The so-called ‘political dramas’ of Bollywood are hardly criticisms; more often than not, they are
mere calculated expressions of ideological sameness, re-shaping the past, hallowing the
present politicians, and consolidating a single national narrative. The erstwhile sacred
separation between art and state power has fizzled out, leaving the silver screen a very
profitable but also very sensitive vehicle of the political establishment. The pressure on
filmmakers who dissent is such that they are met with bans, protests, and censorship, while
those who conform are rewarded with cinematic immunity.
The Era of Glorification: Hagiographies as Propaganda
The most conspicuous phenomenon relates to the surge in the number of political biopics that
work as hagiographic propaganda rather than as history. The movies inspired by the lives of the
most prominent and often the presently active political figures are made public with utmost
strategic timing close to elections, turning the boundary between election campaign material
and the cinema into a blurred one. To name a few:
* The Accidental Prime Minister: The movie, adapted from the autobiography of Dr. Manmohan
Singh’s tenure as former Prime Minister, was from the start plagued with controversy because of
its largely one-sided portrayal of the internal party dynamics, which, in response to the trailer
release, triggered political uproars and accusations of character assassination.
* Thackeray & Thalaivii: These movies about the local giants of Maharashtra, like Balasaheb
Thackeray and J. Jayalalithaa, depict the development of regional identity politics that is highly
divisive. Though they got applauded for the actors’ performances, the main characters’ fiery
charisma and unyielding determination were often the center of their stories, thus subtly bringing
the controversial political ways to the forefront of the general public.
* PM Narendra Modi: The film was a propaganda piece for the Prime Minister in office,
according to most of the critics, who pointed out that the production compromised historical
accuracy and objectivity in favor of political glorification.
The Censor’s Axe: Punishing Dissent and Historical Truths
The political-cinema nexus only reveals its full power through censorship and violence. The
films tackling national traumas or controversial political measures are censored either through
bans, having them stuck for years, or being released only after undergoing severe cuts.
* Aandhi (1975): This film was prohibited absolutely under the Emergency period as the heroine,
played by Suchitra Sen, had a lot in common with then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. The ban
was an intimidating performance of the state’s authority to suppress creative interpretation.
* Madras Cafe (2013): The film about political espionage during the Sri Lankan Civil War got a
lot of criticism and a boycott from Tamil Nadu. The protestors went as far as to say the film was
“anti-Tamil” and that it falsified the events of the assassination of a former Prime Minister.
* Black Friday & Firaaq: The stories about the 1993 Mumbai bombings and the 2002 Gujarat
riots dealt with the sensitive post-independence era, were shown despite harsh conditions or
only after a long hold-up, thus telling the tale of the never-ending battles between the
filmmakers and regulatory authorities over their work that challenges the dominant,
state-sanctioned version of history.
The Weaponization of Narrative: Ideological Conformity
In the present circumstances, filmmakers cannot tell a story in Bollywood that goes against a
single, often exclusionary, concept of national identity. Such ideological enforcement shows up
in two forms:
1. Historical Revisionism: The creators of historical epics of modern times are more and more
frequently indicted of advancing a one-sided, majority view of history that tremendously
simplifies historical conflicts into good versus evil narratives that discredit and glorify particular
groups at the same time.
2. External Censorship: Apart from the Central Board of Film Certification, **fringe political
groups and organizations** have practically been given a censorship veto. The danger of
violence, as with the protests and bans experienced by films like *Padmaavat* and
*Aarakshan*, compels producers to either censor their projects themselves or face the
consequences of financial loss and physical harm, showing that the ‘freedom of expression’
mentioned in the Constitution is quite often subordinate to political convenience.
Bollywood has thus become a vehicle for the manifestation of political reality and no longer a
mirror of India’s democratic upheaval, where artistic liberty is sacrificed on the altar of power.