In the hush of Aamir Khan's study-cum-lounge, the well-thumbed, eclectic collection of books tells its own story--P.G. Wodehouse alongside Gore Vidal, Mushirul Hasan's volume on the Partition and Vijay Nambisan's take on Bihar. There's Salman Rushdie's The Ground Beneath Her Feet, Pico Iyer's Falling Off The Map and a collection of the masterpieces of patriotic Urdu poetry stacked next to the star's abiding passion--the chessboard. There seems more to the romantic hero of the '90s than blinding glamour. Aamir's turn-of-the-century movies--1947: Earth, Sarfarosh, Lagaan, Mangal Pandey, Rang De Basanti and Fanaa--show a crusading zeal, conscious or otherwise. The label, neo-patriot, has begun to sit rather nicely on him after his involvement, however short-lived, with the Narmada oustees and his confrontation with Gujarat CM Narendra Modi. He has been speaking on contentious issues like fundamentalism and divisive politics and has even taken on the media for dumbing down. Yet Aamir doesn't want to be perceived as a political creature. His political sense seems more spontaneous than grounded, his agenda based on common sense rather than ideology. His activism is reluctant, and conscious of minefields. His efforts have been greeted with cynicism and scepticism, even by the liberals he had been aligning with; his brand association with Coke has been under the scanner. He is careful, earnest, forever searching for the right word.... In an interview as expansive as his airy living room, Aamir talks to Namrata Joshi about nationalistic cinema, contemporary politics and identity issues. He also tells us that he will always remain an entertainer--above everything else.
Nationalism and cinema seem to make for a winning synergy. What is it about the medium that lends itself so well to capturing this theme, this feeling?
It’s not as though most filmmakers who have been making films about nationalism are really concerned about it. The majority is only bothered about what the box office collections of the film will eventually be. They want to entertain. So if there’s a topic that they feel the audience would react to; emotions that are broader, that spread across the board, they normally like to make films about them: like love, nationalism, revenge. Why does every film have a romantic angle in it? Because love and romance is something we are involved in, some way or the other, at some point in our life. It is something everyone identifies with. There are very few films where the filmmaker is focused on a national issue and makes the film because he feels he has an important thing to say. This is what we went through while making Rang De Basanti. When we set out, four films had been made on Bhagat Singh and all had not done well. And here was a fifth one. Also RDB points a finger at the audience and asks them to wake up. Very few films of this kind, where the audience is at the receiving end, are successful. It’s a difficult film to swallow. It could have not done well but we really wanted to make it.
Rang De Basanti, Mangal Pandey, Lagaan, Sarfarosh…All these films have fetched you the label of Bollywood’s neo patriot. How do you react to it?
I am happy if people feel I care about the society, how our nation is doing. But I genuinely feel the role of cinema is to entertain. A filmmaker is not meant to educate an audience. The primary responsibility for providing education lies with schools and colleges, not with cinema. Having said that, for me, churning out a successful film at the box office is important but not enough. I want more. When I listened to Sarfarosh, I reacted emotionally to it because of what I had been going through as an Indian, it talked of Hindus and Muslims living together. I get attracted to stories that have a certain value. Lagaan, Mangal Pandey. Even Ghulam: It’s a story about directionless youth. The conflict in Ghulam is within Siddhu (the lead character) himself. Ultimately which way does he want to go? Does he want to become another Raunaq Singh and rule over the basti? Or does he want to go through a path that he believes in? It was a film that was trying to guide the misguided youth. These are films that have a certain social connect so in that sense they are nationalistic films. At the same time, I want these films to entertain people. I pick films that have the ability to both entertain people and, along with it, give them something of value that they can take back home. It could be a thought, a debate.
Then how would the Aamir brand of nationalist cinema be different?
I have seen films that have manipulated my feelings as an Indian, telling me something good about my country, playing on my emotions as a nationalist person. I feel those films have been making a fool of me. There are others that are actually trying to take on issues of importance and deal with them; they are deliberating on how we are, as Indians, looking at things more realistically. You can get an audience into the theatres by showing a traitor being bashed up. You can make a film on how Indians are the best human beings on the earth and other cultures are useless. I don’t believe in that. I believe every culture has value; every human being has value. He may be Japanese, Chinese or American. He has his own history and every civilization, culture and society has both good and bad qualities. That is a reality I prefer to look at. If a human being is good, it doesn’t matter to me whether he is a Bangladeshi or Sri Lankan or American. I am going to look at the goodness and I hope I have the ability to appreciate it no matter what nationality he is.
So how much of a nationalist are you in real life?
I don’t have a very jingoistic approach of India as the greatest, India as the best. I don’t believe in national boundaries, they are man-made. A bunch of people have decided that this is India; this is America, Japan and China. I am not a person who is ultra nationalistic or ultra jingoistic. For me, it all boils down to the issues we are facing today as a nation and as a society. Nationalism to me means an understanding of what our nation is, what are the issues that concern us, what do we feel about our lives today, what are we unhappy about, what can be improved.
What then would be your idea of India?
(Long pause)… For me, India is this huge country made up of people with such varied backgrounds, cultures, languages, eating habits, clothing habits; even the way they physically look across the country is varied. Yet, all of them feel like they are part of one unit. Yes, there are problems, there is trouble, but ultimately all of us are living in a sense of harmony.
Also, India as a collective of people is a country that absorbs. In history, there have been people who have come in from outside India and they ended up becoming Indians. Whether it was Babar, or the Portuguese, even the British for that matter started living like Indians. India has a capacity to absorb what you have to offer and makes it its own.
Boundaries don’t matter to you. Would you then be as comfortable being the citizen of another country?
No. India with all its challenges, all its flavours, good or bad qualities, is something that I feel close to and strongly about. I can’t even imagine myself anywhere else in the world.
How much of your identity would you then say is derived from being an Indian?
It works on an emotional level. To give you a crude example, if I am traveling outside India and if I am in a foreign place where I don’t know people or their culture, if I am not familiar with the grain of the people, then the moment I meet an Indian there is an immediate sense of connect and a comfort. I may not know the person, he may be as much of a stranger as the next. But we do share a language, a backdrop, a history, a culture, which is of emotional value to me.
There have been various influences on me that may not have been Indian. As I have grown over these years, I have read a lot of authors, seen a lot of films, I have traveled a fair amount. But it’s my emotional key that makes me Indian. It’s the one thing I can identify in myself as the most Indian: how I react, how I feel.
Going back to your films, there has been criticism that in Sarfarosh there was a demonisation of Pakistan, the enemy country. Were you ever uncomfortable with that?
From whatever research director John Matthew Mathan had done, it seemed clear that there was a lot of ISI activity happening in India. There were lots of attempts at sending arms into India to generate terror and violence. It is happening still. I don’t think my character of ACP Rathore didn’t like Pakistanis. He had the highest respect, he was not against them at all, nor was the film. The film was certainly against cross-border terrorism that ISI was indulging in, and perhaps still is.
Earth, Fanaa may have been about nationalism but your characters’ moral frame was questionable.
Dilnawaz in Earth is a guy who is full of life; who's romantic and charming; someone who can go over the edge, and he does when things go haywire. He doesn’t have the stability that others around him had. He had no real agenda to begin with, but does turn into a monster. Rehaan in Fanaa believes in what he is fighting for and finds himself in a situation where he begins to feel emotionally very strongly for a person. It becomes a dilemma. Fanaa does not go into the right or wrong or the history. A man indulging in violence is not to be condoned and the film doesn’t do so either.
But Fanaa was a rare Hindi film that talked of how things went wrong because Kashmiris were not given a right to decide for themselves…
No, the film is not making a comment. It puts on board what happened. The films have earlier not put on board what happened which is important in itself.
Mangal Pandey was criticized for making a larger than life patriot out of a guy who was a chance hero, the trial papers claim that he acted under the influence of bhang…
Certainly historians know more about history than I do. However, I have only one simple question: how many sepoys do you know by name from 1857? All of India knows one, and that is Mangal Pandey. Whether he was a hero by chance or actually heroic is something we will never know. For 90 years, India has looked upon him like that, he became a name and personality that did become inspirational for Indians to fight for Independence. At every step, he was a name that became synonymous with rebellion against the British, stood for national sentiments, a personality who was willing to give up his life for the country. There’s very little documented matter on him. Just two pages of it actually. The fact that he was in the 34th regiment infantry, in Barrackpore, the fact that he took to arms on 28/29 of March and then he was hanged on the 8th of April. His court-martial and incidents of that day are recorded, other than that, what do you know about what kind of a person was he, his relationships?
So how do you make a film on him? You can’t make a film that actually deals with the nitty-gritty of his everyday life, but can catch the essence of what he stood for. And that is what Ketan attempted to do. Whatever recorded document is there has been written by the British, so you have to understand that it is by the very officers who spoke against him. If we go by today’s example, there are so many cases where reports are fudged, what actually happened is not reported. I see it every day in the papers. Misinformation is not something new. So why am I going to believe what was reported in the court martial? I will use my own imagination. When there is not enough research, then we will go by imagination and then one person’s imagination is as good as the others'.
The film has been honest to what used to happen at that time. Were there British officers who were friends with Indian sepoys? Yes there were. Was there prostitution, did the Company have its own brothels? Yes. Did the sepoys refuse to use the cartridge? Yes. All of these things have happened. Was there sati happening? Yes there was. These incidents were happening. Are there records of British officers trying to stop sati? Yes. Have there been instances of British officers having relations with Indian women? Yes. Have there been instances of British officers joining Indians against the British during the First War of Independence? Yes. All of these things shown in the film have been reported somewhere…
Your kind of nationalistic films have been fictional or historical. Would you do a contemporary political film based on actual incidents like Black Friday or Parzania?
Yes, why not? Neither was offered to me but I saw both of them, they were extremely moving.
Black Friday left a section of people dissatisfied. While some called it anti-Muslims, others felt it humanized terrorists…
I can understand that, but Black Friday is a film that attempts to place on record what happened. It is based on a book that, in turn, was based on representations made by the police investigating the case and people involved in the incident. Then it’s up to you as a viewer to decide what happened.
So what did you decide?
I didn’t see it as an anti-Muslim or pro-Muslim film. For me it’s about certain people who did a certain thing and it was proved and placed on record. If the person planting the bomb is shown to be a Muslim, then it’s not being anti-Muslim. If it was a Hindu you will report that.
But I had issues. I felt that the film clearly names the people involved in the blasts, which it should do and I appreciate that. It also clearly states that these people did what they did because of one incident that happened in the past i.e. the Bombay riots. But the film doesn’t name the people involved in that incident. The filmmaker should have had the courage. Why not bother to find out who those people were? I found that lacking.
What according to you have been the good and bad moments for you as an Indian?
Bad moments are all those connected to violence: people getting killed in bomb blasts and riots; people with political backgrounds using religion and caste to get people to fight, polarize and poison minds. Good bits are that through all this you still see positivity. I am just happy being here in India.
How conscious have you been of your identity as a Muslim?
I don’t think any of us has a choice any more. The moment you have parties and individuals polarizing people, making them aware, then you will become aware too. Whether you are a Hindu or a Muslim, you are constantly being reminded of who you are and what the other person is. That’s sad. I can make two twins sit next to each other and make them feel different; if I want, I can create a rift between the two. There’s no end to it. In a country like India, we should be able to live with dignity, in love and care and should all live as one. We are the same human beings. We must enjoy it the way it is with its beauty and diversity.
Is it important for you to practice your religion? How come I don’t see any symbols of your religion in your house?
(Laughs pointing to a statue in the balcony): There’s a Ganesha over there…I don’t discuss religion in public. And the less it is discussed the better.
But I am curious to know if you have read the religious texts. Have your parents inculcated the practices in you?
All of this goes into the same area of discussing religion that I don’t want to indulge in…
Have you gone beyond your religion then, have you given it all up, or are there remnants…
On this question all I’d like to say is that I am an Indian and that is what is important to me…But I am not apologetic or defensive about my religion…
You are the liberal face of a Muslim—educated, married to a Hindu, have a stature and standing. Does it make you more immune to trouble than say the common Muslim on the streets?
Irrespective of your religion, it’s your position in society that counts. If you are economically well off, if you are successful and you have certain strengths you would be that much more immune to a lot of things. You will be exposed to harsh realities if you are at the grassroots.
Our film industry is considered to be the most secular. Right now, it’s the Khans who are ruling it…
Discrimination happens in every society, in every walk of life in various degrees and to different people, whether it’s on caste or religious grounds. If you go by the theory that man is a tribes person, then what you recognize as your tribe might be quite different from what another person recognizes as his tribe. You are softer on someone who you think is from your tribe and harsher on another.
In the entertainment world, if someone entertains you, he just entertains irrespective of whether he is Chinese or German or black or white or Hindu or Muslim or upper caste or lower caste. When someone cracks a good joke he makes you laugh. You are quite happy to ignore his background. In the last 17 years in the film industry, I have seen no discrimination. At every level--in the labour force, spot boys, producers, directors, writers, actors--I haven’t seen it happening…
Yet portrayals of the minorities get stereotypical…
Why just Muslims? Any hero can get stereotyped. In a mass medium when I am telling a story to lakhs of people and if I am hoping to connect with lakhs of them, then my strokes will have to be a little broad. The struggle for any creative person is how to bring in finer strokes, how to bring in layers? For us, that becomes a challenge. In a medium meant for mass consumption, forget the Muslim, even a Hindu can become a cliché. There is very little scope for grey.
Have you wondered about what the academics call the "feminization" of the Muslim, how in Bollywood’s Hindu-Muslim love story (like Gadar, Bombay) it’s the girl who is a Muslim who gets "taken over" by the Hindu guy…
According to me, if a film like Gadar was made in Pakistan, it would be other way round. Every society would want to get its own audience to identify with the particular story. I don’t think it’s important. It’s not an issue at all. If a film is saying that irrespective of your religion, you can love each other and hope to share a life, then why not? I don’t like to read into it too much.
If I had problems with Mani Ratnam’s Bombay those were not Hindu or Muslim in nature. Bombay shows that the riots happened spontaneously and that your average Hindu or Muslim was out on the street fighting each other, which is not what happened.
You took on Narendra Modi but Fanaa never got shown in Gujarat, Parzania too is stuck…Doesn’t it bother you?
In a democracy you go by the understanding that what majority wants will happen. You or I may not like it. Having said that, I also feel the law of the land must be upheld in all cases, but obviously there are times when illegal things do happen. Irrespective of who is in power, you have to follow the law of the land and it states you can’t stop the exhibition of a film. But what can you do if the law and order machinery is unable to protect a film? If 500 people come to my house today and kill me and law is not able to protect me, then what can you do?
You were criticized for picking up the Narmada issue and then leaving it mid-way…
I am not a social activist. For me to take an issue to its final conclusion will mean that I stop making films. I feel if there’s any issue I feel strongly about, I can give a voice to it. I can try and create awareness. I can use my public personality to educate, to take it to people. I have no inclination to go beyond that. My primary responsibility is to entertain, to speak on issues as a citizen. Whether it's NBA or any other issue, it’s the primary responsibility of administration to sort it out and for the media to report on it. On NBA, I felt a certain way, understood it and wanted to express. It became a controversy in which the youth wing of both Congress and BJP took to arms against me. There are people who have lost land, do you not want them to be rehabilitated? It really is the responsibility of elected representatives and media to take it forward. Would there be other issues I’ll take up in the future? Yes, if and when I feel like.
Any leaders who inspire you?
Gandhiji was one such person. I can’t name anyone from contemporary politics. It will be unfair. I don’t know them enough.
Does the thought of entering politics enter your mind?
No. I am quite comfortable where I am. I am a person who is into cinema. I do not want to be anywhere else. I am not cut out for politics. I am not going to align with any party, nor campaign for any.
A shorter version of this interview with appears in the print magazine.
