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.

The MAGA Mirage

Donald Trump’s second term has married trade brinkmanship with foreign-policy missteps, leaving America smaller in influence and standing.

When Donald Trump won a second term in the White House, there was hope he might trade the turbulence that accompanied his first term for something resembling stability. Instead, the first year of his return has delivered a new round of upheaval.


Trump came into office pledging to end two of the world’s most intractable conflicts: the war between Russia and Ukraine, and the bloody cycle of violence between Israel and the Palestinians. In both theatres, he promised decisive diplomacy. In neither has he delivered. Ukraine’s battlefields still burn; Gaza remains under siege. His negotiations have yielded no breakthroughs.


Rather than focus solely on these diplomatic challenges, Trump commenced on an aggressive ‘tariff war’ against both rivals and trading partners. This economic offensive has quickly become as complex and intractable as the wars he vowed to end. Joe Biden, his predecessor, had given unstinting support to Ukraine and Israel, shovelling billions of dollars in aid and weaponry their way. Trump has maintained that military backing, but layered over it an unpredictable trade policy that has rattled allies and foes alike.


The ‘Make America Great Again’ slogan has become entwined with punitive tariffs on imports, justified as a way to protect American industry. Yet the effects have rippled far beyond American shores. Supply chains have frayed. Global inflation has been nudged higher. Poorer countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America, already struggling with fragile economies, have found themselves hit hardest by rising prices for basic goods. America’s withdrawal of funds from health, education and social-welfare projects abroad has compounded the pain.


At home, the tariff strategy has delivered more pain than gain. Inflation has crept upward, hitting working-class households. Small and medium-sized firms, reliant on imported components, have struggled to cope with higher costs. He has also tightened the purse strings on research and higher education, long the bedrock of America’s economic and technological leadership. Economists warn that if such policies persist, Trump’s MAGA mantra could morph into ‘Make America Small Again.’


But Trump’s tariff crusade suffers from more than just economic flaws. Gone are the days when Washington poured resources into poverty reduction, agricultural development and global health. America has slashed its contributions to the UN’s cultural, health and humanitarian agencies. To many in the developing world, this is a signal that the superpower has little interest in their welfare.


The administration insists the tariffs serve America’s interests. But they have also provided a propaganda gift to America’s critics, who depict the United States as a self-absorbed bully. The founding fathers, notably George Washington, once saw modest tariffs (around 10 percent) as a reasonable tool of statecraft. Trump’s steeper levies risk weaponizing trade in ways that alienate allies and undercut America’s moral authority.


India has been among the most vocal critics. Foreign minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar and foreign secretary Ranbir Jaiswal have publicly highlighted what they see as the dual standards of Trump’s trade policy. The American president has pressed India to curtail purchases of discounted Russian crude oil, warning of the moral cost of financing Moscow’s war. New Delhi has countered that the United States and the European Union continue to trade with Russia in other sectors (uranium, aerospace parts, chemicals and fertilisers) at volumes exceeding India’s own commerce.


India’s pushback underscores a deeper frustration among middle powers at Washington’s readiness to dictate terms while disregarding its own inconsistencies. Why, Indian officials ask, should their country’s energy policy be subject to American approval?


The critique extends to the wars themselves. Washington has spent liberally to arm Ukraine, prolonging its ability to resist Russia’s invasion. Critics argue that this support, while bolstering Kyiv’s defences, has entrenched the conflict and reduced incentives for either side to negotiate. A similar dynamic is visible in Israel, where American backing has been unwavering despite the rising civilian toll in Gaza. In both cases, Trump has failed to open credible channels for peace.


Trying to fight two wars and a tariff battle at once is a strategic overreach. Economic confrontation with trading partners distracts from the delicate diplomacy needed to end shooting wars. By alienating allies through tariffs, Trump risks narrowing the coalition that might help broker peace in Ukraine and the Middle East.


India’s diplomatic defiance is a case in point. New Delhi’s firm stance may embolden other countries to resist American pressure. For decades, America’s influence rested not just on military and economic might, but also on the perception that it championed a rules-based, democratic order. Tariff diktats, double standards and retreat from global development projects chip away at that image.


Trump still has time to alter course. Abandoning the tariff war would ease global economic strains and repair frayed alliances. But that would require a radical change in his mercurial temperament. It would mean less bluster, more listening; fewer ultimatums, more compromise.


For now, the trajectory is worrying. Tariffs, meant as a weapon to protect American jobs, risk damaging the economy, isolating the country and making it harder to tackle the very conflicts Trump promised to end. If the goal is to make America great again, history suggests greatness is achieved not by raising walls, whether of concrete or customs duties, but by building durable partnerships.


(The writer is a foreign affairs expert. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page