21 March 2025, NIICE Commentary 10012
Anurag Paul

Cinemas have been a cornerstone of India’s soft power and cultural diplomacy, from rom-com clichés to indigenous song numbers, offering audiences a world of euphoria. The Indian film industry has long played a pivotal role in the nation’s cultural identity, shaping global perceptions of India and acting as an essential tool for soft power and cultural diplomacy. Through its captivating narratives, iconic song sequences, and distinctive styles, Indian cinema has achieved universal appeal, transcending linguistic and cultural boundaries. It serves as a unifying force for millions of Indians, regardless of region or language. The country’s diverse cinematic industries collectively contribute to a broader narrative that Gramsci might term ‘civil society’. In his analysis, civil society is the framework sustaining the state, where its influence can shape public perception and ideologies. However, when this civil society is fragmented or manipulated, it risks altering the fabric binding a nation together. This paper explores how a manufactured divide, particularly between Bollywood and South Indian cinema, has been created and sustained by external forces, notably the United States, to destabilize and divide Indian society through neo-hegemony

Rise of the North-South Divide

In recent years, a noticeable trend has emerged on social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, where comparisons between Bollywood films and those from South India have gained prominence. These debates often position the cinematic industries of North and South India as rivals, fueling a regional divide in public discourse. Initially, I had little interest in these discussions and did not engage in film-related debates. However, as I scrolled through my social media feed, I encountered posts, memes, and articles promoting this North-South divide. When I brought up this issue with friends, I was surprised to find that they were all familiar with the debate, despite not actively seeking out such content.

This led to a disconcerting realization that much of what we engage with on social media is determined by algorithms designed to promote trends rather than reflect our personal interests. These algorithms are not neutral; they subtly shape public opinion and influence what people perceive as relevant. This phenomenon closely resembles historical instances of propaganda, such as in Nazi Germany, where Joseph Goebbels’ Ministry of Propaganda aimed to control public narratives, depicting Jews as subhuman and promoting the superiority of the Aryan race. The goal was to create a homogeneous belief system that would support the state’s objectives. In the case of the North-South divide in Indian cinema, a similar process is occurring, where social media fosters and perpetuates an artificial rivalry between Bollywood and South Indian cinema. Although this divide may seem organic, it is, in fact, engineered by external forces with vested interests in creating division within India.

The Influence of American Social Media Giants:

The forces behind this manufactured divide can be traced to social media companies, most of which are headquartered in the United States. The American origins of these platforms are significant, suggesting that this division is not simply an organic byproduct of discourse within India, but a tool wielded by global powers with ulterior motives. The Internet itself, initially a U.S. military initiative, was created as ARPANET (Advanced Research Projects Agency Network) in the 1960s to disrupt Soviet communications during the Cold War. Over time, the U.S. has expanded its technological dominance over digital spaces and manipulated online narratives to serve its interests. In 2011, The Atlantic reported that the CIA operates a social media tracking center designed to monitor and influence public sentiment abroad. These “vengeful librarians” analyze millions of tweets, chat logs, and other online data to understand and even shape collective moods for political purposes. Furthermore, the U.S. government has a long history of secrecy and manipulation, much of which has only come to light due to public pressure. For example, the U.S. consistently denied its involvement in the torture of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay until Amnesty International’s reports exposed these brutal practices. Similarly, the country’s deep-seated racial inequality was concealed for years, only to be starkly revealed with the tragic murder of George Floyd. If such physical evidence of wrongdoing could be hidden for so long, it’s easy to imagine how effectively digital content—through social media manipulation—can be controlled to serve political goals. The real question, therefore, is not whether the U.S. is manipulating digital narratives, but how effectively it does so while diverting attention from the extent of its influence.

Given this context, it is unsurprising that American tech giants, whose platforms dominate the global social media space, play a central role in shaping content that aligns with Western interests. The influence of these platforms extends beyond the algorithms curating our feeds; it lies in their ability to subtly shape perceptions of what is important. This external manipulation becomes especially concerning when considering the broader geopolitical and economic motives at play. The U.S. has long been involved in the politics of South Asia, including India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. American foreign aid to these countries has often been linked to both strategic and economic interests. The flow of U.S. capital is frequently contingent on maintaining a specific geopolitical order, where India’s role as a regional power is kept in check. The rise of Indian cinema, particularly its expanding global reach, challenges the West’s control over cultural and political narratives in the region. By fostering divisions within India, especially between Bollywood and South Indian cinema, the U.S. can weaken India’s position as a rising global power. This tactic of sowing discord within India can be understood through the lens of international relations, which teaches that “there are no permanent enemies, only permanent interests.” Despite their recent strategic partnership, the United States and India do not always share the same priorities. In this context, a divided India serves U.S. geopolitical objectives by weakening internal unity and diverting attention from broader global power dynamics.

A Broader South Asian Impact

The consequences of this manufactured divide extend beyond India to its neighboring countries. Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Nepal, which share cultural and historical ties with India, have also seen a growing political push against Indian cinema. Politicians in these countries have called for boycotts of Indian films, citing cultural and political reasons. While these movements may appear locally driven, the economic ties between these countries and Western powers, particularly the U.S., suggest that these boycotts may also be part of a larger strategy to undermine India’s cultural dominance in the region. U.S. economic aid to these countries further entrenches their dependence on Western powers, ensuring that the cultural and political interests of the West take precedence over regional unity.

Conclusion

The North-South divide in Indian cinema is not a mere product of regional rivalry or artistic competition but a carefully engineered strategy aimed at fragmenting Indian society. The United States, through its control of global social media platforms and its strategic interests in South Asia, plays a crucial role in perpetuating this divide. Although the divide may seem like a natural consequence of regionalism, it is, in reality, a manufactured conflict serving external geopolitical objectives. The challenge for India—and the world—lies in recognizing this external manipulation and reclaiming the narrative of its cultural unity. Only by doing so can India overcome the artificial divisions that threaten its social and cultural cohesion.

Anurag Paul is a Research Intern at NIICE and is currently pursuing his Master od Arts in Political Science at Indira Gandhi National Open University, India.