Cinema does not write policy — but it often popularises the policy mood. Dhurandhar, as described in the critique of “government-embedded filmmaking”, is not just an espionage drama; it mirrors a larger transformation in how India imagines security, adversaries, and the state’s rightful posture. Over two decades, India’s strategic diplomacy has travelled from an era where restraint and engagement were considered prudent statecraft, to an era where deterrence, disruption and a hard-edged narrative are seen as necessary to protect national interest. The tension is real: restraint can look like weakness, and resolve can slide into permanent hostility. India’s challenge is to convert resolve into stability — not into a self-sustaining cycle of escalation.
What’s in the news
A public debate has emerged around Dhurandhar — its portrayal of Pakistan, its blending of real terror imagery with fiction, and the argument that it reproduces the ideological narrative of the present political moment while appearing technically “realistic”. The film’s reception also reflects today’s wider cultural climate: dissenters being trolled, patriotism framed as “correction”, and muscular national-security language treated as common sense rather than political choice.
Background and context
India’s diplomacy has never been one single doctrine. It has always been a blend of:
-
strategic autonomy (freedom to choose partners issue-wise),
-
deterrence (capacity to impose costs on threats),
-
engagement (keeping doors open for de-escalation),
-
and narrative management (domestic legitimacy and external credibility).
What changed across political eras is the order of priorities and the tone.
Congress-led governments — especially during coalition phases — often projected caution and a preference for dialogue, partly from ideological instinct, partly from the arithmetic of consensus politics, and partly from the belief that India’s rise needed a calm neighbourhood and a stable international image. The current government has leaned into a sharper security posture — visible and declaratory — arguing that ambiguity and restraint did not deter threats and that India must signal strength, impose costs, and shape regional psychology.
Two approaches, two logics
1) Congress-era strategic diplomacy: restraint with engagement
Core logic: India grows faster when crises are contained; legitimacy comes from being a responsible power; escalation risks are existential in a nuclearised theatre.
Typical instruments:
-
sustained dialogue frameworks even amid distrust,
-
international pressure-building and diplomatic isolation after terror events,
-
emphasis on institutions, treaties, and global reassurance,
-
careful use of force, often below the threshold of visible cross-border action.
Strengths:
-
preserved India’s “responsible power” image, especially with Western capitals and multilateral forums,
-
reduced the probability of uncontrolled military spirals,
-
enabled long-horizon strategic moves (trade, technology, nuclear and economic partnerships) that require predictable external perceptions.
Weaknesses:
-
restraint was frequently interpreted by adversaries as low cost of provocation,
-
domestic confidence took a hit after major attacks when punitive response seemed absent,
-
dialogue without credible deterrence risks becoming ritual — useful for optics, weak for outcomes.
2) Current government’s strategic diplomacy: deterrence with narrative clarity
Core logic: deterrence requires visible intent; adversaries exploit ambiguity; India must shape escalation ladders rather than remain trapped by them.
Typical instruments:
-
public signalling of punitive capacity and willingness to act,
-
faster crisis response with a heavier emphasis on kinetic options,
-
tighter integration of domestic narrative with external posture (“New India” messaging),
-
expanding security partnerships, especially in the Indo-Pacific, while retaining multi-alignment.
Strengths:
-
restored domestic confidence that the state will respond decisively,
-
increased uncertainty for adversaries planning sub-conventional attacks,
-
made India’s strategic posture more legible to partners looking for a capable stabiliser.
Weaknesses:
-
narrative maximalism can reduce diplomatic room for calibrated de-escalation,
-
the line between deterrence and permanent hostility can blur, making off-ramps politically costly,
-
hard messaging that plays well domestically can complicate coalition-building abroad, where partners prize predictability over rhetoric.
How the world reads these two Indias
International actors do not judge India by slogans; they judge by predictability, capacity, and crisis management.
What many partners appreciate
-
Credible capability: A stronger deterrence posture signals that India can protect its interests and contribute to regional stability.
-
Multi-alignment with purpose: India engaging the West, Gulf, Russia, and Asia simultaneously is seen as pragmatic power behaviour.
-
Indo-Pacific positioning: A rules-based Indo-Pacific stance aligns with many partners’ interests, especially in maritime security and supply chains.
What partners quietly worry about
-
Escalation traps: Any India–Pakistan crisis has regional and global spillovers — markets, aviation routes, diaspora safety, and nuclear anxiety.
-
Narrative polarisation: When national-security discourse becomes culturally absolutist, foreign capitals worry about reduced diplomatic flexibility.
-
Neighbourhood sensitivities: Smaller neighbours often want reassurance that India’s assertiveness will be stabilising, not coercive.
In short, the world welcomes India’s strength, but rewards India’s restraint when it is clearly a choice of confidence, not compulsion.
Why it matters
1) Deterrence without diplomacy becomes a treadmill
Punitive capacity may impose costs, but without parallel diplomatic architecture, crises repeat. Deterrence must create space for stability, not only retaliation.
2) Diplomacy without deterrence becomes a permission structure
Engagement is valuable, but if adversaries see no consequences, dialogue risks becoming a cover under which provocations continue.
3) Narrative is now a strategic domain
Films, social media storms, and public discourse increasingly shape what governments can do. When a society is trained to interpret de-escalation as surrender, leaders lose room to manage crises wisely. Equally, when dissent is crushed as “anti-national”, policy errors go uncorrected.
4) India’s rise requires both steel and steadiness
India’s long-term goals — technology leadership, investment inflows, energy security, diaspora safety, and strategic partnerships — demand an image of strength and reliability. The world invests in countries that can deter threats without lurching into chronic instability.
Implications of both models
If India leans only into the Congress-era template
-
stability improves in the short term, but deterrence credibility may weaken,
-
domestic patience for “process diplomacy” may erode after shocks,
-
adversaries may return to low-cost provocations.
If India leans only into the current muscular template
-
deterrence may strengthen, but crisis frequency could rise,
-
partners may hedge if they fear unpredictable escalation cycles,
-
domestic polarisation can spill into external policy, narrowing options.
The mature lesson: India must not choose between dialogue and deterrence — it must sequence them intelligently.
How India can balance both
1) Treat deterrence as capability, not theatre
A quiet, credible deterrence posture is often more stabilising than constant rhetorical escalation. Strength need not always be loud.
2) Build “off-ramps” into every hard posture
For every punitive signal, India also needs a clear de-escalation channel — not as weakness, but as strategic control. The best crises are the ones you end on your terms.
3) Separate domestic mobilisation from external messaging
Domestic political narratives are inevitable, but India’s external posture must remain statesmanlike and predictable. Partners cooperate more easily with a calm power than with a perpetually outraged one.
4) Invest in institutional diplomacy, not only leader diplomacy
Leader-level breakthroughs matter, but enduring stability comes from institutions: backchannels, military hotlines, intelligence coordination protocols, and crisis communication routines.
5) Expand the idea of national security beyond the border
A modern security doctrine includes semiconductor resilience, cyber security, energy corridors, maritime stability, and economic safeguards. A state that frames every security issue solely through the enemy lens loses opportunities to strengthen itself structurally.
6) Keep pluralism as strategic strength
A confident India can tolerate debate. Suppressing dissent may create short-term unity, but it weakens long-term policy quality. Democracies win strategically when they can correct themselves.
Conclusion
Dhurandhar may be fiction, but the argument around it is real: India’s national-security narrative is changing, and with it, India’s diplomacy. Congress-era restraint offered stability but often lacked punitive credibility; the current government’s resolve strengthens deterrence but risks narrowing diplomatic space if narrative hardens into permanent hostility. The most forward-looking India will be the one that carries both: deterrence strong enough to prevent provocation, and diplomacy wise enough to prevent escalation. That balance — steel with steadiness — is how rising powers mature.
Source credits (no links): The Hindu (film critique and national-security narrative debate); Ministry of External Affairs official briefings on key security events; Government of Australia overview on Quad; ORF research on the Quad’s evolution; academic and policy literature on India–Pakistan dialogue frameworks.
