The death of the He-Man of Bollywood on 24 November 2025 shook fans around the world. What was particularly noticeable, however, were the considerable condolence messages pouring in from Russia and a few Central Asian states, especially from the older generation of fans. Dharmendra’s demise has once again reminded us of the rich cinematic exchange that once existed between India and the erstwhile Soviet Union. Although the Indo-Soviet film exchange was an ad hoc arrangement rather than a carefully thought-out plan, it helped build mutual trust, foster cultural exchange, and strengthen anti-colonial socialist solidarity among Afro-Asian nations. According to experts working on film diplomacy, Indian actors such as Dharmendra (the He-Man of Bollywood), Raj Kapoor, Nargis, Amitabh Bachchan, and Mithun Chakravarty enjoyed immense popularity in Eurasia. However, this cultural bond has not been nurtured further by either side. Therefore, this article examines the cherished Indo-Soviet film diplomacy and makes a case for its revival if India wishes to further pursue “smart diplomacy”—a mix of hard power, such as economic and military tools, and soft power, such as attraction and persuasion.
Indo-Soviet Tryst with Film Diplomacy
The early film exchange between India and the Soviet Union was the product of the personal efforts of individuals inspired by Marxist ideas. Khwaja Ahmad Abbas was one such director and was also a member of the IPTA (Indian People’s Theatre Association). He directed the film Dharti Ke Lal (1946), which was the first Indian movie largely based on Soviet values and advocated Soviet-style collective farming. However, it is evident that these film exchanges were largely post-Stalin phenomena and a product of active Nehru–Khrushchev engagement, which was further cemented by Khrushchev’s visit to India in 1955.
Following Dharti Ke Lal, directors from India and the Soviet Union joined hands to make films together. One such successful collaboration was Ali Baba Chalis Chor (The Adventures of Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves). The film was jointly directed by Soviet director Latif Faiziev and Indian director Umesh Mehra. Even the cast was jointly selected and included actors such as Dharmendra, Hema Malini, and Zeenat Aman, alongside Russian and Central Asian actors.
Thanks to the deepening distribution networks and joint efforts, many Indian movies were released in Russia. In fact, the film Awara (The Vagabond), starring Raj Kapoor, Prithviraj Kapoor, and Nargis, became so famous that it remains the third highest-grossing film in Russian history, selling tickets worth 63.7 million. Films such as Awara, Shri 420, Andhiyan, Do Bigha Zameen, and Rahi resonated strongly with the Soviet aspiration of the “New Soviet Man.” The protagonists of these films fought for social justice and against rural poverty—aspirations that also aligned with those of newly independent India. Consequently, these films played a crucial role in Indo-Soviet cultural diplomacy, sensitizing both societies to each other’s aspirations and countering Western propaganda. As a result, popular perception among Soviet citizens was largely favourable towards India, even though India, under Nehru, chose to remain non-aligned rather than formally partner with the Soviet bloc. Indeed, this period marked India’s most successful soft power experiment.
What Made the Indo-Soviet Film Exchange Thrive?
From 1954 to 1991, more than 200 films were exchanged between India and what is now Russia and Central Asia. Such a massive exchange was possible due to the political will of the heads of state and institutional arrangements such as the Indo-Soviet Cultural Societies (established in 1952) and the Institute of Russian Studies (1965), which later became the Centre for Russian Studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.
Secondly, a shared sense of anti-colonial cultural solidarity also fuelled this exchange. Western movies often portrayed Soviet men as evil and brutal. In contrast, Indian cinema, largely a commercial enterprise, appreciated the ideals of the New Soviet Man and his core values. Both nations shared similar social values, such as a strong family system and collective living, which were largely absent in Western cinema. Lastly, Indian cinema proved to be a commercial success in the Soviet Union, making the exchange more robust and leading to the development of a sustainable commercial chain between India and the Soviet Union.
Why Did the Cinematic Bridge Collapse After 1991?
The disintegration of the USSR in 1991 disrupted the unified film distribution system between India and the Soviet Union. This period also coincided with the gradual dominance of Western cinema in India, Russia, and Central Asia. With the collapse of the USSR, the embargo on film exchanges between the Soviet bloc and Western nations disappeared. The former Soviet Union became a massive market for Hollywood, where Bollywood struggled to compete. Gradually, Indian cinema also shed much of its socialist outlook and adopted Western-style narratives and casting, where it could not match Hollywood’s scale or appeal. Furthermore, following the disintegration, domestic cinema markets in Russia and Central Asia expanded, reducing demand for Indian films. Finally, other competitors such as Turkey, South Korea, and China entered the market aggressively as it opened up.
Why Reviving Film Diplomacy in Eurasia Makes Strategic Sense Today
No nation in the contemporary world can rely solely on hard power to navigate international relations. This holds true for India’s relations with Russia and Central Asia as well. Today, control over popular perception and influence often translates into control over international politics. The United States, through its big tech companies, films, and media narratives, exercises significant influence over global perceptions. Perception management in favour of Ukraine and the West during the recent Russia–Ukraine crisis is a perfect example of how a country must win not only on the battlefield but also in perception warfare.
India shares strategic interests with Russia, Central Asia, and the broader Eurasian region. Vital connectivity projects such as the International North–South Transport Corridor (INSTC) and Chabahar Port can be made more effective if similar themes are presented through collaborative film exchanges using modern cinematography to ensure commercial viability. Films are among the most effective tools for building mutual trust and cooperation—something India particularly needs with Russia and Central Asia in the wake of recent Indo-Pak skirmishes and China’s aggressive posture along the border.
Eurasia still carries nostalgia and cultural goodwill for Indian cinema, which can be revived at a time when the Indian film market is shrinking. Film exchange holds immense potential for commercial cooperation between these nations. India must leverage the digital content economy, which remains largely untapped. OTT platforms and social media are in vogue across Eurasia. Finally, such cultural exchanges have the potential to strengthen India’s Act Eurasia Policy.
Conclusion: A Call for Strategic Cultural Revival
The call for reviving Indo-Eurasian film diplomacy is not rooted in nostalgia but in strategic necessity. Film and cultural diplomacy offer India a low-cost yet highly effective means to ensure its presence in the Eurasian psyche. Ultimately, in a multipolar world where people-to-people connections shape international politics, rebuilding the cinematic bridge with Eurasia is a strategic imperative. This exchange also has the potential to reinforce India’s broader regional engagement policies and strengthen its long-term influence across Eurasia.
Leave a Reply