Ranbir Kapoor says that Bollywood and Tollywood are merely derivatives of Hollywood and that Indian cinema should be considered as one large entity. One Nation, One Cinema. While the idea sounds appealing, it isn’t very plausible or even diverse. Nor is it fair.
At a time when regional cinema is finally getting its due, the Hindi film industry does not get to demand that they all be part of one big, happy family.
After all, what have Bollywood and its superstars done to support regional cinema when these industries were struggling for recognition? And why should an industry representative of a country as diverse as India be brought under one umbrella term?
“I think it’s just a term used as a derivative of Hollywood. Because it was Bombay at that time, so it became Bollywood, and the Telugu industry became Tollywood, and they had all these different-sounding names,” Kapoor said.
To be fair to Kapoor, he didn’t use the term ‘One Nation, One Cinema,’ but he did want to represent ‘Indian cinema.’ But our film industries are more than “different-sounding names.”
The joy of diversity
Every region of the country has its own cinematic identity. In fact, I don’t even agree with clubbing all southern industries under the term “South Indian cinema”. Telugu cinema traditionally features larger-than-life heroes, grand spectacles and mass entertainment. Films such as Baahubali: The Conclusion (2017), Pushpa (2021), Peddi (2026), and Ranabaali (2026) have defined an entire generation of cinema, alongside older films such as Siva and Chiranjeevi’s Gang Leader (1991). It’s not just the scale and commercial ambitions of these films; they remain rooted in their regional sensibilities.
Tamil cinema explores social realities, caste, class and political questions through films such as Maharaja (2024), Jai Bhim (2021), Asuran (2019) and Vada Chennai (2018).
The geographical distance between Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu may be just 500 kilometres, but the cinematic worlds emerging from these regions are totally different.
Take Malayalam actor Naslen, known for his work in slice-of-life films and coming-of-age stories such as Premalu (2024) and Mollywood Times (2026); he has now stepped into Tamil cinema with Scene (2026).
Instead of carrying forward his familiar chocolate boy image, he takes on the role of a ruthless antagonist. It is an example of how actors adapt to different cinematic cultures without necessarily bringing the identity of one industry into another.
Cinema in India cannot be defined by a single language, aesthetic or way of storytelling. It is an intersection of multiple industries, each with its own history, audience and cultural identity. Calling all of it simply Indian cinema may sound inclusive, but it should not come at the cost of erasing the regional identities that have shaped it.
Also Read: Give Diwali its own cosy movie genre, just like Christmas movies
Money minting machine
Nitesh Tiwari’s Ramayana reportedly has a budget of Rs 4,000 crore, and released in multiple Indian languages, it has seen a significant share of its advance pre-sales come from the Kannada market rather than the Hindi belt. This is making Bollywood’s biggest names realise that audiences beyond the Hindi-speaking markets matter too.
And if the excuse is that actors such as Ranbir Kapoor, Salman Khan or Aamir Khan cannot work in southern industries because they do not know the languages, what explains their absence from Marathi cinema? It has existed right under Bollywood’s nose. How many of these superstars have acted in, produced or even promoted Marathi films?
Kashmir, too, has its own emerging chain of filmmakers trying to tell stories from the region. Bihar has filmmakers such as Achal Mishra and Parth Saurabh, who are reinventing the cinematic image of the state. In the Northeast, filmmakers such as Rima Das, whose Village Rockstars (2017) brought Assamese cinema international recognition, Bhaskar Hazarika, who directed Aamis (2019), and Tribeny Rai, director of Shape of Momo (2020), are creating films rooted in their own cultural realities.
Bollywood is now benefiting from the very industries it once overlooked. Drishyam (2013), originally made in Malayalam, was adapted into seven languages, including Hindi, where Ajay Devgn’s version went on to become one of Bollywood’s biggest box office successes. Regional stories have demonstrated their commercial potential time and again.
Malayalam film Bethlehem Kudumba Unit (2026), reportedly made on a budget of Rs 25 crore, collected over Rs 300 crore worldwide. Hanuman Ansh (2026), made on a reported budget of Rs 2 crore, collected Rs 400 crore, while the Kannada-language film Premada Oorali (2026), reportedly made for Rs 2 crore, crossed Rs 100 crore.
Regional cinema does not need to compete with Bollywood or prove its commercial worth. It is that these industries have built their audiences, developed their filmmakers and sustained their storytelling without waiting for major production houses in Bombay to invest in them.
Suddenly, though, everyone wants a piece of that cake; Bollywood bigwigs want to be seen as supporting regional cinema after realising its box office potential. But where was this enthusiasm when these industries were fighting for screens, distribution, recognition and investment? Where is it still for Kashmir, Bihar, Assam and other emerging film industries?
Regional cinema does not need Bollywood to give it an identity, nor does it need its validation to establish its worth. It has survived and flourished on its own. Bollywood’s job should be to recognise that, not to absorb everything under a single umbrella and call it Indian cinema.
Views are personal.
(Edited by Insha Jalil Waziri)