Politically Engaged Cinema in India: Striving in a Hostile Climate

As we open gates for an inclusive understanding of ‘political cinema’, we are instantly presented with a definitive conundrum. Most films reinforce State-sanctioned hegemonic ideologies, which often operate as carefully orchestrated apparatuses to disseminate dominant narratives, quell dissent, and sustain existing power structures.

The ‘normal’ exercise of hegemony is characterised by a combination of force and consent, underscoring how State-aligned films – exemplified by Leni Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will–fuse aesthetic allure with propagandistic motifs to legitimise oppressive regimes.

In contrast, cinema of counter-information endeavours to expose these processes of manipulation by foregrounding voices, images, and experiences systematically excluded or distorted. Popular culture is one of the sites where this struggle for and against the culture of the powerful is engaged.

For instance, films of the New Indie Independent Wave deliberately embed the documentary footage of grassroots rebellions, stark portrayals of colonial brutality, and direct-to-camera appeals that implore spectators to question official accounts. By excavating hidden transcripts of marginalised groups, workers, colonised subjects, and the subaltern, these works operate as crucial catalysts for counter-hegemonic articulation.

Such counter-information acknowledges the viewer’s agency, inviting them to reconstruct historical events or decode political rhetoric instead of passively consuming State-driven verities. This interpretive engagement fosters a collective praxis of resistance: once audiences discern the fault lines of propagandistic representation, they become more inclined to mobilise against real-world injustices. This is an essential feature that separates State-sponsored political propaganda from genuine counter-information.

While every film is political, inasmuch as it is determined by the ideology that produces it, the counter-hegemonic stance in cinema is particularly consequential for democracies in flux. Focusing on cinema of counter-information ultimately reveals how this medium—so adept at spectacle and illusion—can be harnessed equally to interrogate dominant discourses and galvanise socio-political transformation. These films invite spectators not only to consume images but also to enact critical reflection, thereby engendering a participatory culture of political literacy.

By championing subversive narratives and destabilising official truths, the cinema of counter-information stands as a potent corrective to State-imposed propaganda, offering a vital locus for emancipatory thinking and the collective reimagining of socio-political realities.

Despite its importance and enduring appeal, politically engaged cinema in India and elsewhere faces significant challenges in the contemporary era. While the works of filmmakers such as Mrinal Sen, Shyam Benegal and John Abraham, to name just a few, laid the foundation for using cinema as a tool for socio-political critique, the spatial landscape in which such films were created and consumed has morphed considerably. The rise of mob censorship, audience fragmentation, and political polarisation present unique hurdles for filmmakers striving to create politically conscious narratives.

One of the most significant challenges to politically engaged cinema is the dominance of industrially structured commercial cinema in India and elsewhere. In the post-liberalisation era, increasing corporatisation of filmmaking led to a qualitatively heightened emphasis on profitability, often at the expense of artistic and political expression. Studios and producers frequently prioritise high-budget star-driven projects that cater to mass audiences over smaller message-driven films.

This trend creates a precarious environment for politically engaged filmmakers, who may struggle to secure funding and distribution for their projects. The success of Benegal’s films in the 1970s and the 1980s was supported by government subsidies and grants from the National Film Development Corporation (NFDC).

However, institutional support has diminished in recent decades, making it more challenging for filmmakers to create socially conscious cinema that does not conform to commercial formulas. Although the NFDC still exists, its funding model is no longer meant to sustain politically and critically engaged film-making projects. Additionally, the growing dominance of franchises and blockbuster cultures often sideline films that explore complex or uncomfortable sociopolitical issues. Films with strong political and social critiques are perceived as niches that limit their reach and financial viability in competitive markets.

Censorship and political interference remain significant obstacles in politically engaged cinema in India. The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) has often been accused of curtailing artistic freedom by demanding cuts or outright banning films that challenge dominant ideologies or address contentious issues. For instance, films such as Udta Punjab (2016), which tackled the issue of drug abuse, have faced severe censorship battles. Similarly, politically charged films such as India’s Daughter (2015), a documentary about the 2012 Delhi gang-rape, were banned in India, highlighting the limitations placed on filmmakers attempting to address urgent societal issues.

Contemporary political documentary films and filmmakers are navigating through an even more hostile climate, forcing them to change their exhibition network to evade censorship.

Documentary festivals such as the International Documentary and Short Film Festival of Kerala (IDSFFK) and the Mumbai International Film Festival (MIFF) have become conduits for politically charged works seeking to circumvent censorship. In certain instances, filmmakers facing institutional resistance forego attempts at theatrical release altogether, opting for direct festival circulation to garner critical acclaim and media attention. The recent examples are Anand Patwardhan’s Vivek (Reason 2018) and Vasudhaiv Kutumbakam (The World is a Family 2023)

Political polarisation further exacerbates these challenges, as filmmakers often find themselves targeted by vigilante political groups or ideologies that disagree with their narratives. Fear of backlash, boycotts, or even violence can lead to self-censorship, where filmmakers avoid controversial subjects to ensure the safety and commercial success of their projects. The fragmentation of audiences, driven by the rise of digital platforms and diverse content preferences, poses another challenge to politically engaged cinema.

The film Article 15 (2019), directed by Anubhav Sinha, highlights caste-based injustice by referring to real-life atrocities. While the film garnered critical acclaim, various caste groups accused the narrative of perpetuating stereotypes or maligning their communities.

The threats of boycotts and protests continue to pour in, leading the creative team to navigate a flurry of public clarifications and disclaimers. Furthermore, heightened identity politics has generated a defensive reflex among certain constituencies, compelling filmmakers to tread carefully, and the lest heightened ire undermined its theatrical run.

Similarly, revolving around themes of communal distrust, Anubhav Sinha’s Mulk (2018), which portrays a Muslim family in India grappling with prejudicial attitudes post-terror allegations, faced demand of a ban, alleging the film was “anti-national” or “divisive.” Its cast and crew received threats on social media platforms, a polarising ecosystem on which any cinematic critique of communal prejudice is quickly labelled ‘anti-national.’ The fear of direct confrontation or financial loss has pressured many filmmakers to temper or entirely eschew politically incisive storylines.

While streaming platforms, such as Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Disney+ Hotstar, have provided opportunities for niche films to reach global audiences, these have also contributed to audience segmentation. Politically conscious films may struggle to attract mainstream viewers, who prefer entertainment-oriented content.

Moreover, the vast array of content available on digital platforms often dilutes the impact of individual films. Unlike the 1970s and the 1980s, when films like Ankur or Nishant sparked national conversations, recent politically engaged films often competed with a flood of content, making it harder for any single work to leave a lasting impression.

Modern audiences’ preference for fast-paced and easily digestible content poses a significant challenge to politically engaged cinema, which often demands patience and critical engagement. Benegal’s films, known for their deliberate pacing and layered narratives, may struggle to resonate with contemporary viewers, who are accustomed to rapid storytelling and sensationalism.

This cultural shift places pressure on filmmakers to simplify complex themes or adopt dynamic storytelling techniques, potentially compromising the depth and nuances of their narratives. Politically engaged films risk being dismissed as "slow" or "preachy" in an era dominated by attention-grabbing spectacles.

In today’s highly polarised socio-political environment, filmmakers must navigate the minefield of public opinion and "cancel culture." While politically engaged cinema aims to provoke thought and challenge established norms, it often faces fierce resistance from audiences or groups who feel offended or threatened by its themes.

This environment discourages risk-taking, as filmmakers may avoid controversial topics to evade backlash on social media or political entities. Public outrage and legal challenges can stifle creativity and deter filmmakers from exploring bold or divisive subjects.

In the past, organisations, such as the NFDC, played a vital role in supporting politically engaged cinema by providing funding, distribution networks, and platforms for independent filmmakers. However, the decline in institutional backing has left a gap in the industry, making it harder for filmmakers to create and distribute socially conscious films.

While private studios and production houses have stepped in to fill this void, their priorities often lean toward profitability, limiting the scope of politically charged narratives. This lack of systemic support undermines the ability of politically engaged cinema to flourish on a large scale.

The globalisation of cinema has brought both opportunities and challenges to politically engaged filmmakers. On the one hand, digital platforms allow Indian filmmakers to reach global audiences. However, the pressure to cater to international tastes can lead to the dilution of region-specific or culturally rooted narratives. Films that address local issues or employ region-specific aesthetics may struggle to find acceptance in a globalised market. This tension forces filmmakers to strike a delicate balance between authenticity and universality that can dilute the impact of political messages.

Shyam Benegal’s and Govind Nihalani’s films often sparked discussions and debates among viewers, thanks to the collective experience of watching films in theatres or film societies. The rise of streaming platforms while democratising access to cinema has fragmented communal engagement.

Politically engaged films that thrive to foster dialogue and collective introspection may lose their impact when consumed in isolation. The shift from theatre to personal devices has also changed the dynamics of how these films are received. Without a shared experience of collective reactions and conversations, the ability of politically engaged cinema to inspire societal change diminishes.

The challenges faced by contemporary politically engaged cinema are multifaceted, ranging from market pressure and censorship to changing audience preferences and cultural shifts. Despite these hurdles, the legacy of filmmakers like Shyam Benegal, Goutam Ghosh, and Govind Nihalani serves as a beacon of hope for those who strive to use cinema as a tool for social change.

The enduring relevance of politically engaged cinema lies in its ability to provoke thoughts, inspire actions, and challenge the status quo. By embracing the spirit of resilience and creativity exemplified by the abovementioned directors, filmmakers can continue to create works that reflect, critique, and transform society, ensuring that this vital tradition remains alive in the face of modern challenges.

The writer is Associate Professor, Department of English Studies, Satyawati College, University of Delhi. The views are personal. undererasure@gmail.com