The Propaganda Files: Cinema's Long Tryst With Distorting Facts And Creating Villains

Nine months later, the 바카라�brave storytellers of The Kerala Story바카라� released a teaser, Bastar. A cop바카라�sitting in her office, wearing a bandana바카라�compares the Indian soldiers killed by the Pakistani Army (바카라�8,738바카라�) with Naxals (바카라�over 15,000바카라�). When they 바카라�massacred 76 jawans in Bastar바카라�, she thunders, a college celebrated those deaths: 바카라�JNU.바카라� She stands up. 바카라�Just think about this: a reputed university celebrates the martyrdom of our jawans. Where does such a mindset come from?바카라� These Naxals, she adds, are 바카라�conspiring to dismantle India바카라�. Their allies? 바카라�The left-liberals and pseudo intellectuals.바카라� She proposes a final solution: shooting the 바카라�vaampanthis바카라� (Leftists).

This genre바카라�s poster boy, The Kashmir Files, alternated between the militants in 1990 and the 바카라�ANU바카라� students in 2016, drawing implicit and explicit parallels between them. Made on a reported budget of less than Rs 20 crore, both The Kashmir Files and The Kerala Story earned more than Rs 300 crore. Monetary reward, though, is just the first benefit. Second, recognition, via National Awards (The Kashmir Files won the Best Feature Film on National Integration). Third, power (its director, Vivek Agnihotri, who got Y category security detail after the movie바카라�s release, is also a censor board member). Other rewards range from special permissions to politicians바카라� endorsements to tax cuts. Riding the wave of jingoistic films, Kangana Ranaut has transitioned to politics, representing the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections.

If the months before the 2019 elections saw a spate of films demonising the BJP바카라�s villains (The Accidental Prime Minister, Uri, The Tashkent Files), then this year is no different: Article 370, Bastar, JNU: Jahangir National University. 바카라�Is JNU a haven for anti-nationals?바카라� Its trailer asks. Followed by the college students shouting, 바카라�Bharat, tere tukde tukde honge [India, you바카라�ll be broken into pieces].바카라� Backed by Zee Studios, JNU reproduces the contentious line attributed to Kanhaiya Kumar leading to his arrest바카라�later debunked as doctored바카라�made popular, via countless reruns on TV, by channels such as Zee News. Amid scenes of students바카라� violence바카라�intercut by 바카라�Can one university break the country?바카라�바카라�the trailer throws this line: 바카라�It바카라�s easier to get a visa for Pakistan, not JNU.바카라�

Also Read: 'The Kerala Story' And The Growth Of Hindutva Propaganda Movies In India

Pakistan. Of course. Often featured as a convenient punching bag in Hindi films바카라�also doubling up as a fount for Islamophobia바카라�it has found several companions in recent years, as Bollywood filmmakers have sought villains justifying their Hindu heroes. So the Islamic rulers emerged, then the Congress, then Americans, then, at last, a villain not seen in Hindi cinema before: regular Indians intent on tearing the country from inside바카라�the liberals, the leftists, the intellectuals바카라�so much so that they바카라�re called 바카라�terrorists바카라�. Post-2014, Bollywood propaganda resembles a boomerang: It바카라�s travelled the world to reach home.

In May 2014, when the BJP came to power, propaganda cinema was 102 years old바카라�Indian cinema, 101. Its first fictional, feature-length example was Independenţa Românie (1912), based on the 1877 Romanian War of Independence. Soon, World War I바카라�the first conflict in the age of movie cameras바카라�altered this genre forever. In 1916, the British Empire and the French Third Republic fought the German Empire in the months-long Battle of the Somme. They all made (propaganda) films on it. The British movie showed 바카라�remarkable ideological constraint바카라�, wrote Nicholas Reeves in The Power of Film Propaganda: Myth or Reality (1999), presenting the events in a 바카라�measured, unemotional, and almost objective manner바카라�. The French piece resorted to propaganda-within-propaganda: a war movie made by a country that excluded its ally. The German film answered its British counterpart by claiming its own victory in the battle.

The United States, too, had produced war propaganda바카라�The Battle Cry of Peace (1915), The Kaiser: The Beast of Berlin (1918), Hearts of the World (1918)바카라�but its most famous exponent, like the above Bollywood films, targeted not the enemy outside but the 바카라�enemy inside바카라�. A racist drama glorifying the Ku Klux Klan, The Birth of a Nation (1915) was a moral failure but an artistic triumph, pioneering such techniques as close-ups, fadeouts, flashbacks, night-time photography, elaborate extras, musical score바카라�and a White House screening.

The next decade saw a new nation greasing its ambition, the USSR, whose founder, Vladimir Lenin, had realised the true powers of cinema. He found an ally in director Sergei Eisenstein whose masterful use of the Soviet Montage Theory transformed both propaganda and world cinema. He used it to stirring results in Battleship Potemkin (1925) and October (1928), dramas commissioned by the Soviet government championing Russian workers and revolution.

On June 30, 1928, a 30-year-old man watched Potemkin for the second time. 바카라�This film is fabulous, with splendid mass scenes,바카라� he wrote in his diary. 바카라�Technical and scenic shots have incisive penetrating power. And the striking slogans are so cleverly formulated that no one can object. That바카라�s what makes it dangerous. I wish we had one like that.바카라� He was Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi party바카라�s chief propagandist. Much to his satisfaction, Nazi cinema produced a rousing movie with 바카라�splendid mass scenes바카라�, Triumph of the Will (1935). A 바카라�documentary바카라� capturing the 1934 Nuremberg rally바카라�though Leni Riefenstahl staged several scenes바카라�it used wide frames, aerial shots, and deep focus, producing a majestic, arresting effect. 바카라�Riefenstahl was clearly very familiar with Eisenstein바카라�s films,바카라� wrote Alan Sennett in 바카라�Film Propaganda: Triumph of the Will as a Case Study바카라�, 바카라�and used rhythmic montage techniques as well as drawing from Potemkin directly.바카라� The Soviets and the Nazis: divided by ideology, united by cinema.

A few years later, World War II re-energised the genre again. Both the Nazis and the major Allied powers바카라�Great Britain, the United States, and the Soviet Union바카라�turned to cinema to mould public opinion, solicit support, and demonise opponents. In 1940, the British government established a propaganda wing, the Film Advisory Board (FAB), in India바카라�a country experiencing its own nationalist churn. The Indian movie press lambasted its head, Alexander Shaw. (바카라�An unknown man,바카라� said the Filmindia magazine, 바카라�even in England.바카라�) Shaw resigned in 10 months바카라�바카라�partly because he was not accepted by the Indian industry,바카라� according to film historian B D Garga바카라�and FAB folded soon.

Also Read: Past Of The Present Propaganda

Another propaganda unit replaced it in 1943, Information Films of India (IFI), which made documentaries on, besides the war, the country바카라�s history, communities, and cultures. Five years later, the Indian government created the Films Division (FD), retaining IFI바카라�s employees, aims, and mechanics. Like IFI, FD ordered theatre owners to screen its documentaries (making them pay the rent), provided little independence to directors, and produced films marked by omniscient voiceovers (a 바카라�voice of god바카라� style). The Indian government knew what its colonial masters did: that in a country wrecked by a low literacy rate (16% in 1947), cinema was their most reliable바카라�and formidable바카라�ally.

A state-controlled organisation with a long history can바카라�t be homogenous, as it changes with times and regimes. But its Nehruvian phase stands out for an obsessive and unified emphasis on nation building, where many movies used cunning methods and elisions to parrot the governmental agenda, exemplifying 바카라�benign propaganda바카라�. Such documentaries, many available on YouTube, had varied modes of communication. Their construction of an ideal citizen underscored the importance of selfless individuals aiding the government바카라�s plans. Good Citizen (1959) for example, set in a village, issued a series of instructions: pay tax, cast vote, get vaccinated. Citizens and Citizens (1962) preached what not to do; Say it with a Smile (1960) taught generosity; The Vital Force (1963) urged people to volunteer for a common cause.

Centred on regular Indians, these films barely featured their voices. Instead, the audiences heard the moralising voice of the state. 바카라�The viewers weren바카라�t invited to define development in postcolonial India,바카라� wrote Peter Sutoris in Visions of Development (2016). 바카라�It was the 바카라�experts바카라� who determined the shape of modernity and future directions of the country.바카라� Much like colonial documentaries, Tools for the Job (1943) and Community Manners (1943), FD movies drew a clear through line between conscientious citizens and national progress.

They turned theatres into classrooms and the state into a teacher. And like an unwavering disciplinarian, it warned and punished. Consider The Case of Mr Critic (1954), which lampoons a common man sceptical of the government. The movie not just takes constant digs at him바카라�by turning him into a ludicrous caricature바카라�but also props him up as a cautionary tale (Mr Critic바카라�s constant 바카라�pooh-poohing바카라� gets him fired) and a symbol of hope (he uses the same government scheme, which he had earlier rubbished, to find employment).

Like IFI, FD made films on Adivasis. Here바카라�s how New Lands for Old (1952) described them: 바카라�The land-hungry invaders spared no thought for tomorrow and hack[ed] high-land forests. In their greed and ignorance, they squandered nature바카라�s resources.바카라� Several FD films on Adivasis 바카라�perpetuated colonial-era criticisms of their ways of life,바카라� added Sutoris, 바카라�construing them as second-class to the modern middle-class lifestyle enjoyed by the filmmakers and [their target audience], urban cinema-goers.바카라�

If the state could scold, then only could it soothe바카라�like a headstrong father taming a truant. The Adivasis of Madhya Pradesh (1948), the FD catalogue stated, showed how the 바카라�government-sponsored cooperatives바카라� made 바카라�old, orthodox바카라� lifestyles 바카라�modern바카라� and 바카라�better바카라�. And if the FD documentaries didn바카라�t rebuke바카라�or reform바카라�the Adivasis, then it exoticised them. Both Our Original Inhabitants (1953) and Gaddis (1970) called their costumes and dances 바카라�picturesque바카라�. These films, too, seemed to have no interest in, wrote Sutoris, 바카라�hearing Adivasis바카라� own perspectives about their desire for change and definition of progress바카라�.

FD, on the other hand, trumpeted its own vision of progress, fetishising new muscular symbols, likening them to 바카라�temples of tomorrow바카라�: dams, canals, factories. India바카라�s march to industrial modernity in these movies, stated Sutoris, had a homogenising sweep바카라�that one model of economic planning could benefit all Indian villages. Like many FD films, they posited Indian elites as the sole architects of nation building and vanquished all scepticism about such progress (as seen in The Dreams of Maujiram (1966) and Shadow and Substance (1967), where poor Indian farmers were taught patience and shown development, much like Mr Critic).

These films even deceived audiences. They equated almost all economic prosperity to dams, neglected alternative methods to reach the same goals, and ignored the dams바카라� human and ecological costs바카라�in terms of both material (the displacement of villagers) and psychological (the loss of livelihoods, homes, identities). Some documentaries that addressed those concerns, wrote Sutoris, such as River of Hope (1953), painted an extremely optimistic바카라�and unrealistic바카라�picture of rehabilitated villagers. 바카라�These films show that in the postcolonial development regime, some colonial approaches to filmmaking not only survived Independence but indeed snowballed into cinematic representations of development whose fallaciousness surpassed even that of colonial-era documentaries.바카라�

In the early 바카라�50s, as the Cold War began to boil, propaganda cinema welcomed a new protagonist, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Deploying an unusual 바카라�ally바카라�, George Orwell, it dictated the film adaptations of both Animal Farm (1945) and 1984 (1949) by altering characters, scenes, and conclusions, making them anti-Soviet mouthpieces. A book that warned against 바카라�thought control바카라� had now been weaponised to perpetuate it. The Agency then 바카라�adapted바카라� Graham Greene바카라�s bestseller The Quiet American (1955), an anti-war novel that questions America바카라�s involvement in Vietnam, and made it바카라�what else but바카라�anti-communist. CIA바카라�s Hollywood agent, Carlton Alsop, ensured that American films beamed racial harmony (countering the Soviet message that America was racist). So, through his contacts with casting directors, wrote Frances Saunders in Cultural Cold War (1999), he regularly planted 바카라�well-dressed Negroes바카라� as extras but in a way that they didn바카라�t look 바카라�too conspicuous or deliberate바카라�. He also sanitised the climax of Arrowhead (1953), removing all references to the US government바카라�s terrible treatment of the Apache tribe.

The CIA바카라�s covert propaganda peaked in the 바카라�50s and early 바카라�60s, noted Tricia Jenkins in The CIA in Hollywood (2012), 바카라�but declined by the end of the decade바카라�. And by the early 바카라�90s, with the dissolution of the USSR and a series of intelligence failures and negative portrayals in Hollywood, it faced a threat to its very existence. So, in 1996, it established an entertainment liaison office in Hollywood and appointed Chase Brandon바카라�a veteran Clandestine Service officer바카라�as its head. The CIA had a simple message for filmmakers: Want our co-operation in making movies (such as access to facilities, officials, and files)? Then let us approve the script. It had adopted the playbook of the Department of Defense which, providing military weapons and shooting locations at subsidised costs, often shaped바카라�and controlled바카라�films. (The Indian Army, as preoccupied with its image, refused to give the No Objection Certificate to a film in 2022, as it showed the armed forces in 바카라�poor light바카라�.)

Brandon바카라�s collaboration with Hollywood produced many movies and TV shows, glorifying the CIA, such as In the Company of Spies (1999), The Agency (2001바카라�2003), 24 (2001-2010). These depictions also functioned as recruitment videos, helping the Agency increase its enrolment (which had seen a sharp dip in the last decade). It also nurtured relationships with film stars, most notably Ben Affleck who, besides playing a CIA analyst in The Sum of All Fears (2002), directed the factually dubious Argo (2012), which won the Best Picture Oscar whose announcement was broadcasted straight from...the White House.

And in 2011, the Agency got its best 바카라�propaganda gift바카라�: Zero Dark Thirty (2012). The CIA gave unprecedented access to the makers바카라�revealed a Freedom of Information Act request바카라�while filmmaker Kathryn Bigelow returned the favour, treating the intelligence officers to expensive dinners. Once, while dining with a female CIA officer, Bigelow gifted her black Tahitian pearls. (She gave the jewellery to the headquarters to get it appraised; it turned out to be fake.) The CIA-Hollywood symbiosis seemed especially disconcerting in this case, as the war drama implied that torture tactics had led to Osama Bin Laden바카라�s capture.

Sometimes the CIA outdid itself, as The Agency바카라�s creator, Michael Breckner, found out. Over many 바카라�informal chats바카라�, Brandon pitched several ideas to Breckner who incorporated them in the screenplay. Its pilot, for instance, Breckner told Jenkins, 바카라�was based on the premise that Bin Laden attacks the West and a war on terrorism invigorates the CIA바카라�. (Breckner finished writing that episode in March 2001바카라�six months before 9/11.) Chase suggested other subplots as well: a Hellfire missile fired from a drone on a Pakistani general, an anthrax attack on Americans, and a Russian suitcase bomb stolen from the USSR. 바카라�All these events,바카라� said Breckner, 바카라�happened shortly before or after these episodes aired.바카라� Reflecting on his conversations with Chase, Breckner believed that the CIA was 바카라�attempting to test the waters somehow바카라�바카라�or 바카라�using the series to workshop threat scenarios바카라�.

The recent Bollywood propaganda, in contrast, screams even when it whispers. Many films make it clear, right from their trailers, that they바카라�re 바카라�based바카라� on or 바카라�inspired바카라� by 바카라�true events바카라�, which have been suppressed for long. These movies, then, become a collaborative exercise바카라�between the filmmakers and the audiences바카라�in fact finding. They further that charade by using archival footage, newspaper clips, shocking stats, infusing journalistic spirit in dramas hostile to facts.

They바카라�ve also polished their style. Uri (2019), Thackeray (2019), Tanhaji (2020), Swatantrya Veer Savarkar (2024), among others, have impressive cinematography, editing, and performances. An early scene in Thackeray uses an ingenious match cut: the judge striking a gavel on the bench cuts to karsevaks hammering the Babri Masjid바카라�two Indias, two verdicts. In Swatantra Veer Savarkar, a young freedom fighter, Madan Lal Dhingra, proclaims 바카라�Vande Mataram바카라� before a noose. After setting up the premise바카라�that violence is necessary, noble, and patriotic바카라�the next scene shows Mahatma Gandhi saying, 바카라�Ahimsa parmo dharma [non-violence is the prime duty].바카라� Two independent shots, a clever juxtaposition, and a new meaning: this is Soviet Montage cinema바카라�or the Kuleshov Effect바카라�serving the Hindu rashtra.

The astounding success of The Kashmir Files and The Kerala Story has told producers that they can risk less and aim high바카라�and it바카라�s this return on investment, along with possible political benefits, that바카라�s made this genre explode. These movies also don바카라�t need popular actors because in them the state바카라�and its most commanding embodiment, Modi바카라�is the real star. Maybe some directors have바카라�finally바카라�understood that in a powerful (or, well, divisive) film the main star is the storytelling itself. What excellent art-house cinema couldn바카라�t teach Bollywood, hate-mongering did.

As Bollywood has increased its propaganda production, like Nazi cinema, hunting enemies inside the country, it바카라�s also manufactured heroes whose prime identities have changed from Indians to Hindus to Hindutvavadis. A biopic on a prominent Hindtuva ideologue, Deendayal Upadhyaya, starring Annu Kapoor, is in the making, while another on the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) founder, K B Hedgewar, will release in 2025, coinciding with the organisation바카라�s centenary year. Even M K Gandhi hasn바카라�t been spared. Last year, Gandhi Godse바카라�Ek Yudh imagined a 바카라�sober바카라� conversation between the man and his murderer. A year before, Why I Killed Gandhi, an OTT release, gave inordinate screen time to Godse who called himself secular and a patriot. Another courtroom drama, I Killed Bapu (2023), defended Godse. Hindi cinema바카라�s current tryst with history and bloodthirst has reached its logical conclusion: for every bit of gandh바카라�or dirt바카라�in Gandhi, it sees a God in Godse.

(This appeared in the print as 'The Propaganda Files')