John Abraham's controversial remarks on 'Chhaava' raises a bigger question: Profitable yet polarizing cinema

In an industry where big-budget spectacles dominate headlines and collections, Chhaava has emerged as one of 2025’s most bankable successes. Starring Vicky Kaushal and Rashmika Mandanna, directed by Laxman Utekar, the film’s Rs 800 crore run signals undeniable audience pull. Yet alongside the praise for its performances and scale, the movie has drawn sharp criticism over its handling of history, its perceived political undertones, and the way it fuels present-day fault lines.

Actor John Abraham has now added his voice to the debate, making clear that commercial rewards won’t push him toward overtly political narratives. In an interview with India Today, he addressed the growing wave of nationalist or politically aligned films, citing Chhaava and The Kashmir Files as examples of cinema he would never make. He said he sees himself as apolitical and is more interested in staying true to his own storytelling instincts than taking what he called “the commercial line.”

The controversies surrounding Chhaava

Chhaava dramatises the life of Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj, son of Maratha ruler Chhatrapati Shivaji, focusing on his battles against the Mughal Empire and his eventual capture and execution under Aurangzeb’s forces. While the story is anchored in historical figures, critics say the execution veers into distortion, presenting selective interpretations of events and personalities.

The backlash has not been limited to film circles. On March 18 2025, Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis told the state Assembly that the film had reignited public anger against Aurangzeb. He urged citizens to keep peace in the state, though his own past statements calling for Aurangzeb’s tomb to be demolished have also been part of the charged political climate.

A day earlier, protests in Nagpur over the tomb’s demolition turned violent, leaving multiple police officers injured and vehicles torched. The unrest underscored the risk of historical narratives being reignited in an already tense environment.

The criticism has also come from political opponents. Samajwadi Party MLA Abu Asim Azmi argued that the portrayal of Aurangzeb was overly simplistic, reducing a long reign to a question of religious persecution. His comments sparked uproar and led to his suspension from the Assembly for the rest of the budget session.

Adding to the controversy, descendants of historical figures Ganoji Shirke and Kanhoji Shirke accused the filmmakers of defamation, claiming their ancestors’ legacies had been tarnished. The Shirke family threatened a Rs 100 crore lawsuit, alleging misrepresentation of the warriors’ roles. Earlier, certain song sequences had already been edited out following public protests.

The Kashmir Files precedent

The Kashmir Files, which dramatises the exodus of Kashmiri Pandits in the late 1980s and early 1990s, faced a similar trajectory: commercial triumph, political applause, and sharp division in public discourse. While the film received the National Award for Best Feature Film on National Integration, it was also accused by some of inflaming communal sentiments.

John Abraham pointed to such films as examples of how cinema can become a tool for “swaying people in a hyper-political environment.” He said that while censorship exists, the oversight is questionable, and the greater responsibility lies with filmmakers themselves. For him, the choice is clear: remain apolitical and avoid projects designed to push a political narrative.

The broader concern

The issue is not whether historical dramas or politically themed films should exist cinema has always reflected power struggles, ideology, and identity. The concern is when such narratives are packaged under massive star power and released in climates already rife with tension.

Chhaava is not without merit in craft or performance. By most accounts, Vicky Kaushal delivers a compelling lead, and Utekar’s direction balances grandeur with intimate scenes. But the “mirchi masala” of Bollywood, layered over a sensitive chapter of history, creates a combustible mix. When art amplifies political grievance intentionally or not it can influence public mood in unpredictable and often dangerous ways.

This influence is amplified when the audience numbers are in the millions. The larger the reach, the greater the weight of responsibility. Films like Chhaava and The Kashmir Files may bring overlooked stories into mainstream conversation, but they also risk reducing complex histories to black-and-white binaries that fit neatly into current ideological battles.

Why John’s stance matters

By refusing to make films that serve political agendas, John Abraham is taking a position that’s increasingly rare in an industry where box office returns often dictate creative choices. His remarks are not a blanket dismissal of history-based or socially charged cinema, but a rejection of using such stories to deliberately divide or manipulate audiences.

The commercial success of Chhaava proves there is a huge appetite for nationalist narratives. That is exactly why John’s refusal is worth noting it challenges the assumption that filmmakers must ride the wave of prevailing sentiment to remain relevant.

In the end, cinema is both entertainment and influence. The way those two roles are balanced determines whether it uplifts discourse or inflames division. Chhaava may be a hit, but as John Abraham points out, the question filmmakers must ask themselves is not just 'Will this sell?' but 'At what cost?'

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of IndiaForums.com, its editors, or its affiliates. Readers are encouraged to form their own views.