Critics vs. The People: Dhurandhar Sparks a Cultural Civil War as Satirical Guilds ‘RAMA’ and ‘KRiSHNA’ Enter the Fray
The release of Aditya Dhar’s high-octane thriller Dhurandhar on December 5 was expected to make waves at the box office, but few predicted it would ignite a full-blown ideological war between India’s established film critics and the movie-going public. While the film—starring heavyweights like Ranveer Singh, Akshaye Khanna, and R. Madhavan—stormed its way to a massive ₹224 crore in its opening week, the real drama has unfolded off-screen, pitting the Film Critics Guild (FCG) against a newly formed, hilariously satirical coalition of internet users.
The Spark: A Disconnect Between Review and Reality
The controversy began almost immediately after the film’s premiere. Dhurandhar, which dramatizes real-life cross-border counter-terrorism operations, was embraced by audiences for its “unfiltered” and “unapologetic” take on national security and threats emanating from Pakistan. Fans praised the film as a “rooted Indian perspective” that finally broke away from the diplomatic caution often seen in Bollywood.
However, a section of influential critics, including Anupama Chopra and Sucharita Tyagi, viewed the film through a vastly different lens. Reviews from this camp labeled the movie as “inflammatory,” “jingoistic,” and bordering on “propaganda.” The backlash from the public was instantaneous and fierce. Netizens took to social media to dismantle these reviews, accusing the critics of being disconnected from the ground reality and harboring an ideological bias against films that celebrate “Civilizational Pride.”
The situation escalated when Anupama Chopra reportedly deleted her video review of the film from YouTube following intense trolling and factual rebuttals from the audience. This move, rather than quelling the fire, was interpreted by many as an inability to stand by her own critique when faced with counter-arguments.
The Guild Strikes: A Plea for Immunity?
On December 11, the Film Critics Guild (FCG), an association of film critics, issued a solemn official statement. The document, which circulated widely on X (formerly Twitter), strongly condemned what it termed as “targeted attacks, harassment, and hate directed toward film critics.”
The statement read, in part:
“What began as disagreement has rapidly devolved into coordinated abuse… We are also deeply concerned about the safety and well-being of our colleagues. No professional should be subjected to personal vilification simply for doing their job.”
The FCG further argued that the “willingness to police opinion sets a dangerous precedent” and characterized the public’s reaction as an attempt to “intimidate” critics into aligning with promotional narratives.
However, the statement quickly backfired when netizens pointed out a glaring conflict of interest: the Chairperson of the Film Critics Guild is Anupama Chopra, and the Vice-Chairperson is Sucharita Tyagi—the very individuals at the center of the controversy.
Critics of the Guild argued that using an official-sounding organization to issue a statement in defense of its own leadership smelled of “privilege” and “victimhood.” One viral tweet summed up the sentiment: “The Film Critics Guild’s latest performance is truly award-worthy: critics who can criticise everything except being criticised themselves.”
Enter the Alphabet Soup: RAMA, KRiSHNA, and HARI
In a display of internet creativity that can only be described as legendary, the audience did not respond with rage, but with scathing satire. Mirroring the formal language and acronym-heavy structure of the FCG, netizens spontaneously formed their own “Guilds” to issue counter-statements.
Leading the charge was the Random Association of Movie Aficionados, or RAMA.
In a perfectly formatted “official statement” released by user Sensei Kraken Zero, RAMA declared that it “strongly rejects the self-pitying and manipulative statement issued by the Film Critics Guild.”
The statement from RAMA argued:
“The right to criticise is not a one-way street. Film critics enjoy the absolute freedom to praise, condemn, or mock any film… The audience, in turn, possesses the exact same right to question, criticise, ridicule, or reject the opinions of film critics. If critics believe they alone are entitled to speak while the public must remain silent… they are living in an authoritarian fantasy.”
Following close behind was KRiSHNA (Kansaratva’s Rising Society Honoring New Arts), which issued a statement of solidarity with RAMA. The internet exploded with laughter as more acronyms joined the fray, turning the comments section into a divine comedy of sorts:
-
HARI: Human Arts Recognition Institute.
-
MAHADEV: Modern Association of Holistic Arts and Development of Entertaining Visuals.
-
DEVI: Dynasty of Extravagant Visuals, India.
-
SHAKTI: Society for Holistic Arts, Kinetic studies and Theatre goers Initiative.
-
BUDDHA: Bharatiya Unbiased Development Department of Human Arts.
As one user, Romeo Lima Bravo, tweeted: “Great going you guys! RAMA KRiSHNA HARI MAHADEV DEVI and others. Insane!” Another user, Manoj Shenoy, offered a “tip of the hat” to the creators of the wordplay, calling it a “befitting reply to FCG nastiness.”
The “One-Way Street” Argument
At the heart of this satire lies a serious debate about the nature of criticism in the digital age. The proponents of RAMA and the general audience argue that critics have long enjoyed an ivory-tower existence where they could dismiss films—and by extension, the tastes of the millions who watch them—without consequence.
The Dhurandhar episode suggests that this dynamic has shifted. The audience is now armed with the same platforms as the critics. When critics label a popular film as “toxic” or “propaganda,” the audience views it as a moral judgment on them for enjoying it.
One sharp critique circulating on X noted:
“Film critics are deleting their content… because they are upset that audiences are critiquing their review & exposing them. Basically, Anupama Chopra and Sucharita Tyagi are condemning the people criticising Anupama Chopra & Sucharita Tyagi by giving an official statement in the Film Critics Guild which is composed of Anupama Chopra and Sucharita Tyagi.”
This circular logic—of an organization protecting its own leaders under the guise of protecting “journalistic integrity”—became the primary target of the ridicule. Fans pointed out the irony that critics, who often preach about “speaking truth to power” and the importance of dissent, seemed unable to tolerate dissent against their own views.
The ‘Critic-Proof’ Phenomenon and Rhetorical Divides
This standoff also highlights a fascinating divergence in the box office trajectory of films labeled “controversial” by the critical establishment. Dhurandhar now joins the ranks of recent blockbusters like Animal, Kabir Singh, and The Kashmir Files—films that critics vehemently rejected on moral or ideological grounds, only for audiences to turn them into colossal commercial successes. A deeper sentiment analysis of the arguments reveals a stark clash of values: The FCG’s rhetoric leans heavily on institutional authority, using terms like “safety,” “integrity,” and “editorial autonomy” to frame themselves as vulnerable guardians of culture. In contrast, the RAMA coalition employs the language of populism and equality, emphasizing “hypocrisy,” “freedom of speech,” and “democracy.” While critics view the box office success of such films as a sign of disturbing societal trends, the audience views it as a victory against an out-of-touch elite. The more the Guild attempts to police the discourse, the more the box office numbers seem to swell, suggesting that a “negative” review from the old guard is now functioning as a potent marketing endorsement for the masses.
A Shift in Power Dynamics
This clash over Dhurandhar signifies a permanent crack in the authority of traditional film critics. In the past, a “Rotten” rating or a one-star review from a top critic could severely damage a film’s perception. Today, however, films like Dhurandhar have proven that “critic-proof” cinema is on the rise.
The audience no longer looks to the “Guild” for permission to enjoy a movie. In fact, a negative review from certain critics is now often worn as a badge of honor by the filmmakers and a signal of quality by the audience.
Actors have also joined the fray, taking subtle digs at the critics. Veteran actor Paresh Rawal and Ranvir Shorey were seen engaging with tweets that mocked the critics’ stance, signaling that even within the industry, the reverence for these media gatekeepers is fading.
Conclusion: The Audience Has The Last Laugh
As Dhurandhar continues its march at the box office, crossing milestones and cementing its status as a blockbuster, the Film Critics Guild finds itself in a precarious position. By crying “harassment” in the face of valid—albeit harsh—counter-criticism, they may have inadvertently alienated the very readers they rely on.
The emergence of RAMA, KRiSHNA, HARI, and MAHADEV is more than just a Twitter joke; it is a declaration of independence by the Indian audience. They are saying, loudly and clearly, that in the democracy of cinema, the ticket-buyer is the ultimate critic. And if the “professionals” can’t handle the heat, perhaps they should step out of the kitchen—or at least, stop trying to ban the customers from reviewing the food.