There are two moments of rare poignancy in a presentation otherwise filled with anything but.
1. The infiltrated operative, upon his cover being blown by his wife, painfully explains that the secretive war launched by the Indian security wasn't meant to be against the Pakistani people. It only targeted the Pakistani establishment. This is a very nuanced observation that is often missed in sloganeering and chest thumping - movies and real life alike - that "Pakistan murdabad" didn't mean "Death to the people of Pakistan", but in fact "Woe to the ways of the Pakistani establishment". How could this be? When an enemy nation launches a covert war against a country, what difference does it make if the targets of the secretive operations are just the apparatus and the apparatchik and never the ordinary folk? Would a statement by Ajmal Kasab before his final swing on the gallows, that he never meant to hurt his innocent victims in the first place and that they were only collateral in a broader mission, have changed anything regarding how the entire country perceived his actions? This kind of a statement would work only in case of Pakistan, and no other country, because of the way the military establishment keep their public in the dark and force feed them constantly about phantom threat from the big brother next door that the public, generation after generation, continues to believe that India is going to gobble them up at anytime and bring them back into its fold and so the country's only option is to rally behind its military for its own survival.
For the same crime, in jurisprudence, an intoxicated perpetrator is held to a different standard compared to a cold blooded one; an act of passion, or in a fit of anger, is judged at a lesser degree than a planned one. The establishment, who started waving the Indian bogey ever since the country's formation, first, to deny their people the democratic setup, and later, to line their pockets and fatten their purses with the military aid pouring from outside, are caught in an impossible situation now that they cannot extricate themselves out of, for the simple fear that wavering from this path that they had the entire country been goose-stepping on all along is detrimental to their own well-being, as many a deposed military chiefs/Presidents/Marshalls had later found out. 'Perpetrate the lie, Maintain the facade, Keep the people in the dark, Ride the tiger for however long', continues to be the strategy of the establishment. And how about this for feedback mechanism - if the enemy hits back, play up the fears even more, rile up the populace, have them get behind even stronger, and maintain the status quo till the distant future. As one of his last words on the cross, Christ exclaims "Forgive them Father! for they do not know". Which is why, the operative's words reflect a thoughtful act of discretion that he recognizes the hand behind the hammer.
2. The second one proclaimed by Major Iqbal in his dying moments that Pakistan's real rub was East Pakistan, Bangladesh. It was never with Kashmir, neither the minorities, nor Punjab. Dhar hit this Pakistan's problem right on the head. Post independence, the first few wars, skirmishes, border incursions on the (Indian) Western front was for land (grab). From 1971 onwards, hell hath no fury like Pakistan scorned. Because it was humiliation, from a complete surrender to the Indian armed forces, that left its geography already cleaved, now asunder. And the Pakistani establishment could never forget that. How could India, at that time economically and militarily inferior to Pakistan, thanks to the solid financial support and military backing of the Gulf states and United States respectively, clinically pick apart Pakistan and dictate its will to the latter, was something that the military brass - older ones - the Yahya Khans, the Niazis - and the younger ones at that time - the Zia-Ul-Haqs, the Mussharrafs - could not just digest, but could never ever forget and forgive.
The policy towards India had changed irrevocably from that moment on - pay back India manifold than what it had dished out. This was the inflection point in Pakistan's foreign, military, and covert policy to not only hurt and menace India, but ultimately tear India apart with the same kind of ruthlessness that Pakistan was ripped apart. Khalistan first and Kashmir next were only the "auzaar"s, the tools. (which is why it was kind of funny that "The Kashmir Files" merely scratched the surface and immediately deemed the problem as a Hindu-Muslim one). Dhar was right on point on this one. As any strategiest would point out that Pakistan has no chance whatsoever to mete out the bifurcation treatment that it had received at the hands of India, and so a lesser "death by a thousand cuts" harass and harangue policy would not just constantly menace India and keep it on its feet, but also play into its Chinese benefactor's hands, of which it is a recipient of money and materiel, from ever challenging it economically. And look at this loop - Pakistan pokes -> India responds -> Pakistan decries -> Pakistani people rally -> Chinese pitch in/Gulf states join in -> Pakistan pokes....and round the round the wheel turns. The first iteration of this policy was Punjab which went on for a decade (but ultimately fizzled out because the non-homegenousness of religions involved), the second iteration was Kashmir (this time the Muslim brotherhood angle was played up to the hilt) which started in the 90s as soon as Punjab died down and continues to smolder to date, if not rage as before, which again doesn't seem to be going its way, and the third iteration is the small hit and run schemes - the fake currency, dumping of the drugs, online radicalization, supporting internal strifes and conflicts - all, again, would not necessarily bring a nation down to its knees, but constantly tugs its feet from soaring higher.
Dhar got these right, and for the rest, Dhurandhar - 2 was a wasted opportunity after what was a rock solid promising start in the first part.
That he did not make two separate parts was readily apparent, when at the end of the first part a title card flashed that the second part was only months away from release, meaning both these parts have been written as a whole, and then were later separated to give each its own room and space. This is the part that is so confounding and perplexing that for all the nuance, restraint and solid understanding of the infiltration operations that he displayed in the first part (or first half of his script), how could he had resolved that a commercial treatment was the way of resolution of all that he has setup so nicely in the first part. "sabr" - patience - was at the heart of the first part. Observe and report. And Dhar was able to weave all the then current events into the narrative as though it was reportage, much like that juice shop owner character in Lyaari, ("darling darling, dil kyO thODa, piyO Aalam soda"), who patiently waited all the decades as a handler, until his operative arrived, soaking all his environment in. This is the true spy-craft. No guns, no bullets, just eyes and ears. Even the interventions that Hamza Ali undertakes later to change the course of the (movie) history are mere nudges as to position himself closer to the seat of the power and not blatant power grabs as is the case in usual masala movies. And the second part does a volte face, going against everything it has so beautifully setup in the first part and falls prey to the wily charms of the box office. Once the presentation enters the commercial format, every turn the movie takes becomes a device of convenience (How does his wife find out? she overhears, the laziest form of any reveal. And the so called twist at the end... plays for nothing but shock value). And the less said about the lip service to the ruling party, the better.
The two genres of Historical fiction and Revisionist history are always at odds to one another. The former, like time travel, will not change the past, it merely weaves and bobs around it acknowledging the key events it traverses. Revisionist hisotry is interventionist. It takes a sledgehammer to hisotry and reshapes it as it chooses fit. The first Dhurandhar plays like historical fiction and the second, revisionist history. There's nothing wrong with Revisionist history per se, like how Tarantino treated Hitler in "Inglorious Basterds" or the Manson cult in "Once upon a time in Hollywood", but to setup like something like one and pay it off as something that is radically opposite, does grave injustice to efforts and the sincerity of the first part.
The Dhar in the first Dhuran"Dhar" was truly "Dhurandhar" (a, stalwart), and the Dhar in the second one plays Dhuran"Darr", a cop out! What a disappointment!
checkout http://kanchib.blogspot.com for Srinivas's Blog.
