Aamir Khan’s fault is not that he spoke out against intolerance, or even that he appeared to suggest the Government had failed to contain it. He erred in generalising his experience to mar the nation’s image
The backlash that popular actor Aamir Khan’s recent controversial statements on intolerance received has been more intense than what his colleague Shah Rukh Khan’s remarks drew on the same subject days ago. Both had expressed their anguish over ‘rising intolerance’; both hinted that such sentiments had gained ground among sections of our society with the advent of the Modi-led Government — with Aamir Khan even putting a definite date of “in the last six to eight months”; and both made it indirectly known that enough was not being done to tackle the menace. There are valid reasons for the differentiated public response.
The first is that Aamir Khan used a private conversation he and his wife had had on the subject to buttress his accusation about intolerance in the country. He said his wife Kiran Rao had wondered, for the safety of their child, if they should quit India and settle elsewhere. The fact that his wife had even entertained such an idea is revolting to any self-respecting Indian. Even if Kiran Rao was moved by her concern for their child and had thought of relocating outside the country, there was no need for Aamir Khan to speak about it on a public platform and link it to his views on intolerance. Naturally, people who saw the actor’s interview on television or read about it in the papers were eager to know which country his wife had in mind as an alternative to India. After all, one does not just consider leaving the country for good without having an option in mind, however tenuous.
But beyond that, Aamir Khan’s revelation smacked of a lack of faith in his own country, if not of non-patriotism. A nation with 125 crore people, multiple languages, dozens of religions and differing cultural backgrounds, is bound to contain frictions, which at times manifest themselves in unfortunate acts of violence or unacceptable verbal outbursts. This situation has existed for decades and will continue to. This is the price we have to pay for our diversity.
But this very country, with all its flaws, has made Aamir Khan what he is today. His millions of fans cut across caste and religious lines, and they have made him into something of a national icon regardless of his faith or belief. It’s something that his wife Kiran Rao, an accomplished film-maker herself, cannot but appreciate. But now, if she suddenly feels so insecure in this very same country that she should have suggested moving out, she has clearly gone overboard.
On the other hand, Shah Rukh Khan, who has been generally more vocal and got into controversies regularly, never questioned India’s ability to be safe for the likes of him. Perhaps stung by the massive outcry, Aamir Khan issued a statement saying that neither he nor his wife would ever leave the country and that they are proud to be Indians. That pride did not show up in his earlier remarks. The bottom line is: You can question the Government of the day; you can criticise acts of intolerance; you can condemn divisive remarks by politicians; you can return your awards if you must. But you mustn’t stoop to the level of deriding your country as a place that is unliveable.
Some commentators, defending Aamir Khan, have argued that celebrities across the globe in ‘mature democracies’ have been scathing in their attacks on their respective Governments but have not faced the hostility we witnessed in Aamir Khan’s case. It’s true that Hollywood stars, for instance, had pulled up US administrations over the Vietnam War, the invasion of Iraq, and so on. But they had criticised policies, not toyed with the idea of quitting their country out of fear or disgust. In any case, how is it that protests by people in a democratic set-up against statements of other people make India a less ‘mature’ democracyIJ
The second reason why Aamir Khan’s remarks elicited a stronger response as compared to that of Shah Rukh Khan’s is the fact that, unlike the latter, the PK star is also the official brand ambassador for Incredible India, a Government promotional initiative. In the publicity material splashed across television channels and the print media, he is seen as projecting a positive image of India and removing flaws. The question is: Does the actor truly believe in the message that he is promoting through Incredible IndiaIJ If the answer is in the affirmative, he ought to have dismissed his wife’s alarmist concerns and not used the ‘fear factor’ to add heft to a misguided campaign by a bunch of people who are more cued in to embarrass Prime Minister Narendra Modi than resolved to tackle intolerance in the country. Or, are we to believe that Aamir Khan is projecting an Incredible India he does not personally believe inIJ
By virtue of his celebrity status and the fact that he is the face of Incredible India as well as one of the Government’s Swachch Bharat Abhiyan ambassadors, Aamir Khan has easy access to the Prime Minister. If he had reservations, he could have approached Mr Modi, apprised him of his apprehensions (and those of his wife), and sought credible assurances. By going public, and that too in the presence of senior Union Ministers, he became part of the anti-tolerance cacophony.
Meanwhile, the million dollar question is: What precisely happened in the ‘six to eight months’ which so alarmed the actor and his wifeIJ After having said so much, he should answer this question as well. In the case of music composer AR Rahman, for instance, there is the fatwa that had been issued against him for having composed for a film supposedly derogatory to Islam. The call for his ‘ghar wapsi’ by certain Hindutva elements too must have annoyed him. So, he had reason to speak out against intolerance. But even he, like Shah Rukh Khan, did not drag in the country’s image into his personal experience.
Aamir Khan has the resources to settle anywhere in the world — as unsolicited advice, he could try out Saudi Arabia and Pakistan for tolerance. Or even the West, which had resorted to massive racial-profiling post-9/11. Nobody can stop him; no one could stop MF Husain either. But there are millions of Indians who face intolerance and injustice because of their weak social or economic standing. There are thousands of families who have lost their loved ones on the borders or at the hands of militants because of the failure of successive Governments to effectively tackle our errant neighbour. Then there are those families who have lost members because the latter were inadequately equipped in arms and armour to confront better-prepared insurgents. All of them have genuine grievances. Should they turn their backs, or even think of doing so, on their countryIJ