“I sometimes become the inadvertent object of politicalleaders who choose to make me a symbol of all that they think is wrong andunpatriotic about Muslims in India…. There have been occasions when I have beenaccused of bearing allegiance to our neighbouring nation rather than my owncountry... Rallies have been held where leaders have exhorted me to leave andreturn what they refer to my original homeland.”
That was Shah Rukh Khan writing a first-person piece for amagazine about being a Muslim in the post-9/11 India, and the world at large.
Khan, as is clear to anyone who has seen him and his careerhead north over the years ” never mind his films, they are all the same; afterthe first few years, he has survived, indeed swelled, not for his histrionicabilities but for being an all-encompassing showman ” is nothing if not anastute, incisive and glib conversationalist with a sharp wit and ready charm.
So if you think he gave the go-ahead for these words withoutthinking of the fallout, you are way off the mark. And if he actually did notimagine the political and socio-cultural ramifications, he is way, way off themark. It’s perhaps time, then, for him to hang the boots, say goodbye to thearclights, pack his bags and focus on other things in life.
But then, this Khan is too smart an Alec to do, and say,things randomly.
So the weekend television primetime hogging done for thecomments, the same set of political leaders who, Khan claims, make him apolitical yo-yo are out, doing what they do best. Playing yo-yo.
So while Pakistan interior minister Rehman Malik, not knownto hide his views on anything related to India or Indians, said he would“request the government of India (to) please provide him security”, New Delhirubbished the request, politely or otherwise asking Islamabad to mind its ownbusiness.
In Pakistan, Jamaat-ud Dawa’s terrorist-in-chief Hafiz Saeedeven offered to help Khan with his stay in the neighbouring country, addingthat Shahrukh will be respected in Pakistan, according to reports in Pakistanimedia, while news channels are already lining up Bollywood stalwarts (led by rent-a-quotemotormouth Mahesh Bhatt) in Khan’s defence.
So what exactly did Khan predict would happen by enacting inreal life what irritated the living daylight out of most people who saw himplay the Muslim victim in ‘My Name is Khan’?
Did he imagine people have stopped reading magazines andwould, thus, not react? Or did he think politicians and journalists would sleepfor the next 10 days, perhaps looking and relooking at reruns of the RepublicDay parade?
Which political leaders was he referring to, the ones who“accused (Khan) of bearing allegiance to our neighboring nation”? Bal Thackerayand Raj? Even their own supporters would admit the uncle and nephew was and ismaverick, out to appeal to the lumpen part of our brain. At least he has halfthe nation eating out of his hand; what if the Biharis and Uttar Pradesh-ites,the bigger scum, to believe the Thackerays, start complaining? Who will givethem editorial space?
Yes, Mr Khan, many rallies have been held in Mumbai whereleaders exhorted them, and the archetypal South Indian ‘Madrasis’ before them,“to leave and return” what those leaders referred to as their “originalhomeland”. You don’t have to be a Muslim to be a victim in a polyglot,multicultural and multi-knotty India.
If Khan is a victim, then, heck, we all are. Pardon thecommunal twang, but filmmaker Shirish Kunder, whom Khan slapped in public, andthe security guards at Mumbai’s Wankhede Stadium, where he got into a row andreportedly abused them during an IPL game, were Hindus, and Marathi manoos toboot. If he was a victim, he wouldn’t be out in the open after such incidences.
Khan, of course, has the option to eject and argue that themedia has, like it is wont to, picked selectively from a whole essay he wroteto ‘sensationalise’, that favourite phrase for anyone swimming in a bowl ofsoup these days. And he most likely would use the option, too.
And that would be wrong. If you uttered a word or wrote asentence saying you are being victimised because of yourrace/religion/language/colour/caste/looks/sex/take-your-pick, there is no wayon earth to misunderstand or misinterpret that. People in public life ” more sopeople whose every syllable is heard, every nuances checked, every angle ofspeech pored over to find the triangle or rectangle, and ones who top ForbesIndia celebrity-100 lists with annual estimated earnings of $37.7 million ”should watch what they say, see where they step and think before they evenmove.
That’s called responsibility. Not victimhood.
in association with Governance Now
