top of page

By:

Bharati Dubey

17 May 2026 at 1:38:10 am

Raja Shivaji sparks a new era for Marathi cinema

Mumbai: As Raja Shivaji marches steadily towards the Rs 100 crore mark, the film has reignited debate around the future of the Marathi film industry. Having already crossed Rs 80 crore at the Indian box office, the historical drama is now only the second Marathi film after Sairat to achieve the milestone. Its success has raised a larger question within the trade: can a major blockbuster finally attract sustained investment into Marathi cinema, an industry often marked by cycles of growth and...

Raja Shivaji sparks a new era for Marathi cinema

Mumbai: As Raja Shivaji marches steadily towards the Rs 100 crore mark, the film has reignited debate around the future of the Marathi film industry. Having already crossed Rs 80 crore at the Indian box office, the historical drama is now only the second Marathi film after Sairat to achieve the milestone. Its success has raised a larger question within the trade: can a major blockbuster finally attract sustained investment into Marathi cinema, an industry often marked by cycles of growth and slowdown? Much of the buzz surrounding the film stems from the support it received from prominent Hindi film stars, several of whom reportedly came on board to back the project and the industry. Trade analyst Girish Wankhede believes the film’s biggest achievement lies in the scale of collaboration it represents. “The real strength of Raja Shivaji lies in its creative ensemble star cast, which Riteish Deshmukh successfully brought together. By roping in heavyweight Hindi stars like Abhishek Bachchan, Sanjay Dutt, and Salman Khan, the film showcases the immense combined value of cross-industry collaboration. This strong gesture of Hindi cinema’s biggest names extending full support to a Marathi project has created a powerful impression, generating tremendous curiosity and respect for Marathi cinema among audiences, investors, and other industries. It underscores how Marathi films can now command pan-Indian attention and star power,” he says. At the same time, Wankhede feels it may still be premature to call the film a runaway commercial success given its production scale and costs. “What is heartening is the visible new energy and creative fuel that Riteish Deshmukh has infused into Marathi cinema. With him at the helm of affairs, the film looks strong and polished, and this momentum, further amplified by the star support, is already drawing serious attention from investors who were earlier hesitant about the regional space,” he adds. Producer Suniel Wadhwa, Co-Founder and Director of Karmic Films, says the film’s performance could play an important role in rebuilding investor confidence in theatrical cinema. “The success of Raja Shivaji could significantly improve investor confidence in theatrical cinema, especially at a time when many non-film investors have become cautious about the sector. If the film succeeds as a large-scale theatrical event rather than just an opening weekend phenomenon, it will reinforce the belief that culturally rooted Indian stories still possess massive commercial potential across regions and demographics,” he says. However, Wadhwa points out that the industry continues to face deep structural challenges. “One of the biggest is the shortage of true theatrical stars who can create urgency for audiences to step into cinemas. Streaming has created visibility, but not necessarily ticket-selling mythology. At the same time, India remains heavily under-screened, and even strong films often struggle with inadequate show slots, limited showcasing windows, and overcrowded release calendars. Many films today are judged within the first 48–72 hours, leaving little room for organic word-of-mouth growth,” he says. According to him, the theatrical business is evolving rather than disappearing. “Audiences are now reserving cinema outings for event-driven experiences — spectacle, emotion, mythology, action, horror-comedy, and culturally resonant storytelling. Films that can create that collective viewing urgency will continue to attract both audiences and serious investment capital,” he adds. The Marathi film industry has witnessed a mixed year so far. More than two dozen films have released, but only a handful — including Raja Shivaji, Kranti Vidyalay Marathi Madhyam, Aga Aga Sunbai Mahnatay Sasubai, and Super Duper — have performed strongly at the box office. Veteran journalist Dilip Thakur believes Marathi cinema has already begun regaining momentum after the slowdown caused by the pandemic. “New Marathi films are getting launched regularly. The upcoming film Bapya had its screening at Sunny Super Sound, which was attended by non-Marathi journalists in big numbers. The story of Bapya is complex and difficult to make. The point here is that a producer agreed to put his money into the film. Sabar Bonda was another difficult subject which won an award at Sundance. So, producers willing to invest money in such subjects is one positive sign,” he says. Thakur also points to the continued appetite for mainstream Marathi entertainers. “The boom after Sairat still exists in Marathi cinema. There was a setback for four years because of Covid, but the industry has gained momentum. Ravi Jadhav’s new film Fulawara, based on tamasha folk art, will soon go on floors in Pune,” he says. He further notes that Marathi cinema is increasingly attracting investors from outside the industry. “Most Marathi films have non-Marathi investors. They are putting in money because there is business in Marathi cinema. But not every film becomes a hit. Subhash Ghai also produced a few Marathi films. If the subject is good, people are willing to invest,” he adds. Not everyone, however, is convinced that one major hit can alter the industry’s fortunes overnight. Nitin Datar, president of the Cinema Owners Association, remains cautious about reading too much into the film’s success. “Only one film success is not going to bring investors. In the last five years, out of nearly 500 films produced, the success rate has not been encouraging,” he says. Datar acknowledges that the presence of Hindi stars has helped boost the film’s commercial appeal but stresses that Marathi cinema still lacks enough bankable stars capable of consistently drawing audiences to theatres. “The production houses and directors have attracted audiences. Unfortunately, producers haven’t been successful in attracting financial assistance, which has resulted in low production and advertising budgets. But if films succeed in pulling audiences over the weekend, exhibitors automatically increase shows and reduce screenings of underperforming films from other languages. The audience is always there, waiting to visit theatres in large numbers for a good film,” he says. For now, Raja Shivaji has undeniably given Marathi cinema a strong moment in the spotlight. Whether that momentum translates into long-term financial confidence and sustained industry growth remains the larger question.

Not Trump’s War to End: Israel Will Finish What Hamas Started, On Its Own Terms

Few modern presidents have made foreign policy so theatrical or so transactional as the 47th U.S. President Donald Trump. From flirtations with autocrats to outlandish territorial gambits, his diplomacy has often resembled a business pitch than any strategic doctrine. In this series, we track the shadow of Trumpism abroad - from Beijing to the Baltics, Gaza to Greenland as Trump, in his second coming, is leaving behind not just disruption, but a trail of broken alliances, bruised institutions and a deepening mistrust of America’s word.


PART - 5

American ‘frustration’ with Gaza means little when Israel is fighting for survival, given that the latter cares little for applause from the White House or global liberals.

As the war in Gaza drags on, pressure is mounting on Israel from all directions after strikes by the latter have killed more than 80 persons, including women and children.


According to a recent Axios report, US President Donald Trump is “frustrated” with the seemingly never-ending strife, urging Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to “wrap it up.” Trump reportedly pressed Jerusalem to reopen aid crossings after images of starving Palestinian children reached the White House Situation Room.


Yet the moral calculus in Gaza has always been far more complicated than enraged headlines have suggested.


For Israel, the ongoing war against Hamas is one of necessity as it is the genocidal Islamist group that had first begun this round of bloodshed with its barbaric October 7, 2023 massacre that left 1,200 Israelis dead and 251 kidnapped. To conflate Hamas’s human shield tactics with Israel’s military self-defence, while undeniably ruthless, is misleading.

Trump’s growing exasperation stems from his inability to close the chapter decisively and diplomatically, especially after his boast in February this year that the US would acquire Gaza to develop it into “Riviera of the East.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has clearly said that he was “ready to end the war” but only “under clear conditions that will ensure the safety of Israel”.


The US’ Western allies like France, the UK and Canada, meanwhile have issued impotent condemnations of Israel’s continued blockade, warning of joint action if aid does not flow to the beleaguered Palestinians.


In fact, Netanyahu, in a rare admission, did recently state that Israel must prevent famine in Gaza “for practical and diplomatic reasons,” while acknowledging that even Israel’s closest allies “won’t tolerate images of mass starvation.”


That said, the broader Israeli strategy remains unchanged: decapitate Hamas, free the hostages and demilitarize the Strip.


For decades, critics within Israel like IlanPappé have accused their own country of ‘ethnic cleansing’ and ‘settler colonialism’ in a fit of righteous fury. However, their works and stances show scant regard for nuance or historical context. In contrast, historians like Howard Morley Sachar, in his monumental ‘A History of Israel: From the Rise of Zionism to Our Time’ (1976) tell the story of a Jewish state born not out of conquest, but of repeated existential struggle. Sachar, no apologist for war, chronicled how Israel’s wars were never of conquest, but of survival. That remains true today. Unlike Pappé’s polemical ‘The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine,’ Sachar’s works reflect a deeper, fairer reading of Jewish history and the constant threat to its sovereignty.


Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in 2005. It dismantled settlements and left infrastructure behind. Hamas turned that withdrawal into a launching pad for terror. More than 20,000 rockets have since been fired into Israeli towns while every ceasefire has been exploited by Hamas, who have met every Israeli concession met with blood.


And yet, on university campuses across the West (and their intellectual counterparts in India), a moral inversion has taken hold. Hamas is lionized as a resistance movement. Israel, cast as a villain. Political commentator and pro-Israel journalist Douglas Murray was right to call Hamas a “death cult” that glorifies martyrdom, hides weapons in schools and broadcasts triumph when its own civilians are killed by Israeli strikes. This is not resistance but jihadist performance art, staged for Western cameras and streamed on social media.


Indeed, as 58 hostages remain in Gaza (at least 35 presumed dead of these) Israel is not just defending itself militarily, but morally. It is demanding what any democracy ideally should: that its citizens be returned, its enemies be disarmed and its borders be permanently safe.


It is very easy for images of starving and bombed children in Gaza to spark Western media outrage and galvanize Hollywood celebrities and Ivy League varsity students to dust off their keffiyehs for another round of sanctimonious virtue-signalling. Hamas and its front outfits have managed to do this rather successfully in the propaganda war after October 7.


The harsher truth that remains ignored is that Hamas – the theocratic, jihadist death cult that would be the first to consign its ‘left liberal’ supporters to the flames it has lit – has turned the Gaza Strip into both a launchpad for terror and a graveyard for its own people.


In the hysterical calls for ceasefires and accusations of ethnic cleansing by Israel, there has always been a deafening silence about the brutal tactics of Hamas, that cynically uses hospitals, schools and civilian homes as human shields, then cries foul when the IDF strikes back with a vengeance.


Yet, in cities from Los Angeles to London to Lucknow, ‘progressive intellectuals’ and Hollywood liberals have taken up Hamas’s cause as though it were the Spanish Civil War all over again. In India, Opposition parties who have nurtured minorities as vote-banks, Bollywood personalities and left-leaning academics have echoed slogans that might as well have been drafted in Doha or Tehran.


Rarely do they mention Hamas’ summary executions of dissenters in Gaza, or the fact that it holds both Palestinians and Israelis hostage to its fanatical ideology.


Critics accuse Israel of laying siege. But what nation wouldn’t blockade a territory ruled by an enemy that pledges to exterminate it? Hamas’ strategy has always been to provoke Israel into retaliation, ensuring civilian suffering that can then be paraded before the cameras. It is a cynical calculus where Israel is damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t.


It is time for the world to grow up. Wars are not Instagram filters. Israel is not a comic-book villain. Hamas is not a resistance movement but a nihilistic terrorist regime. Peace will never come through hashtags, but through the hard work of defeating jihadist absolutism and standing by the only democracy in the Middle East that fights it.


Israel has never based its security decisions on the whims or sentiments of U.S. presidents, even those deemed ‘friendly nor does it fight wars - or end them - on cue from Washington.


The Jewish state has long charted its own course when national security was at stake, often in defiance of the very superpower that has armed and funded it.


When Menachem Begin ordered the 1981 airstrike on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor, the Reagan administration was furious. But Begin stood firm, remarking that no American would ever decide the security of Israel. History vindicated him. The Osirak strike likely saved the region from a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein.


Yitzhak Shamir, another unapologetic hawk, refused to halt settlement expansion in the West Bank during the George H.W. Bush years, despite immense pressure. He knew that the so-called ‘peace process’ being pushed by Washington was long on theory and short on accountability. He preferred reality to illusion, especially when that illusion involved trusting the PLO.


Even Ariel Sharon, who launched Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, did so not because of foreign pressure but as a cold calculation about demographics and security. That gamble, once hailed as a step toward peace, has today become a cautionary tale. In return for land, Israel received rocket fire.


So, when Donald Trump calls on Jerusalem to “wrap it up,” he ought to realize that Israel’s military doctrine is guided by one core imperative: survival.


If Trump wants the war in Gaza to end, he will have to do more to pressure Hamas rather than indulge in wishful Riviera fantasies.

Comments

bottom of page