Why Naseer may have apologised for his Rajesh Khanna comment

'For a working actor in Bollywood, it is nearly impossible to criticise its reigning deities.'
'Besides, due care ought to be taken when speaking of the dead too,' says Vikram Johri.

In a recent interview with Hindustan Times, actor Naseeruddin Shah shared his opinion of Rajesh Khanna, the late 1960s superstar.

'For all his success, I think Mr Khanna was a very limited actor,' Shah told the newspaper. 'In fact, he was a poor actor. Intellectually, he wasn't the most alert person I have ever met. His taste ruled the industry.'

What followed was altogether less savoury than anything Shah had said.

Khanna's daughter Twinkle, naturally, defended her father. On Twitter she said: 'Sir if you can't respect the living, respect the dead. Mediocrity is attacking a man who can't respond.'

While Twinkle's tone was measured, and her reaction expected, what was surprising was Shah's rapid issue of an apology for his comments.

In spite of the affair blowing out of proportion, Shah's comments were not out of the ordinary. For many years, he, together with Om Puri, Shabana Azmi and others, represented the thinking man's actor in Hindi cinema.

His films, whose list is long and varied, have shown a mirror to Indian society by tackling themes such as casteism, corruption and women's rights.

In most respects, Shah was the leading light of the arthouse brigade that steadily lost out to commercial Bollywood. It is true that Shah himself has worked in commercial films, but like others of his cohort, he has presented this choice as one forced upon him by the demands of survival.

Shah's remarks situated Khanna's success in a Bollywood age when commercial cinema was in desperate need of a saviour. Khanna, before Amitabh Bachchan, was our first true superstar, his films doing hitherto unheard-of business and his fan base going to great lengths to endear itself to him.

He was the precursor to the romantic hero of the 1990s, a filmic ideal in sharp contrast to Bachchan's 'angry young man.'

Debates about specific actors shaping Bollywood for good or bad are hardly new in film circles.

Khanna's mixed legacy, say, was explored, if more delicately, in books on the actor published after his death in 2012. Both Gautam Chintamani's Dark Star: The Loneliness of Being Rajesh Khanna and Yasser Usman's Rajesh Khanna: The Untold Story of India's First Superstar explore how Khanna reshaped extant ideas of success and star power.

Shah's remarks may have been deemed objectionable if they reeked of jealousy or attacked Khanna on any score beyond the professional. Rather, his comments were about the craft, and how Khanna had diminished it with his acting.

It is debatable whether a deep intellect is an essential component of acting prowess, or whether Khanna was a good actor, but Shah has the right to put forth his claims.

Moreover, it is not like Shah's statement was likely to cause any damage. It would interest film historians more than it would bother any of Khanna's admirers. Fandom is that curious thing that gives no quarter to reasoned argument -- it sustains itself on its own blood, growing bigger and bigger until it is a sweet delusion inordinately grander than the object of its affection.

To the true-blue Khanna fan, and there were many in his time, Shah's statement is just background noise.

Why then did Shah feel the need to apologise?

The truth is as a member of Bollywood, Shah recognises the unspoken rules by which the film industry is governed.

Director Karan Johar's tweet in support of Twinkle explains the state of affairs succinctly: 'I agree with you @mrsfunnybones (Twinkle's Twitter handle). Due respect to (Shah's) seniority but this was in exceptionally bad taste and not becoming of a fraternity member.'

I rolled my eyes as I read Johar's tweet. How is Shah's personal opinion about a contemporary in 'exceptionally bad taste'? The problem seems to be, as Johar indicated, that Shah is a member of the 'fraternity'.

Why, just last week, the Rajasthan high court acquitted Salman Khan in the chinkara poaching case. For a man who has been in serial run-ins with the law, the latest acquittal was another in a long line of outcomes that have gone in the superstar's favour.

Unlike the communal celebrations that marked his acquittal in the 2002 hit-and-run case, Bollywood's reaction to this latest victory was muted. But it was a collective sigh of relief nonetheless!

It was left to actor Renuka Shahane to write a scathing critique of the system -- Bollywood, law and the inability of the two to meet -- on her Facebook timeline.

Such is the incestuous closeness of the film industry that one could not escape the thought bubble that Shahane would not have risked Khan's wrath if she were still an active member of Bollywood.

Shah's apology should be seen in this light. For a working actor in Bollywood, it is nearly impossible to criticise its reigning deities. Besides, due care ought to be taken when speaking of the dead too.

Twinkle Khanna's husband Akshay Kumar is one of our few superstars, and she has friends like Johar in high places.

Better to keep everyone in good humour than risk upsetting the apple cart with that slippery thing called truth.