top of page

By:

Bharati Dubey

17 May 2026 at 1:38:10 am

After Don-3 controversy, Ranveer’s next film goes on floors

Mumbai: After months of attention surrounding his reported exit from Don 3, Ranveer Singh has finally moved on to his next major cinematic venture. The actor’s ambitious survival spectacle Pralay has officially gone on floors in Mumbai today, marking the beginning of filming on one of the most ambitious and scale-driven projects in Indian cinema. Headlined by Ranveer Singh and directed by Jai Mehta, Pralay is an original end-of-the-world action thriller that promises to take audiences into a...

After Don-3 controversy, Ranveer’s next film goes on floors

Mumbai: After months of attention surrounding his reported exit from Don 3, Ranveer Singh has finally moved on to his next major cinematic venture. The actor’s ambitious survival spectacle Pralay has officially gone on floors in Mumbai today, marking the beginning of filming on one of the most ambitious and scale-driven projects in Indian cinema. Headlined by Ranveer Singh and directed by Jai Mehta, Pralay is an original end-of-the-world action thriller that promises to take audiences into a world on the brink of annihilation. Produced by Ananya Birla’s Birla Studios, Hansal Mehta and Sahil Saigal’s True Story Films, and Maa Kasam Films, the film combines large-scale spectacle with a deeply human story of survival, courage and the instinct to fight for what matters most. The film marks Ranveer’s next major motion picture following Dhurandhar and Dhurandhar – The Revenge, which emerged as the highest-grossing film of all time. With Pralay, the actor once again ventures into unexplored cinematic territory, taking on a disruptive new concept that demands both physical intensity and emotional conviction. Ranveer will also serve as a producer on the film. The project comes at an important point in the actor’s career. His reported exit from Don 3 had generated considerable buzz, particularly as he was expected to carry forward one of Indian cinema’s most iconic franchises. With Pralay, Ranveer now turns the page with an entirely original story rather than stepping into another established universe. Joining him is Lokah breakout actress Kalyani Priyadarshan, who plays a pivotal role in the film and brings together another exciting performer from the new generation of Indian talent. For Ananya Birla, Pralay represents Birla Studios’ ambition to push the boundaries of mainstream Indian cinema by collaborating with contemporary creative forces. For True Story Films’ Hansal Mehta and Sahil Saigal, the project reflects their commitment to disruptive storytelling and content-driven cinema. Behind the camera, Jai Mehta leads the ambitious project. His work on Scam 1992: The Harshad Mehta Story, which he co-directed with Hansal Mehta, and Lootere has earned widespread acclaim. With Pralay, he steps into a significantly larger canvas, bringing together an ensemble of creative and technical talent from India and around the world. Set against the unmistakable pulse and landscape of Mumbai, Pralay follows a relentless journey of survival against the terrifying possibility of an end-of-the-world catastrophe. The film aims to marry breathtaking spectacle with an emotional core, exploring what people are willing to do to survive when the world as they know it begins to collapse. The makers are shooting extensively at live locations in and around Mumbai, embracing the physicality and unpredictability of real-world environments. The approach is designed to add scale, texture and realism to the apocalyptic world while creating an immersive theatrical experience. The film had already undergone several months of highly technical and intensive pre-production before cameras began rolling. Its ambitious mounting and unusual premise have made Pralay one of the most talked-about upcoming projects in Indian cinema.

Voters Propose, High Commands Dispose

The Congress’s leadership drama in Karnataka is the latest reminder of how decisively India’s politics is shaped by party high commands rather than by voters.

India prides itself on being the world’s largest democracy. Yet within its political parties, power increasingly flows upwards. It is this ‘high command’ culture that is increasingly vexing Indian democracy. Nowhere was this more evident in Karnataka, where the ongoing power tussle between the Chief Minister Siddaramaiah and Deputy Chief Minister D.K. Shivakumar. Siddaramaiah made it clear that adhering to the directives of the Congress high command in Delhi was his top priority, signalling that state leadership is effectively controlled by the latter. This raises a critical question as to whether such a system suitable for healthy democratic functioning, or does it represent indirect authoritarianism masquerading as democracy?


Siddaramaiah and his deputy, D.K. Shivakumar, had met over a much-trailed breakfast on Saturday to hush speculation of a leadership change. Smiles were duly displayed and the handshakes carefully choreographed. Yet, despite the optics of unity those briefed on the talks say the discussion quickly ran into familiar deadlock. After the meeting, Siddaramaiah announced that all was well but emphasized, “We will strictly follow every directive from the high command. The high command has ordered this dispute to be resolved before the assembly session begins, and that will guide our actions.”


Toxic centralism

It would seem from Siddaramaiah’s statements that the Congress high command in Delhi will decide the fate of Karnataka’s people, even though the government was elected by the state’s voters. This deepens a key dilemma in democratic systems is such centralization conducive to a healthy democracy? Does it embody indirect authoritarianism, or the shadow of familial and party-based monarchy? Ironically, Indian voters lack direct authority to choose leadership for national or state governance, creating fertile ground for high command culture to thrive. Parties and their high commands prefer to preserve this setup to safeguard political gains whether it is family dominated or centralized non-familial leadership.


Despite the Congress securing a majority in the 2023 Karnataka assembly elections, the selection of the Chief Minister had dragged on amid prolonged wrangling. Ultimately, Shivakumar had bowed to the Congress high command’s decision and accepted Siddaramaiah as CM. But Shivakumar has repeatedly hinted at a ‘secret’ deal made during the time which envisaged sharing the CM’s post between himself and Siddaramaiah for two-and-a-half years each.


This pattern is far from unique. In Madhya Pradesh, before Kamal Nath’s short-lived government was even sworn in, the Congress high command had effectively pre-selected its nominee, marginalising local legislators. In Rajasthan, Ashok Gehlot’s elevation owed more to Delhi’s preferences than to the wishes of his newly elected colleagues.


Pervasive culture

High command culture is not confined to Congress, it pervades the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) as well. Following the 2023 Madhya Pradesh assembly elections, BJP’s Delhi leadership selected Dr. Mohan Yadav as Chief Minister. Newly elected MLAs then formally endorsed his name in a legislative party meeting, even though he was not a public figure during the campaign. Similar patterns emerged in Rajasthan, where Dr. Bhajan Lal Sharma became CM after BJP’s victory, and in Chhattisgarh and Odisha Maharashtra stood out as an exception, with MLAs overriding Delhi’s suggestions to choose Devendra Fadnavis.


The influence of high command culture runs so deep among party leaders that, despite the BJP-JD(U) NDA alliance securing a massive majority in Bihar, BJP MLAs hesitated to openly declare Nitish Kumar as Chief Minister.


It was only during the victory celebrations that Prime Minister Narendra Modi addressed workers and lavished praise on Nitish. In reality, Modi and Amit Shah had already clarified Nitish’s leadership during the campaign. Meanwhile, a familial variant surfaced in Bihar’s Rashtriya Lok Samata Party, where the high command sworn in its son as a minister, despite him holding no assembly seat or active political background.


In high command culture, the party’s central leadership holds sway over the role of elected representatives chosen by the public. This was evident in states like Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan, where both Congress and BJP saw chief minister decisions made directly by the high command, despite voters electing their MLAs. It highlights a clear lack of internal democracy and raises questions about whether legislators have sufficient authority to select their own leadership. Such a system fosters dynastic tendencies or centralized power within parties, running counter to core democratic principles.


When high command culture fuels power struggles, development projects and public welfare become collateral damage. In states like Karnataka, leadership tussles have disrupted smooth governance, leaving public expectations unfulfilled. Decisions influenced by high command interventions often prioritize party or broader political gains, ultimately harming democratic health.


This culture has taken a worrisome turn in Indian democracy, especially as most political parties, barring a few exceptions, are dominated by families, particularly regional ones. National and state presidents in these parties are handpicked by families, rendering leadership elections mere formalities. Bihar offers a stark example, where a person serving a sentence on corruption charges was the party president and during that time the party ran a coalition government.


These ironic circumstances compel the public to question high command culture and party individualism-does it belong in democracy? Is it not a new guise of authoritarianism cloaked in democratic values, proving toxic to the system? If the high command is deemed all-wise and state MLAs lack the judgment to choose leaders, will appointing one among them as CM strengthen provincial governance, or does running the state on high command dictates align with democratic processes?


Democratic governance aims to deliver capable, accountable, and transparent administration to the people. Yet high command culture undermines this by indirectly spawning authoritarian structures.


Open discussion and analysis of this pervasive phenomenon are vital to promote internal party democracy, empower elected leaders with real authority, and align with constitutional norms while bolstering democratic vitality.


Comments

bottom of page