Colonel Rajeev Bharwan (Retd.) on defence-based films: Intent should be to straighten ‘the spine of countrymen,’ not money making

In the last few years, films driven by nationalistic fervour have firmly found their foothold among audiences. Market experts believe this surge is a response to viewers filling cinema halls in an otherwise dull theatrical market. But when cinema borrows the uniform, it also borrows the authority, credibility, and emotional weight that come with it.

For Indian Army officer Colonel Rajeev Bharwan (Retd.), the concern lies not in patriotic storytelling, but in the intent driving it. “Honestly, if you ask me, most of the movies I don’t see. It’s only for one reason, and that’s the intent,” he says, pointing to what he sees as a growing emphasis on commercial viability over authenticity.

He believes that the commercialisation of defence efforts, wrapped in what he calls filmy tadka, has become a preferred packaging style. “Most of the people make these movies because they know this is how it will sell in the market. Whether it is patriotic, whether it is uniform, or whether it is the army, it is being sold in the market. This is a fact,” he says.

However, Colonel Rajeev is quick to clarify that his discomfort does not stem from the idea of patriotic cinema, but from the ‘modelled’ onscreen depiction of the lives and sacrifices of soldiers. “For instance, Param Vir Chakra is bestowed on people who have made the ultimate sacrifice for the country. You don’t need background music to show that,” he adds. Drawing a parallel with the Republic Day parade, Colonel Rajeev says, “What happens on 26th January is raw and real. When people see our officers in uniform, it results in goosebumps.”

For him, this dilution germinates selective storytelling. Rather, he insists, such themes must have defence consultants on board to avoid such pitfalls. “They make films and then sprinkle them with small anecdotes, leaving out the real emotions. There are a few films which are good. But I feel if they had consulted and taken the right advice, then it would have added a lot of value.”



At its core, he asserts, the debate circles back to intent. “If the intent is not how much money the film makes but rather at straightening the spine of the countrymen, to give meaning to the generations to come, then it will add more value.”

That sense of authenticity and responsibility also defines his personal philosophy. He has been an advocate of building citizens who want to give back to the nation, in their own ways. So, when he is often asked during his sessions if he feels the country is changing, he is quick to snip the question midway. “I don't want to see the change. I don’t want to compare. I want to be the change. India ne kya diya, India main kya badlav aaya usse jada mera yeh focus rehta hai ki maine kya kiya India ke liye. I am trying to contribute. Giving is always more awakening.

“India se boht logon ko shikhayat hai, but unse main yeh puchta hu: What have you done for this country? Rather than expecting the change, be the change,” he concludes his thoughts.

And in that final thought lies the essence of his critique. It is not a rejection of patriotic cinema, but a call for sincerity. Because for those who have lived the uniform, patriotism can never be mapped with a background score or a brilliant box-office strategy. For them, it is a quiet, continuous act of giving in and beyond the uniform.Get the latest entertainment updates from the Times of India, along with the latest Hindi movies, upcoming Hindi movies in 2026 , and Telugu movies.”