 |
Aamir as Laal Singh Chaddha |
Is Aamir Khan secular?
A question of such delicate absurdity deserves to be handled with ceremonial seriousness. Is Aamir Khan secular? One might as well ask whether the monsoon is wet or whether Delhi traffic is philosophical. In the peculiar grammar of Indian public life, the question answers itself by dissolving into irrelevance.
For India's long-running secular pageant—a production that has outlived governments, ideologies, and occasionally reason itself—secularism is not a universal ethic but a highly specialised performance art.
It is a discipline largely reserved for Hindus, who must constantly demonstrate their credentials through ritual acts of tolerance, introspection, and, when necessary, self-reproach. Other communities, by contrast, are treated less as participants in this ethical project and more as its permanent beneficiaries—shielded from scrutiny by a combination of historical guilt and electoral arithmetic.
The origins of this asymmetry are neither accidental nor recent. They lie, as many of our national peculiarities do, in the well-intentioned but structurally confused vision of Jawaharlal Nehru. Nehru, in his earnest desire to craft a modern republic, imported secularism from Europe much as one imports a delicate porcelain vase—elegant, admired, and entirely unsuited to the local climate. What followed was not so much adaptation as improvisation.
The difficulty lay in translation. European secularism emerged from a long history of conflict between church and state; its purpose was to discipline religion by subordinating it to a neutral public order. In India, however, religion was not merely institutional but civilisational—woven into law, custom, and identity in ways that resisted neat separation.
Faced with this complexity, Nehru chose not to confront it directly. Instead, he opted for a compromise that was politically expedient but philosophically unstable: reform where it was easiest, defer where it was difficult.
The result was a secularism that behaved less like a principle and more like a selective advisory. Hindu practices were open to reform, critique, and legislative intervention; Muslim personal law was to remain largely insulated, preserved as a marker of cultural autonomy. The state thus acquired a curious habit—intervening energetically in some religious domains while tiptoeing around others, as though afraid of disturbing an invisible equilibrium.
This asymmetry, once institutionalised, gradually acquired moral overtones. Secularism ceased to mean equal distance from all religions and came instead to imply a particular posture toward one. To be “secular” was to critique Hindu society; to question other traditions was to risk being labelled insensitive, or worse, politically inconvenient.
Over time, this produced a cultural script in which one community was expected to introspect indefinitely, while others were granted the dignity of exemption.
It is within this script that figures like Aamir Khan must be understood—not as anomalies, but as logical outcomes. Aamir does not need to assert his secularism; he inhabits a space where such assertions are structurally unnecessary. His public persona, particularly in projects like Satyamev Jayate and films such as PK, operates within a familiar moral architecture: social critique framed as ethical urgency, with a pronounced tendency to locate dysfunction within Hindu practices.
The satire here is not that critique exists—critique is the lifeblood of any society—but that it is distributed unevenly. In PK, for instance, an alien surveys the Indian religious landscape and finds in Hinduism an abundance of material for confusion and humour, while other traditions remain comparatively unexamined. One is left to wonder whether the extraterrestrial’s fieldwork was guided by curiosity or by an unspoken editorial policy.
Similarly, Satyamev Jayate presents itself as a moral audit of Indian society, a televised conscience with impeccable production values. Yet its gaze, however sincere, appears curiously directional. The effect is not of balanced inquiry but of selective illumination—like a spotlight that insists on returning to the same corner of the stage, regardless of where the rest of the drama unfolds.
At this point, the discussion risks becoming overly solemn, which would be a disservice to its inherent absurdity. For there is something undeniably comic about a system in which secularism is both omnipresent and selectively applied, loudly proclaimed and quietly negotiated. It is a bit like a national dress code that only some citizens are required to follow, while others are politely excused on grounds of historical sensitivity.
And yet, the script may be changing. The recent public reaction to Laal Singh Chaddha suggests that audiences are no longer passive consumers of this moral theatre. The emergence of boycott campaigns—however one evaluates their merit—indicates a shift in cultural psychology. The majority, long accustomed to being the primary audience for lectures on tolerance, appears increasingly reluctant to purchase tickets for the same performance.
This is not merely a cinematic phenomenon; it reflects a broader recalibration of expectations. The demand, implicit if not always articulated, is for a more symmetrical public ethic—one in which critique is not monopolised, and secularism is not a one-sided obligation but a shared discipline.
Whether this recalibration leads to a more coherent form of secularism or merely to a new set of imbalances remains to be seen. What is clear, however, is that the old arrangement—elegant in theory, inconsistent in practice—is under scrutiny in ways it has not been before.
As for Aamir Khan, he remains what he has always been: a skilled actor navigating a complex cultural landscape, occasionally mistaking the script for the story itself. Whether audiences continue to applaud—or begin to exit the theatre—is a question that no amount of moral narration can fully control.
And perhaps that, in the end, is the most democratic punchline of all.
No comments:
Post a Comment