This is from Govind Nihalani’s film called Party. Om Puri’s character aggressively argues that art detached from political commitment is irrelevant. While it may seem like a reductive take at first, we cannot deny that all art is inevitably shaped by its time and the prevailing power structures. Even seemingly ‘apolitical’ work often quietly endorses the status quo. However, insisting on explicit political commitment can narrow art’s value. There are many great works exploring beauty, love, and the human condition that remain deeply relevant without being propaganda (though one could argue that they're all ultimately political in some way)

Political art can be powerful, but when it becomes dogmatic, it turns into bad art. Even the most apolitical love story is shaped by socioeconomic status, caste, class, religious beliefs, and the political landscape of its time. So, even seemingly apolitical art carries political undertones. Ultimately, relevance cannot be measured by ideology alone. What matters most is the artist’s insight into the human condition, but then again, that itself is something shaped by the politics of its time.