 |
Aamir as Laal Singh Chaddha |
Is Aamir Khan secular? Ah, what a charmingly irrelevant question. Because in India’s great secular circus, Aamir is beyond such earthly classifications. He is a Muslim, you see—and in our post-Nehruvian republic, that grants one a diplomatic immunity from the tiresome debates on secularism.
In India, secularism is not a national ideal; it’s a Hindu-only yoga posture. Only Hindus can be secular, pseudo-secular, or outright communal. Muslims, on the other hand, are expected to operate behind a spiritual iron curtain—untouched, unquestioned, and perpetually aggrieved.
Blame Nehru. Our first Prime Minister imported secularism like he imported socialism—from Europe, with very little user manual and absolutely no return policy. But when it came to integrating Muslims into this secular utopia, Nehru developed cold feet. He realized early on that any attempt to bring Islamic practices under the secular umbrella might provoke discomfort, or worse, electoral inconvenience. So, in a stroke of genius (or cowardice, depending on your vantage point), he handed the entire burden of secularism to the Hindu community. Muslims would get to keep their personal laws; Hindus would get lectures on tolerance.
This was the original sin of Indian secularism: to preach national integration from one side of the mouth while preserving religious silos with the other. Nehru spoke endlessly about unity, but when it came to a Uniform Civil Code—he folded like an origami swan at a peace summit. Why offend anyone when you can just guilt-trip the majority forever?
Enter Aamir Khan. A classic by-product of this upside-down system, where Islam is sacred and Hinduism is a punchline. Aamir doesn’t need to be secular; he just needs to accuse Hindus of not being secular enough. Watch him in Satyamev Jayate, the great moral lecture series where he’s part-therapist, part-prosecutor, and fully committed to the notion that every Indian social ill springs from some outdated Hindu custom. Or PK, where aliens land in India only to find Hinduism ripe for ridicule—meanwhile, Islam is carefully, almost reverently, left out of the alien’s confusion. How cosmically convenient.
I’ve never voluntarily watched an Aamir Khan film—life is short and his expressions are limited. Yesterday, curiosity (and Twitter rage) got the better of me. I watched three minutes—yes, a full three—of Satyamev Jayate and PK. That was enough to confirm two things: one, that Aamir Khan is a deeply self-conscious Muslim; and two, that his understanding of Hinduism is somewhere between a third-grade textbook and WhatsApp forward.
But here’s the twist: the Hindus seem to be waking up from their long secular stupor. Laal Singh Chaddha—Aamir’s latest attempt to recycle Tom Hanks in an Indian accent—releases on August 11. Except there’s a hitch: #BoycottLaalSinghChaddha has been trending for days. Could it be that the majority is finally tired of paying for sermons disguised as cinema? Could it be that Aamir’s movies are about to enjoy the full breadth of Indian democracy—in the form of empty halls?
Let the man screen his conscience to an audience of echoing seats. Hasta la vista, baby.
5 comments:
Secularism is part of Individual Rights.
I didn't read your post beyond the title. But I reckon you must be kept in some check. I am certain you didn't mention Individual Rights anywhere in it.
What next? Individual Rights as a [foolish] Utopian ideal, you Anoop?
--Ajit
PS: Do you want a job in Persistence Systems, Pune? Dr. Anand Deshpande and Mr. Sandeep Johri would be glad to give you one. If not, try AICTE/UGC office in New Delhi, or SPPU, Pune. You would fit in.
@Ajit: It is nice of you to say that.
I am not sure if the case can be made that secularism is part of individual rights. Secularism is a system of governance. It represents the triumph of matter over spirit. Secularism tells you to forget God and treat your nation as the new material God. The secular nations are often very nationalistic.
Anoop,
So nice of you that you took it (the job-related part) in the right spirit.
---
Yes, I am sure that principle of secularism --- the separation of religion and state --- does arise from, and protects, Individual Rights.
The triumph of matter over spirit would be materialism. It's a favourite of socialists / communists. Not secularism though.
Simply put, secularism implies that the domain of religion does not extend to State, *and* vice-versa. However, individuals are at complete liberty to pursue their own religious beliefs so long as the practices don't violate others' individual rights. (In fact, they are at a better liberty, precisely because Individual Rights cannot be violated by government using the apparatus of State.)
Of course, processions involving harmful levels of sound are properly not allowed, even if these are for religious purposes. And, of course, those individuals who wish to hear a big blare would be welcome to shove earphones into their own ears and jack up the volume as much as they desire. There could be a huge market opportunity in Pune for special earphones that guaruntee to damage the user's ears permanently within half an hour of first use. Once again, with a proper government, there would be no law against making, selling or using such devices.
imagine some libertarian chomu feeling the need to interject and make whatever passes for secularism over here about muh indivizooal rights when it has nothing to do with that. Nor does the issue being addressed.
रोचक
Post a Comment