeling specific films as propaganda overlooks this freedom, he contended. “Everyone has the right to propagate his ideas. What is wrong with propaganda films? The task of every filmmaker is to present the truth,” Akhtar stated. Even fairy tales embed ideologies, he added, proving no narrative escapes bias.
Cinema Evolves with Society
Films serve as mirrors to their times, Akhtar explained, adapting as cultural norms shift. He dismissed the idea of remaking classics like Deewar today, citing changed moralities and aspirations. Society’s transformation demands fresh content, not recycled formulas.
“Films are like mirrors. With the passage of time, morality changes, and aspirations change. As society changes, content changes,” he remarked. This philosophy positions cinema as a dynamic force, responsive to real-world evolution. Akhtar’s insight reveals why outdated stories lose relevance over decades.
What matters now: Akhtar’s defense reframes debates around “propaganda” as essential to artistic liberty, urging viewers to engage narratives on merit rather than preconceptions.
A Vision for Inclusive Storytelling
Looking ahead, Akhtar expressed ambition to craft a mainstream film bridging class and mass audiences. Such a project would blend broad appeal with depth, he suggested. His goal reflects a longing for cinema that unites rather than divides.
These aspirations align with his broader critique of rigid categorizations. By advocating for truth-telling without apology, Akhtar reinforces cinema’s role in societal dialogue. His perspective endures as a call for openness in an era of heated film critiques.
Akhtar’s words offer a steady reminder: art thrives when creators propagate ideas freely, and audiences meet them with discernment. As Indian cinema navigates these waters, his measured stance points toward richer, more honest narratives.
