When cinema surrenders: How films became the new political campaigns

Indian cinema has long been a mirror reflecting the nation's diverse stories, struggles, and triumphs. From the socially conscious narratives of the 1970s to the hard-hitting dramas of contemporary times, filmmakers have often used the medium to challenge societal norms and provoke thought. However, a concerning trend has emerged in recent years: mainstream cinema increasingly aligning with the narratives of the ruling government, sometimes at the expense of authenticity and truth. 

This shift is not merely coincidental. Films are powerful tools of influence, capable of shaping public perception and reinforcing political ideologies. By aligning with the ruling establishment's viewpoints, filmmakers can secure funding, ensure wider distribution, and gain favorable publicity. In a country where politics and popular culture are deeply intertwined, these films often act as instruments for consolidating vote banks and shaping electoral outcomes. 

• From Art to Allegiance: Cinema Bowing to Power 

Many recent films illustrate this transformation. Characters are glorified beyond realistic limits, events are selectively portrayed, and historical figures are reimagined to fit a convenient narrative. The nuance and complexity of real events are often sacrificed to deliver a story that flatters authority rather than examines it critically. For instance, films with exaggerated patriotic themes or idealized depictions of governance sometimes present a one-sided view of history or contemporary politics. What was once a medium for questioning and critique has, in some cases, become a tool for approval-seeking—a reflection of cinema bending to political allegiances rather than artistic integrity. 

This is not limited to subtle symbolism or hero worship. The choice of subjects, dialogues, and visual messaging increasingly mirrors government rhetoric. Filmmakers, producers, and studios may find it strategically beneficial to align with the ruling party's narratives, ensuring smoother clearances, wider distribution, and favorable publicity. The subtext is clear: align with power, and your film's success is more likely. 

• How Cinema Builds Narratives and Shapes Minds 

Cinema is not just entertainment—it is emotional storytelling at its most potent. Through visuals, music, and character arcs, films create immersive experiences that bypass rational analysis and speak directly to human emotion. When a film repeatedly portrays a particular ideology, leader, or version of history in a glorified way, it subconsciously normalizes that perception among audiences. 

Unlike speeches or political advertisements, films don’t preach overtly—they persuade subtly. A patriotic song, a hero’s grand speech, or a visual of a flag fluttering behind a protagonist can evoke powerful feelings of pride and belonging. Over time, these images build associations in the public mind—linking certain beliefs with nationalism, or certain communities with villainy. This emotional storytelling becomes a tool of mass narrative-building. 

When cinema constantly reinforces the same version of events or morality, it shapes collective memory. It blurs the line between history and fiction, replacing complexity with simplified good-versus-evil stories. That’s why film narratives can outlive facts—because they embed themselves not in data, but in emotion. 

• The Vote Bank Effect: Cinema as a Political Tool 

In India, cinema wields immense influence. A film can reach millions in a matter of days, shaping public opinion and reinforcing cultural and political ideologies. This influence has not gone unnoticed. By embedding state-favored narratives in films, filmmakers indirectly participate in voter persuasion, sometimes even influencing electoral behavior. 

This trend is subtle but strategic. By promoting stories that glorify government policies, leaders, or ideologies, films can shape perceptions in ways that traditional political campaigns might struggle to achieve. Films that glorify patriotism, nationalism, or government initiatives are often celebrated, widely shared, and discussed, creating a cultural environment conducive to political consolidation. In essence, cinema becomes a soft power tool, carefully designed to appeal to popular sentiments while reinforcing political loyalty among audiences. 

• The Cost of Convenience: Truth Takes a Backseat 

The consequences of this trend are significant. Cinema, once a platform for critical engagement, is increasingly at risk of becoming a conveyor belt for curated narratives. When authenticity and investigative storytelling take a backseat to political convenience, audiences lose access to nuanced perspectives and hard truths. Dissenting voices and marginalized stories are overshadowed, replaced by sanitized, flattering depictions of authority. 

This shift also risks eroding public trust in cinema as a medium of cultural reflection. Audiences may begin to sense that films are no longer impartial storytellers but carefully curated messages, reducing their role as catalysts for dialogue and social critique. The very essence of artistic freedom—the courage to question, to critique, to disturb—is under threat when cinema prioritizes alignment with power over integrity. 

• Independent Cinema: The Last Bastion of Authenticity 

Thankfully, not all of Indian cinema has succumbed to this trend. Independent filmmakers, regional productions, and socially conscious projects continue to challenge the status quo. Films that tackle caste inequalities, gender discrimination, environmental crises, and political corruption remind audiences that cinema can still be fearless. 

These filmmakers often operate under challenging circumstances—limited budgets, smaller distribution networks, and political pressures—but they preserve cinema's original mission: to provoke thought, to question authority, and to tell untold stories. Their resilience highlights a crucial truth: Indian cinema's power lies not in compliance, but in its ability to reflect society honestly and courageously. 

The Taj Story: Between Art and Agenda The Critics’ View:

Distortion Disguised as Discovery On the other hand, supporters defend the film as an exercise in creative and academic freedom. They argue that questioning established historical narratives should not be taboo, and that art must have the liberty to explore alternate interpretations. According to this viewpoint, The Taj Story invites debate and encourages the audience to “revisit” history rather than passively accept what’s written. 

The Taj Story thus stands as a reflection of the larger debate engulfing Indian cinema today: is film a medium for truth, or a tool for influence? While critics see manipulation, others see expression. What cannot be denied is that such films—whether intentional or not—become part of a broader effort to define how the public perceives India’s past and present. 

A Mirror to the Moment 

Actor Paresh Rawal himself clarified that the film does not aim to promote any religious narrative, insisting it’s meant to “present a historical perspective.” For its supporters, the backlash represents intolerance toward artistic experimentation and open discourse. 

The Supporters’ View: A Right to Re-examine History 

Critics believe The Taj Story represents a broader pattern of using cinema to reframe historical narratives in alignment with political ideologies. Historians warn that presenting myths as facts can erode public understanding of history. Some also argue that such films exploit religious sentiments for commercial and political gain. To them, The Taj Story risks transforming cinema into a vessel for division rather than dialogue. 

When the film’s motion poster was released, it sparked immediate backlash. Critics accused the filmmakers of promoting false history and communal polarization under the pretext of “rediscovering truth.” Many argued that such portrayals blur the line between historical fact and political storytelling, potentially deepening social divides. 

A recent example that captures this tension is The Taj Story, starring veteran actor Paresh Rawal. The film’s premise revolves around the disputed theory that the Taj Mahal was once a temple named Tejo Mahalaya—a claim dismissed by most historians and the Archaeological Survey of India. 

Indian cinema now finds itself at a pivotal juncture. It can either become a polished instrument of propaganda or reclaim its role as a platform for authentic storytelling, dissent, and reflection. The responsibility is shared—filmmakers must prioritize truth and integrity over convenience; audiences must critically engage with content; critics and institutions must continue to hold creators accountable. 

Cinema thrives when it embraces complexity, reflects reality, and provokes discussion. It falters when it reduces itself to a vehicle for flattery and political convenience. As viewers, as citizens, and as participants in a democracy, it is our responsibility to demand more—more honesty, more courage, and more stories that challenge us rather than comfort us. Only then can Indian cinema remain the vibrant, transformative force it was always meant to be. 

• The writer SHAHID AHMED HAKLA POONCHI is a published writer in daily leading newspapers of J&K and an Independent Researcher. He can be contacted at shahidhakla360@gmail.com