One-Sided or Propaganda? It All Comes Down to Intent

When polarization plagues a gullible society where cult worship is common, whether in politics or religion, or other aspects of social life, propaganda movies start emerging as mainstream blockbusters from time to time. Various ideologies and movements regularly encourage such content deliberately designed to shape the audience's beliefs, emotions, or behavior toward a specific agenda, but their reach often remains limited to a niche audience. Propaganda movies work best in polarized societies, where social divisions and mutual distrust are already deep. In such environments, it becomes far easier to stoke fear and anger toward a fictional enemy, generally a target minority group, and cast them as the threat from within. This is especially potent when the government itself is involved in spreading such divisive propaganda, as there is no fear of government action. The impact is stronger because the messaging carries an aura of authority and reaches a wider audience. As a result, polarization deepens, emotions escalate, and people become more susceptible to simplified, divisive stories.

One can argue that movies are often one-sided and are made purely for entertainment, and expecting them to change beliefs or behavior is far-fetched. But this argument misses a crucial point: entertainment is just one of many motives behind filmmaking. Movies are made to generate money (as a business), fame, and recognition; to spread awareness; and sometimes for personal satisfaction. Given that, it's not hard to see how cinema becomes a vehicle for something more calculated.

There are one-sided movies, including documentaries, that are biased and present events, characters, or issues from a single perspective. Propaganda movies also do this. So what separates them? Why is a propaganda movie not just another movie telling a one-sided story?

The core difference is intent. And this difference matters.

In one-sided movies, bias is not necessarily intentional; it may simply be incidental. The filmmaker may want to highlight one interpretation or emotional truth, and still aim to entertain, raise awareness, or tell a personal story. Opposing perspectives are ignored or downplayed, but there is no organized agenda driving that choice.

In propaganda movies, bias is strong, deliberate, and purposeful. These films are often backed or favored by a government, organization, or movement. They often glorify one entity (person, government, or religion) while demonizing others. They use emotional manipulation, selective facts, symbolism, and persuasion techniques. Opposing views are not just excluded, they are actively ridiculed and demonized. The goal is not to express a viewpoint but to influence public opinion, promote a specific ideology, or drive behavior.

Artistic liberty is common in all art forms, and there is nothing wrong with taking cinematic liberty while making a movie. But there is a line. When cinematic liberty is used to distort facts or twist truths by blending them with blatant lies, it stops being just artistic freedom; it becomes harmful emotional manipulation. Both these types of movies take cinematic liberty, but there is a difference. One-sided movies involve selective storytelling. Propaganda movies take this to another level entirely; they are engineered to spread an ideological agenda. And here's the subtler point: an intelligently made propaganda movie can easily look like a one-sided movie on the surface. The real difference often reveals itself in how the audience reacts, what they walk away believing, feeling, or wanting to do.

Some examples of one-sided movies: The Social Dilemma and Michael Moore documentaries like Bowling for Columbine. Some examples of propaganda movies: Triumph of the Will, the Why We Fight series. Recent Bollywood blockbusters like Kashmir Files, Kerala Story, Animal, and Dhurandhar have also entered this conversation. Both these movies are biased. Both express a single viewpoint. But which is which? I'll let the reader decide.

Just remember: one-sided movies are biased, but propaganda movies are biased with intent. And it's worth being aware of that intent.

Thank you for reading, and please share your views on this topic.

War For Peace

“Every single empire in its official discourse has said that it is not like all the others.” — Edward Said

That quote resonates with us even today because it exposes a pattern that repeats across history. Every regime that wages war insists its war is different. It is framed as necessary, defensive, moral, reluctant, and even noble. Again and again, violence, whether in the form of war or abrogation of fundamental rights, is packaged as responsibility. Destruction is sold as a necessity to bring order. War is renamed peace.

But war, by its nature, brings ruin. It destroys infrastructure, uproots families, erases history, and kills innocent civilians who pose no threat to anyone. And even when declared objectives are supposedly achieved, the destruction often continues. The bombingd do not stop even when the justification has run out. The suffering goes on, and somehow it is still defended in the language of strategy, security, and national interest. Even communities and countries that have themselves endured profound inhuman tragedies can later subject others to pain and suffering in the name of peace. What is most difficult to comprehend is how those shaped by such suffering can inflict pain and suffering on others.

That is what makes modern war so grotesque: not only the violence itself, but the lies used to sanitize it.

While the world debates terminology, some of humanity’s oldest civilizations are reduced to rubble. Civilians are buried under collapsed buildings. Schools, hospitals, historical sites, and essential resources are destroyed. The loss is not accidental or collateral in any meaningful moral sense once it becomes repeated, normalized, and excused. At that point, it is no longer a tragedy alone. It is a choice.

We are told that institutions such as the United Nations exist to preserve peace, prevent escalation, and create space for negotiation. Yet when massive destruction unfolds in full public view, these institutions often appear paralyzed. Statements are issued. Concerns are expressed. Meetings are held. But the destruction continues. The world watches without doing anything to stop the deaths of innocent civilians.

Why?

Why, despite diplomacy, international law, and endless channels of negotiation, are wars still allowed to expand across borders and consume countless innocent lives? Why does the violence continue even after its stated objectives have supposedly been achieved? Is it because the attacked refuse to submit? Or because those who unleash war are not seeking security at all, but submission?

History will record the answer. It will also record the silence.

It is easy to speak when nothing is at stake. True courage begins when speaking carries a cost — when careers, alliances, reputations, and material interests are on the line. That is precisely where much of the world is failing now. The destruction itself will be remembered, but so will the calculated quiet of those who had a voice and chose not to use it.

Most wars are dressed up in the language of honor, defense, and necessity. But beneath that language, the real motives are power, money, influence, political survival, and control. Human life becomes secondary. The deaths of ordinary people become statistics, acceptable losses, background noise. This is mainly because the powerful are immune to the destructive effects of the war. All the risks are borne by other people and their children, while the rewards are collected by those who authorized the violence and those close to them. The pattern is painfully simple: let others die so that power may be preserved, expanded, and enriched. This is why the war is sold as necessary, so that no questions are asked, and dead soldiers are celebrated and honored as martyrs without raising questions about who was responsible for their deaths.

But there is nothing necessary or noble about bombing a school full of children. There is no moral sophistication that can justify the slaughter of innocents. There is no avoidance of danger in raping or sexually torturing prisoners or helpless civilians. That is not a strategy. It is not peacekeeping. It is not civilization defending itself. It is cruelty with political cover.

Bombing children is tyranny. Destroying civilian life and calling it peace is tyranny. Replacing one tyrant with another does not end oppression; it merely changes its face. Every war-mongering ruler insists that this war is different. This one is unfortunate but required. This one is for stability. This one is for peace. But peace built on the bodies of children is not peace. It is domination. It is terror.

So what is all this for?

What logic can justify such immense human and material loss? What political objective can outweigh a generation traumatized, cities shattered, and innocent lives erased? Listen carefully to the statements made by those on all sides of these wars. Too often, they reveal no real reverence for human life, only calculation, messaging, and blame management.

Perhaps the deepest moral failure is not only in the decision to wage war, but in the refusal of societies to condemn inhumanity when it is committed by their own side. We have become skilled at selective outrage. We mourn some children and rationalize the deaths of others. We always condemn brutality in enemies and excuse it in allies. We measure the worth of a life by the flag under which that life was born.

And still we call ourselves civilized.

If we cannot hold our own side accountable, then our morality is hollow. If conscience speaks only when convenient, then it is not conscience at all. It is performance. The least we owe the innocent is honesty. Honesty about what war is. Honesty about what is being done in our name. Honesty about the lies leaders tell when they wrap violence in the language of peace.

Any war that brings mass destruction, civilian suffering, and the devastation of entire societies cannot be casually excused as a path to peace. When leaders knowingly unleash such horror, and when others enable or ignore it, what we are witnessing is not peace in the making. It is an assault on humanity.

If we fail to name it honestly, then the loss is not only of lives, homes, and history. It is also the loss of our moral credibility. And if that loss means nothing to us, then perhaps the most frightening question is no longer what war has made of the world, but what silence has made of us.

Thank you for reading, and please share your views on this topic.  

On the Occasion of the 14th Anniversary

I can hardly believe that this blog has completed 14 years. When I started it on March 5, 2012, I never imagined, even in my wildest dreams, that I would be writing and publishing regularly for this long. Yet here we are: at least one post every month for the past 14 years. That realization fills me with quiet pride and genuine surprise.

This is not self-praise or self-promotion. It is simply amazement at the journey itself.

The blog began as a space to express my thoughts on a wide range of topics, political, personal, and social. I wanted a platform where I could articulate ideas that often felt very different from those around me. Over time, something unexpected happened. Readers, from places I never anticipated, found value in what I wrote. My wife and children, along with many others, shared thoughtful feedback, encouragement, and perspectives of their own. Knowing that my words resonated with people, or helped them reflect and think more deeply, gave me the motivation to continue.

I want to be clear about one thing: I do not expect followers, nor would I want anyone to accept my views uncritically. Blind agreement is never the goal. Instead, I hope this blog helps readers engage with the complexities of the world around them and supports them in their own search for answers. If my writing encourages independent thinking, questioning, and reflection, then it has served its purpose.

To me, true success lies in fostering critical thinking, challenging assumptions, understanding nuance, and striving to make our surroundings just a little better than we found them. We need a kinder, more compassionate world for humanity to truly flourish. This blog is only a small step in that direction, but it is a step I am grateful to have taken.

Thank you to everyone who has read, reflected, commented, or simply spent time engaging with these words over the years. Your support and encouragement have meant more than you know.

Happy reading.