Aamir as Sean Penn?

If you don’t know why Sean Penn, here is the link to his full page article ( Kilroy’s Still Here) that he brought out on Friday, May 30, 2003 (as an ad) in the New York Times, after he had visited Baghdad on the eve of the US invasion….

And naturally, my writing is triggered by Aamir Khan’s show of support for the cause of the anti-dam protestors in New Delhi last week…..

In India, it is indeed rare today to find ‘celebrities’ involved in any serious (read controversial) issues or activism unlike their cousins in Hollywood….I use the word celebrities loosely, by this term I mean any figure whom the public adulates and looks up as a role model, be it film stars, sport stars, models, singers etc. The few who involve themselves in issues usually take the ‘safer’ routes out, involving themselves in Government sponsored AIDS drives, Tsunami Rehabilitation etc, issues which are more or less neutral (though dig deeper even in these issues, uncomfortable sides arise, but few, if any dig that deep) to the media and to the public at large and more importantly to their sponsors.

There has been no Marlon Brandos refusing Oscars for mistreatment of American-Indians, no Charlton Hestons attending the march on Washington, no Jane Fondas in Hanoi, no Danny Glovers against Helms-Burton act, no Martin Sheens speaking against the Iraq invasion, no Richard Gere on Tibet, no Sean Penns, no Muhammad Alis, no Tommie Smith and John Carlos with their black gloved clenched fist, no Joan Baez, no Dylans, no Springsteens ……the list of course could go on and on…..there have been our Guru Dutts and our Bimal Roys, of course, but they chose to highlight the issues close to their hearts on the screens instead of openly speaking out……



At best we seem to able sing and dance and entertain the troops in the full glare of TV cameras (a trend started during Kargil, our first televised war)…..

That’s of course not to say that we haven’t had our moments of creativity with our dissent but these have been mostly done by people who never had the label of ‘celebrities’….they were who were dismissed by the popular media as ‘arty types’ (read boring and complex) and hence never have had the impact that participation by a public figure does….the one exception that immediately comes top mind is Pullela Gopichand and his refusal to endorse Coke (this of course is related to Aamir Khan – Coke being one of his sponsors)

The reasons are many and most of them obvious….

For one, in case of filmstars, unlike the first generation of filmmakers and actors (like Guru Dutt, Raj Kapoor, Bimal Roy), the bulk of the filmstars today have never been in touch with the common people, with their hopes, their aspirations etc….today, the bulk of the cinefolks have their second home in London and their first home in India is at a place where the everyday lives of Indians seldom touch them….they don’t smell what we smell, don’t walk where we have to walk. Theirs is a privileged world and it is a world from where few try and venture out to seek the outside. It reflects in the films they make, of course, buts let’s not get into that too much here.



The second reason is endorsement income. Sania Mirza hasn’t won a single tournament of note, yet she becomes the toast of the advertising world. It is yet to be seen whether this sudden fame goes to her head and her tennis deteoriates but the main point to be made here is that there is intense pressure on anybody who is hailed as a success from the sponsors. And today these sponsorships have become the lifeline for the people who are just starting out in their careers as this not only gives them legitimacy in the eyes of their peers but also allows them to earn quick money (lots of money!!!) which is important, given that most of these careers can be remarkably short, so its mainly a case of making hay while the sun shines.

The pressure comes in following the rules laid down by the sponsors. Though they never seem as rules but just necessary conditions to protect the brand image (which is perfectly legitimate as far as the company is concerned), few people find themselves straitjacketed by their obligations because few people have any internal clashes or second thoughts about the product they are cajoling people to buy or try out. Few people (who endorse) actually think whether the product is any good at all. The product may even be harmful (especially in case of chemical products) but I doubt whether anyone actually takes the trouble to find these things out.

Which brings me to the third reason. Few of the ‘celebrities’ are informed (except superficially) about issues surrounding them. Few are involved in anything meaningful in society (don’t talk to me about involvement in charity, which is nothing but quick balm for the soul, which seldom has any concrete effect). The inner struggle to resolve our internal opposing voices comes out of reading a lot and trying to understand the world around us. Even if some folks read (by reading, I of course don’t mean ‘Da Vinci code’ or ‘Five point someone’), it remains mere words and seldom brings about inner conflicts. If it did, we would have seen different people hogging the TV cameras now…..and because few bother to explore themselves, most are content to believe and read what the popular media tells them.

Of course, the same conditions are there in Hollywood as well, but the main difference I feel, is in the culture. The culture of independence and liberalism that was fostered in Hollywood in its early days (both in its people and its people), when Hollywood in many cases championed causes that were later to become accepted as mainstream (but which was not so during the time Hollywood spoke up) has been taken up by contemporary actors (gender neutral). It is a thriving liberal culture there which the Neo-cons are so desperate to break. On the other hand, Indian film history does not have such a history or precedence. It had to be built from scratch, which somehow it never has, yet.



The amalgamation of all these factors has resulted in the lack of public figures, the ‘celebrities’, from lending their voices to social causes (except the safe, cosmetic ones)

So Aamir Khan, in lending his voice to the NBA cause, is treading unknown waters, mainly because it brings him directly into a conflict which is highly political in nature. This is something that very few people have done; certainly only a handful of public figures….in the contemporary, Rahul Bose comes close but he has (yet) never taken a direct collision course…..


But why Aamir Khan is no Sean Penn yet, is obvious when you compare the comments made by Aamir and the various interviews that Sean Penn has given and the articles he has written (like the one in the NY times and also the fact that Sean Penn is still involved in the anti-war efforts - he writes a column for San Francisco Times and has visited Iraq again) ……Aamir is confused about the finer points of the issue at hand…when asked whether the work on dam should be stopped, he said, he doesn’t know much about the issue so he would not like to comment….what the???? Then why on earth does he plunge into the maelstrom of controversy?

The only explanation I can come up with is that he is a man with his heart in right place and he feels about issues at hand and he feels a moral responsibility to do something, if only to lend vocal support and publicity for the cause (I don’t believe he is doing it for self-promotion…he doesn’t need to, really)…..

And that he can be quite articulate on certain topics is evident from the interview (page1,page 2, page3) he gave Tehelka on the state of Indian media….but he still has some way to go before we can call him an informed and articulate man on more political issues….certainly he would be informed better if he engages properly with movements like the NBA in the long run….

But one just wonders whether Khan has the tenacity to stay the long run…certainly a celebrity who endorses political issues is an odd horse in the Indian society and he may (will?) have to forego chances of endorsements (hence one income path will dry up…can be quite painful, I believe)….and he may have to tread a lonely path…..will he be upto it and consequently will he be one of the first to start a trend of informed concerned public figure who are not afraid to speak up?

He certainly has the qualities required but as for the rest only time will tell……

We can only hope for the best and do our own part….