Spoiler Alert: Key events being discussed from the film. So will be better to watch it first and then come here.
Note: Did not think of writing this post in English, but a few friends asked, so here it goes.
Dhurandhar-2: A Philosophical Analysis
Many people have written extensively about this film from various angles. It has earned both praise and harsh criticism - sometimes well-founded sometimes out of sheer hypocrisy. Memes about “peak detailing” have all made the rounds. Let me bring up one detail that hasn’t received much attention, and then move towards the central point of my take.
In one scene, a nurse comes to kill a terrorist — this role is played by Yami Gautam, wife of director Aditya Dhar. The character’s name, visible on her nameplate - but easy to miss, is Shazia Bano — which is also the name of the protagonist in Yami Gautam’s recently made beautiful film Haq. That’s not a coincidence.
The reason to mention this details is connected to the very philosophy of Dhurандhar, and we’ll get there.
Part 1 as Foundation
Dhurандhar-1 essentially lays foundation — atmosphere-building. Without sufficient background on Pakistan’s various factions, their internal rivalries, the Baloch independence struggle, Part 2’s events would have made no sense at all.
The Philosophical Inheritance
Between 1999 and 2012, two film trilogies — The Matrix and The Dark Knight — presented extraordinarily complex narratives. The Matrix trilogy, across all three films, comments on the relationship between artificial intelligence, programs, and human beings. The action sequences are interspersed precisely to give the audience’s minds room to breathe — without them, the films simply wouldn’t have worked commercially. The Dark Knight (2008) places a fundamentally philosophical debate between the Joker and Batman at its center: Is man inherently good or evil? How does one corrupt collective behavior? Can someone be trapped into idealism and then made to fall from the grace through emotional assaults? The film exists to explore these questions.
Dhurандhar-1 isn’t that — not yet. The philosophical argument is still coming. It arrives in Part 2.
The Central Thesis
Islamist terrorism has a ideology. You may not agree with it — but that ideology produces hundreds of willing martyrs. There are well developed programs to manufacture such fighters. What is the answer to such an aggressive ideology?
बलिदान परमो धर्म!
(Sacrifice is the highest dharma!)
This is the the keystone of the architecture of Dhurандhar duology.
The upanishads have declared त्यागेनैव अमृतत्वमानशु: (Kaivalyopanishad): one will attain immortality only after sacrifices. The answer to a disastrous ideology of qurbani must be met with the view "balidan paramo dharma". The Islam-motivated gazis - fighters of Islam - will always be ready to give Kurbani - the shahadat. The word of Allah must be spread all over the world - is the motive to do this sacrifice. There is no "live and let live" policy here. To counter this bigotry sacrifices must be made by more tolerant people. The necessity of such sacrifices must be articulated again and again, in the language of each new generation. As Samarth Ramdas said — विवरलेचि विवरावे — what has been explained must be explained again. That is precisely what is being done here, in Dhurandhar-2.
In such a fight, that requires many sacrifices, and in spreading the message itself, one may fail; one may stumble. But one must keep fighting. As Ajay Sanyal tells Hamza, "...we are born men. We are meant to keep fighting. Never meant to leave the field. There may be no awards or medals, no glory to recognize this fight. Yet we must keep to it" — मर्द है इसीलिए लढना पडेगा —
It is precisely in such moments, one remembers the teaching of the Gita displayed so prominently at the beginning of the movie:
“कर्मण्येवाधिकारस्ते मा फलेषु कदाचन । मा कर्मफलहेतुर्भु: मा ते संगोऽस्त्वकर्मणि ॥”
Let go of the anxiety over outcomes — stay committed to the cause. Don't be result-minded, and you should not have attachment to inaction as well.
Dhurандhar-2 begins with this mantra and ends with balidan paramo dharma.
The Strategic Worldview in Between
Between these two manras lies a contemporary articulation of yugadharma — the duty of the age.
In his book The India Way, External Affairs Minister Jaishankar offers a sharp critique of the self-absorbed complacency of Awadh’s nawabs — who sat playing chess among themselves while the British were planting their feet on our chests. In his words: "…This default option of playing defence reflects a mindset that does not comprehend external events well, leave alone appreciate their implications” — and further — “Conducting international relations, while being agnostic about the character of the societies, has its limitations.” This is the current Foreign Minister’s message. And the eventual logical end of this message is: “ये नया भारत है। ये घरमें घुसकर मारेगा।” "This is new India. We will not sit self-absorbed. We will invade your homes and take you out if necessary"
If we remain absorbed in ourselves — purely defensive — the enemy will keep entering. Setting aside the fear of nuclear escalation, and instead choosing to: progressively strike where terrorists originate, burn the source when civilians are killed, send “unknown” operatives to strike at the root — this is the offensive posture possible only within government mandate.
The Decisive Confrontation
On the other hand, when Intolerant elements are propagating the ideology jihad and qurbani, the counter of balidan and deshseva - service to the nation must be propagated just as loudly. Some will call this “propaganda.” The film is unbothered it its refutation of such intolerant ideology.
During the climactic fight between Major Iqbal and Hamza, the jihadist program is spelled out explicitly. Iqbal’s declarations — “हम आपके सभी मर्दोंका खतना करेंगे! माल-ए-गनीमत यांचा आम्ही उपभोग घेऊ! नई दिल्ली को नया इस्लामाबाद बनाएंगे” (We will circumcise all men. We will take your women - as property of our enemies for our consumption. We will convert New Delhi into New Islamabad. — are stated without flinching. Even at death’s door, Iqbal remains defiant — hundreds like him will come, they will prevail — a vijigishu (conquest-driven) spirit to the very end.
Hamza responds just once — telling him what this new India is — and then returns home, his work done. Jameel Jamali and Ajay Sannyal then say: एक जंग जिती है, आगे भी जितेंगे! "We have won but latest war, we will keep winning upcoming ones" — they truly understand perfectly what Iqbal’s spirit means. The war is not over. It will not be.
But How Is This Different from Jihad?
Really, what is the difference between qurbani/ shahadat on one side and balidan, patriotism and sacrifice on the other side? The answer lies in the conversation between Hamza and Yalina. When explaining why they are eliminating all the terrorists, Hamza says: “हमारी लढाई आपसे नहीं है! इन जिहादीयोंसे लढना है!” (we are not in conflict with your citizens, we are at war with these self-proclaimed Gazis). We do not fight for material or other-worldly benefits for ourselves. We fight to protect our civilization. Not to attack other civilizations.
The post-Pulwama strikes on terrorist camps were accepted relatively smoothly by the world. To paraphrase Jaishankar — “we follow a rule-based order.” The world really understands this no-first-attack principled approach. It accepts who we are. That is the distinction being drawn.
In 1954, Animal Farm was released — funded by the CIA, as it happens — but it used a completely different imaginative universe to challenge Communist ideology. Its lines entered global vocabulary: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others…” The phrase “ये नया हिंदुस्तान है” has achieved something similar within India.
The Significance of Shazia Bano
This brings us back to Haq. That film’s approach is notably different — it does not frame things as “them versus us.” Instead, it portrays the internal turbulence within Muslim society, with barely a mention of the Hindu side. In the movie Haq, there are clearly deliberate, thoughtful decisions about where to engage and where to step back when portraying the ideological differences.
The name Shazia Bano appearing quietly on that nurse’s nameplate in Dhurандhar-2 feels like a nod — a bridge between two very different but complementary approaches to the same cultural conversation. Both films, in their own ways, are asking the audience to think.
The Artistic Coup
Aditya Dhar has attempted something genuinely novel: take documented events from the enemy side, lay out the jihadist philosophy plainly, show that India’s responses across episodes form a coherent strategic thread, present India’s own philosophical foundation — and then let the audience exercise their own moral judgment.
Enormous misinformation was peddled about India on both sides of border by pakistanis and their supporters in India — “we shot down a Rafale,” “releasing Abhinandan was mercy,” “the PM is compromised” — and so on. The film’s implicit response: if we’re going to deal in fiction, let us deal in fiction so grand, so sweeping, that it makes you question all your assumptions. Dawood, the ISI, terrorists may seem like formidable challenges — but what if we showed them being outmaneuvered? What if their Director General himself is a puppet? What if the “unknown” operatives can reach anyone, anywhere?
Savarkar, responding to a Pune gathering of orthodox Sanatanis who declared “had the Peshwai existed today, reformers would be thrown under elephants” — wrote a brilliant essay titled “Had the Peshwai Existed Today” — countering fiction with better fiction. Dhurандhar poses the same challenge: if you’re going to imagine something, imagine this — not some romanticized Ganga-Jamni tehzeeb.
In Conclusion
Old songs and new, familiar faces and fresh ones, reality and imagination — give us anything as the raw material, and we’ll turn it to gold. That is the ideal Aditya Dhar has demonstrated.
For that, he deserves our wholehearted congratulations.
Comments
Post a Comment