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.

Aryan Khan and the Indian news media

Shahrukh Khan needs no introduction, he is the most popular Hindi film industry star in the world, maybe more popular than Amitabh Bachchan, so, when his son, Aryan Khan got arrested for allegedly being a part of a drug racket it was a headline in most Indian news media houses. So far it is understandable, the twenty-three-year-old son of a movie icon getting arrested for drug-related charges is a worthy headline to catch the attention of your viewers. However, what happened after that totally exposed the pathetic state of affairs of Indian news media. Most news channels started running 24x7 updates about Aryan Khan, what he does, what he eats, about the role of parenting in his arrest, and whatnot. Everything related to him was covered as if his arrest and bail is the biggest crisis India is facing right now. To make things more sensational there were rhyming headlines, poetic tags, super excited anchors, every time exclusive photos or interviews, whatever one can imagine from top to bottom was used by media houses to cover this hot story.

Before this incident the only identity of Aryan Khan was Shahrukh and Gauri Khan's elder son, that's all. Thanks to the Indian media outlets now the name Aryan Khan needs no introduction, I am sure whoever watches Indian news channels knows about him. I am sure this is not the way Aryan or his family expected him to get popular but he is now popular and currently may be more popular than his dad in India. It was a simple case of a rave party where young kids consume illegal drugs, the law should have taken its own course, and formalities like arrests and bail should have followed the procedure they normally follow in such cases, but it did not happen. It seems when the media started covering this case minute by minute the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) of India also got carried away. As a result, the issue became much bigger than it was and now the NCB itself is facing some credibility issues related to this case. I am sure Aryan must be wondering why such a big deal was made out of the fact that some of his friends wanted to smoke weed. No doubt, Aryan comes from a very privileged background, after all, how many people can afford to have the former attorney general of India represent them for a bail petition. However, as people should not get any special treatment because they come from a privileged background they should not be treated worse because they are privileged. 

Another point to note is the way the Indian movie industry chooses to remain silent on the most sensitive issues. Even its biggest stars keep mum or issue some meaningless generic statements on some of the biggest atrocities committed in the country. They genuinely fear that their commercial interests will be hurt and their movies or families will be targeted, but this silence is noticeable to the extent that the industry's biggest stars who carry a macho image on the screen appear spineless in their real lives. However, the same stars expect public support when something happens to them, and they do receive a lot of support (as well as criticism, as hate and love are different sides of the same coin for any celebrity's life). Similarly, in this case, also there was a lot of support and hatred, the issue even took a political twist keeping with the current pattern where everything ends up becoming political and communal starting from a cricket match to the arrest of a superstar's son. Also, politics and communalism are so deeply ingrained in India that most people don't react based on what happened but they first check who are the people involved and then react accordingly. If it's from their own religion or political party then they find each and every possible reason to downplay or even justify murder or rape, and if it's someone from a different religion or opposite political party they can make a big deal about smoking a pot. The role of Indian media is very important in all this, they not only initiate this divide but actively cultivate and make sure that it doesn't get bridged by very aggressive and biased reporting. Any sensible person will cringe multiple times while watching most Indian news channels, they don't even try to hide their love for the ruling party and hatred towards the opposition, they don't even try to pretend to be objective, they shamelessly take sides and act as propaganda machines. I stopped watching them long back, but my parents watch it regularly and I always used to wonder what's the source of their so many conspiracy theories. During my recent India visit, I decided to watch these news channels with them and I realized from where they are getting all this misleading and fabricated information. The problem is there are many like my parents who believe these news channels, after all, why will the news channels lie, it's news, how can it not be true? Many Indians are fed with such lies continuously and I don't know how they will come out of it or will they ever come out of this vicious cycle. Aryan Khan will get bail for sure, it's just a matter of time, his case will also reach some conclusion but the thing Indians should worry about is what their news media is doing with them. The Indian news media is feeding something more dangerous than narcotics to their viewers, and the worst part is the viewers don't even know that they are being drugged.

Thanks for reading and please share your opinion about this topic.  

The misuse of state broadcaster (Doordarshan) continues

If someone had told me before the general elections of 2014 in India that if BJP (or to say it correctly Mr. Modi) wins this election with an absolute majority, there will be a live telecast of the RSS chief's speech on Doordarshan (or DD, national broadcaster of India), I would have dismissed this statement immediately. But we all witnessed this event just a few days ago. DD telecasted the speech of the RSS chief live, this was the speech that he delivers every year on the occasion of Vijayadashami (Dussehra). To be honest, I was really surprised if not shocked to read this news. It is not that the national broadcaster of the country was misused for the first time, previous governments also misused it on many occasions to propagate their own party agenda but any previous wrongdoings don't legitimize present mistakes. Unfortunately, this has become the trend, if anyone asks any question about the BJP government they point fingers to previous Congress governments who also did the same things. This never-ending blame game has been going on for years between these two major political parties. Both of these parties claim to be different from each other but in many aspects, they look quite indistinguishable from each other. 

Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) is a nongovernmental organization. It claims itself to be a nonpolitical, cultural organization but everyone knows about its political affiliation and pro-Hindu ideology. RSS chief neither holds any constitutional post nor is an elected member of any of the houses (Loksabha or Rajyasabha). So, it was an unprecedented move to allow such an organization to use the air time of a national channel that is entirely funded by taxpayers' money. There is nothing wrong in having pro-Hindu, pro-Muslim, or pro-anything organizations; every religion has the right to form an organization and have its gatherings wherever it wants with proper permissions. Many of them including RSS do a lot of good social work in various areas. But at the same time many of them have a very sectarian ideology that heavily favors particular religions and for a central government to allow any such sectarian organization to use national air time was a big surprise for me. Another question is now where do we draw the line? If RSS can get live coverage why not Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP)? Why not Bajarang Dal? Why not the Muslim Waqf Board? Or any other organization that promotes a sectarian ideology of any particular religion but claims to be a cultural organization? Why only RSS? What is so special about them apart from their proximity to the current ruling political party?

Many NGOs (nongovernmental organizations) do a lot of good work in India. At the same time, many NGOs exist only to make money or to spread some sectarian religious ideology. RSS's political affiliation is very well known, BJP is considered as their political arm and there is no secret that RSS controls many things happening at top levels in BJP. If they only allow this particular event to go live on national television and not other events by similar organizations then it is a blatant misuse of government resources. I was amazed to see spokespersons of the BJP pathetically and shamelessly defending this action during many TV debates. They sounded hypocritical as they didn't have any logical explanation for this action and they had a really tough time defending this decision, but they did it anyway. But one really good thing happened because of this event, the mask that was on the face of the BJP finally fell off. They tried to make people believe that RSS and BJP are two separate units, even though they both share the same ideology they claimed that they are different but now this delusion ended. It is good that now people know whom they are voting for and which ideology is going to dominate. It is always better to have a clear picture.

Any government can use or misuse the resources that are at their disposal, it is entirely their choice. The current government made very clear which direction they want to go and which ideology they want to propagate. But there is a remote possibility that all these things are wrong and this was a decision taken by the DD administration on their own without any government pressure as claimed by BJP. If this is true, then I am waiting for them to allow similar air time to all other cultural organizations. After all, any government body cannot be partial towards one cultural organization and ignore all others, they need to give equal treatment to all of them. Either there should be appeasement for all or appeasement for none. I am willing to wait and watch if other cultural organizations get their share of time on national television or not before reaching any final conclusion. I hope I am wrong in my assumption that RSS was favored because of its ideological closeness with the BJP and I will be very happy if the current government proves me wrong, let's wait and watch.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]

Climate change - a real problem or false propaganda?

Recently I attended a talk at a local ACS (American Chemical Society) section meeting about Global warming. The talk was not the usual one where they tell you about the harmful effects of global warming and climate change. Rather, this talk was about how this whole theory of global warming and climate change is flawed and how this is overhyped by some groups of scientists and organizations (including the UN) to misguide people. It was an interesting talk and it was more interesting to attend it in the local ACS section because as far as I know officially the ACS supports the hypothesis of global warming and comments about its harmful effects in all its editorials and publications. It was interesting to see that they invited a speaker who not only questioned this entire theory but also called it a total hoax. Actually, this is the true spirit of science. Every view should be welcomed, and every voice should be heard, doesn't matter which theory they propose or oppose, they just need to show the relevant data to prove their hypothesis, and the scientific community can debate about it. It really doesn't matter whose theory or hypothesis is being challenged, the name or the status or age of the scientist shouldn't matter only the data should matter.

Climate change is a very popular subject nowadays for debates and discussions. I guess it has become as controversial and sensitive as religion or the existence of god, people argue very passionately for or against this issue. Climate change covers many aspects related to the effect of human actions on the climate of our planet. Global warming is just a part of it, no doubt it has received the most attention, and this is why it is widely debated and questioned. People who try to object to climate change mainly target the issue of global warming. They claim that data presented in support of global warming is wrong or unreliable and that global warming is a completely natural phenomenon that we don't have to worry about. By questioning data for global warming its opponents try to question the phenomena of climate change. Many try to claim that both climate change and global warming are not real issues or problems but false propaganda by some elite group of scientists. Both sides who support or oppose global warming produce lots of data to support their claims and both claim that their data is reliable and the other side's data is incorrect.  

All these issues can be debated and discussed, actually, debates and discussions are the best way to solve such disputes. But I don't think there can be any dispute about the impact of human behavior on our climate. We can clearly see it and even feel it in many places. We are producing enormous amounts of waste by our uncontrolled consumerism, and this waste is bound to have some effect on our environment. We can clearly see the effects of deforestation, water, and air pollution, and poor management of waste in many parts of the world. This has also created many health problems for people. High levels of water and air pollution, and health hazards associated with them are clearly because of human behavior. Climate change doesn't mean only global warming, it means the effect of our actions on the general health of this planet. Continuous abuse of the earth and its resources under the name of development is having an impact on its health. We can definitely debate or discuss the severity of climate change and the steps required to tackle this problem but I think it would be very wrong to assume that human behavior is not having any detrimental effect on the climate of this planet. I hope supporters and opponents of climate change engage in some meaningful discussion, just playing a blame game is not going to help anyone. After all, we are talking about the entire planet here, the only place in our galaxy where we know that life exists. Let's get serious about this issue and try our best to keep our planet in good shape, this will be the greatest gift we can give to our future generations.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]