The debate over film actor Aamir Khan's comments has gone so far off the rails that it has inspired, among other things, the perfect Hindutva sentence. But the discourse seems dangerously disconnected from what was actually said and done, almost as if real individuals and what they say don't matter in what appears to be a higher-level drama played out on a broader stage.
Nuance no longer matters. Say the word intolerance, and you're a politically motivated, anti-national, paper rebel who is actually being intolerant. Here's the thing though: It's not all that hard to present an alternative narrative in which what Khan said could be championed by the same patriots who are going hammer and tongs at him now.
Think about it: Superstar Aamir Khan (not-so-subtle subtext: a Muslim) listens to his artsy film director wife, Kiran Rao (subtext: sickular Hindu pseudo-intellectual) about her feeling threatened in India, but he thinks this feeling is "disastrous" and instead chooses to stay and continue to make movies in a country that he is proud of. Spun slightly differently, Aamir Khan could be considered a great Indian despite "being Muslim" as former President APJ Abdul Kalam was.
Instead, of course, Aamir Khan has been called a traitor, asked to convert or go to Pakistan, and faced mobilisation against the companies he has endorsed as a celebrity. Those calling him alarmist might have a point. Those questioning his patriotism seem slightly less tethered to reality.
Here's why some of the reactions have been problematic:
1. He didn't go
What seems to be the problem with what Aamir said? That he feels threatened in India and so he and his family thought about leaving the country? If the problem is that they felt threatened, well then there's not much one can do because you can't change how a person feels. If the problem is that they thought about leaving, there's a simple data point to look at here: He's still in India. He continues to make movies here. He remains an Indian citizen. He has not run away.
2. He spoke his mind about what's wrong
Is the problem that he said he was concerned about what is happening in India, about the way things are? Is the problem that one should never raise their voices about what they think is wrong in the country, for fear of hurting its image? In that case anytime someone criticises the government of the day in any state, run by the Congress or the Bharatiya Janata Party, the Left or the Right, they too are potentially endangering the nation's image.
And remember what Khan actually complained about. He said that he was concerned about people committing crimes not being brought to justice and about government representatives not making responsible statements in the aftermath of messy incidents. Moreover, he made it abundantly clear he wasn't pinning the blame on one party, using as his example what went wrong in 1984.
3. He's doing what Narendra Modi did
Narendra Modi was not always prime minister of the country. He has, however, admitted that there have been times when Indians were ashamed to be from this country. Instead of leaving, Modi too remained in the country and made efforts to change the way things are. In many cases that involved appearing in front of large crowds of people and bemoaning the state of India. Khan essentially did the same thing.
4. Listening to him would reflect a nation willing to improve
One ought to be happy that a large section of the Indian population not only listened to Modi when he expressed his concerns about the state of the nation but went on to endorse him as the person to change things. If the reaction to Modi would have been asking him to leave India for criticising it, there would have been no change from the "60-year Congress rule". The same applies of course to the eminent personalities from beyond the political spectrum who endorsed Modi and campaigned against the Congress government on his way to the prime ministership. Why is it now a problem that Khan is speaking up about what he thinks is wrong in India?
5. Chilling effect
Many would argue that the chilling effect on speech by celebrities in this age of scrutiny is a good thing, considering the consequences of giving someone like a former Supreme Court judge of India the ability to talk to the world at regular intervals. Celebrities ought to be responsible for what they say, of course, but denying them the agency to even say it is problematic. One reaction to Khan has been to disagree with his alarmist references to being threatened in India, another is to question his patriotism and whether he should be allowed to say something like this. What's scary is the the number of people who feel the latter position isn't nutty.
6. He didn't go!
Someone said they were asked about leaving the country and pointed out their response was that the idea was disastrous and so they decided to stay. Your reaction to them? Leave the country! How does that make sense?
We welcome your comments at
letters@scroll.in.
Nuance no longer matters. Say the word intolerance, and you're a politically motivated, anti-national, paper rebel who is actually being intolerant. Here's the thing though: It's not all that hard to present an alternative narrative in which what Khan said could be championed by the same patriots who are going hammer and tongs at him now.
Think about it: Superstar Aamir Khan (not-so-subtle subtext: a Muslim) listens to his artsy film director wife, Kiran Rao (subtext: sickular Hindu pseudo-intellectual) about her feeling threatened in India, but he thinks this feeling is "disastrous" and instead chooses to stay and continue to make movies in a country that he is proud of. Spun slightly differently, Aamir Khan could be considered a great Indian despite "being Muslim" as former President APJ Abdul Kalam was.
Instead, of course, Aamir Khan has been called a traitor, asked to convert or go to Pakistan, and faced mobilisation against the companies he has endorsed as a celebrity. Those calling him alarmist might have a point. Those questioning his patriotism seem slightly less tethered to reality.
In the meanwhile @AnupamPkher to @aamir_khan #AamirKhan #IntoleranceDebate pic.twitter.com/U32ENRQPIO
— DILWALA INDIAN (@NextToSRK) November 24, 2015Here's why some of the reactions have been problematic:
1. He didn't go
What seems to be the problem with what Aamir said? That he feels threatened in India and so he and his family thought about leaving the country? If the problem is that they felt threatened, well then there's not much one can do because you can't change how a person feels. If the problem is that they thought about leaving, there's a simple data point to look at here: He's still in India. He continues to make movies here. He remains an Indian citizen. He has not run away.
2. He spoke his mind about what's wrong
Is the problem that he said he was concerned about what is happening in India, about the way things are? Is the problem that one should never raise their voices about what they think is wrong in the country, for fear of hurting its image? In that case anytime someone criticises the government of the day in any state, run by the Congress or the Bharatiya Janata Party, the Left or the Right, they too are potentially endangering the nation's image.
And remember what Khan actually complained about. He said that he was concerned about people committing crimes not being brought to justice and about government representatives not making responsible statements in the aftermath of messy incidents. Moreover, he made it abundantly clear he wasn't pinning the blame on one party, using as his example what went wrong in 1984.
3. He's doing what Narendra Modi did
Narendra Modi was not always prime minister of the country. He has, however, admitted that there have been times when Indians were ashamed to be from this country. Instead of leaving, Modi too remained in the country and made efforts to change the way things are. In many cases that involved appearing in front of large crowds of people and bemoaning the state of India. Khan essentially did the same thing.
4. Listening to him would reflect a nation willing to improve
One ought to be happy that a large section of the Indian population not only listened to Modi when he expressed his concerns about the state of the nation but went on to endorse him as the person to change things. If the reaction to Modi would have been asking him to leave India for criticising it, there would have been no change from the "60-year Congress rule". The same applies of course to the eminent personalities from beyond the political spectrum who endorsed Modi and campaigned against the Congress government on his way to the prime ministership. Why is it now a problem that Khan is speaking up about what he thinks is wrong in India?
5. Chilling effect
Many would argue that the chilling effect on speech by celebrities in this age of scrutiny is a good thing, considering the consequences of giving someone like a former Supreme Court judge of India the ability to talk to the world at regular intervals. Celebrities ought to be responsible for what they say, of course, but denying them the agency to even say it is problematic. One reaction to Khan has been to disagree with his alarmist references to being threatened in India, another is to question his patriotism and whether he should be allowed to say something like this. What's scary is the the number of people who feel the latter position isn't nutty.
6. He didn't go!
Someone said they were asked about leaving the country and pointed out their response was that the idea was disastrous and so they decided to stay. Your reaction to them? Leave the country! How does that make sense?
