This time the government is right

Aamir Khan�s statement triggered a debate. The nationalists went for him. If they could they would have driven him out of the country

For someone who finds India unsafe to live in, after riding on its bandwagon, has no business promoting an Incredible India campaign. The replay of disparaging remarks apart, the Government of India has axed Bollywood super star Aamir Khan. It has, in what could be a blow to him, discontinued to engage with him.
Rules or no rules, this time the government did right by replacing Bollywood actor Aamir Khan from a pro-India campaign. With controversial remarks that he made recently, he certainly cannot be the face of India or its brand ambassador.
Khan had some weeks ago, created a stir with his anti-India remarks. That actually is putting it mildly. What Aamir did shocked sane Indians. The super star quoted his wife Kiran Rao suggesting that they move out of India.
Kiran, Aamir said, feared for the safety of their children in a climate of insecurity. Rao was referring to the increasing intolerance the nation has faced in recent months.
Khan’s statement triggered a debate. Quite rightly, nationalists went for him. If they could they would have driven him out of the country.
Given that in Aamir’s perception India is intolerant, this is the least he should expect. But Indians did nothing except take to the social media and expressed their opinion on whether Aamir was right or wrong: whether we are an intolerant nation and whether those who have diverse views can survive peacefully here. In the opinion of many, Aamir the hero suddenly turned villain. For several others, he touched a chord and dared to articulate what others feared to even hint at.
Happily, Aamir Khan or his views or his wife’s insecurities neither dictate our country nor formulate national opinion. He, at best, has star value that can gather crowds, win applause but fail to impact thinking and progressive minds.  So in the current scenario, Aamir, for nationalists remains an aberration: a self serving actor who made the most when the going was good but chose to decry whatever India stood for when there was surface turmoil.
Apart from doing blockbuster films, Aamir engaged with the government. He did a television show for the government owned national channel and was handpicked to be the face of the Incredible India campaign.
 Launched more than a decade ago, the Incredible India or Atulya Bharat is an initiative by the Government of India to promote tourism in India. It sold India as a tourism destination to an international audience. In the process, it engaged professionals to flag the cause.
Given his star appeal and penchant for social causes, Aamir Khan was roped in to endorse the campaign. Part of his brief was to educate the local population about the importance of the Indian concept of Guest is God: Atithidevo Bhava.  
The showman that he is, Aamir did it and did it well. Soon he became the face of the nation: one handpicked to transmit the India-message as it were.
 The going was good and Aamir reaped the benefits: amply. He would, perhaps, have continued to do so had the Government not stepped in.  It discontinued the arrangement with Aamir and decided to replace him as brand ambassador of the campaign. He ceased to be a mascot: a move that generated enough controversy, yet again.
 Initial reports suggest that the government had axed Aamir, following his criticism of the current regime. Later in a clarification that the concerned ministry issued, it said that Aamir would not continue because the contract with the agency that had hired him had expired.
Technicalities apart, the truth of the matter is that had Aamir not taken on the government he would have continued to share a cozy relationship with the current dispensation. But his controversial remarks did him in. To add to his woes, the Mumbai Police has reportedly reduced the security provided to him. Ofcourse in withdrawing security, Aamir is not alone. Security of other film stars including Shah Rukh Khan have been scaled down.
On both issues, Aamir put on a brave face. On his being dropped from the campaign he said that having been on the campaign for ten years, he respects the decision of the government to discontinue with his services. It is, he added, a prerogative of the government to decide on who the brand ambassador would be: "Whether I am brand ambassador or not, India will remain Incredible, and that's the way it should be”, he is reported to have said. Many jeered at his U-turn from his initial statement of wanting to leave unsafe India.
 On the issue of security, Aamir tweeted that he endorsed the move to reduce his security.
 Ofcourse it is an upset government who has zeroed in on Aamir. If on the first they singled him out, on the second they clubbed him with others to avoid being charged with vendetta.
 There will be an outcry and Aamir may sit smug with an I told you so look. With the Government’s action he has willy-nilly proved the point of an intolerant government sensitive to any criticism that may be directed against it.
But those irked with Aamir damning India and implying that it is not worth living in are, this time around, on the side of the government. They see enough provocation for the government to act against its critics: like they see little reason for Aamir to be benefited by those he condemns: in this case the government.  
Ofcourse the Tourism Minister, under whose instructions the contract was discontinued, took it a bit far when he called Aamir a “traitor” in a meeting. One could go as far as saying that Aamir failed as an Indian and let down the spirit of nationalism with his anti India remarks but to brand him a traitor is a bit of a stretch.  
Somewhat similar to a case of biting the hand that feeds, Aamir should have voluntarily stepped down from the campaign, given that the government that steers it, is not in sync with his thought process. Continuing with it is similar to damning a director and still playing the lead in his film.
 As for the government, it is well within its rights to discontinue a contract and is under no obligation to use a face to promote it when it decries its functioning publicly. It is like an employer tolerating insolent staff.
As for scaling down security, there is a bigger question here. Why should the government foot the bill for those who can afford to protect themselves? Why should the state bear the expense for protecting the rich? In any case, stars do not depend on state security; they hire their own bodyguards so the security provided by the state is notional and at best a status symbol.  Should the taxpayer’s money be diverted for this? The consensus will certainly be a big no. Therefore this time around the government will get support on both issues: discontinuing Aamir’s contract and withdrawing star security.

The writer is a senior Indian journalist, political commentator and columnist of The Independent. She can be reached at: ([email protected])

 

 

This time the government is right

Aamir Khan�s statement triggered a debate. The nationalists went for him. If they could they would have driven him out of the country

For someone who finds India unsafe to live in, after riding on its bandwagon, has no business promoting an Incredible India campaign. The replay of disparaging remarks apart, the Government of India has axed Bollywood super star Aamir Khan. It has, in what could be a blow to him, discontinued to engage with him. Rules or no rules, this time the government did right by replacing Bollywood actor Aamir Khan from a pro-India campaign. With controversial remarks that he made recently, he certainly cannot be the face of India or its brand ambassador. Khan had some weeks ago, created a stir with his anti-India remarks. That actually is putting it mildly. What Aamir did shocked sane Indians. The super star quoted his wife Kiran Rao suggesting that they move out of India. Kiran, Aamir said, feared for the safety of their children in a climate of insecurity. Rao was referring to the increasing intolerance the nation has faced in recent months. Khans statement triggered a debate. Quite rightly, nationalists went for him. If they could they would have driven him out of the country. Given that in Aamirs perception India is intolerant, this is the least he should expect. But Indians did nothing except take to the social media and expressed their opinion on whether Aamir was right or wrong: whether we are an intolerant nation and whether those who have diverse views can survive peacefully here. In the opinion of many, Aamir the hero suddenly turned villain. For several others, he touched a chord and dared to articulate what others feared to even hint at. Happily, Aamir Khan or his views or his wifes insecurities neither dictate our country nor formulate national opinion. He, at best, has star value that can gather crowds, win applause but fail to impact thinking and progressive minds. So in the current scenario, Aamir, for nationalists remains an aberration: a self serving actor who made the most when the going was good but chose to decry whatever India stood for when there was surface turmoil. Apart from doing blockbuster films, Aamir engaged with the government. He did a television show for the government owned national channel and was handpicked to be the face of the Incredible India campaign. Launched more than a decade ago, the Incredible India or Atulya Bharat is an initiative by the Government of India to promote tourism in India. It sold India as a tourism destination to an international audience. In the process, it engaged professionals to flag the cause. Given his star appeal and penchant for social causes, Aamir Khan was roped in to endorse the campaign. Part of his brief was to educate the local population about the importance of the Indian concept of Guest is God: Atithidevo Bhava. The showman that he is, Aamir did it and did it well. Soon he became the face of the nation: one handpicked to transmit the India-message as it were. The going was good and Aamir reaped the benefits: amply. He would, perhaps, have continued to do so had the Government not stepped in. It discontinued the arrangement with Aamir and decided to replace him as brand ambassador of the campaign. He ceased to be a mascot: a move that generated enough controversy, yet again. Initial reports suggest that the government had axed Aamir, following his criticism of the current regime. Later in a clarification that the concerned ministry issued, it said that Aamir would not continue because the contract with the agency that had hired him had expired. Technicalities apart, the truth of the matter is that had Aamir not taken on the government he would have continued to share a cozy relationship with the current dispensation. But his controversial remarks did him in. To add to his woes, the Mumbai Police has reportedly reduced the security provided to him. Ofcourse in withdrawing security, Aamir is not alone. Security of other film stars including Shah Rukh Khan have been scaled down. On both issues, Aamir put on a brave face. On his being dropped from the campaign he said that having been on the campaign for ten years, he respects the decision of the government to discontinue with his services. It is, he added, a prerogative of the government to decide on who the brand ambassador would be: Whether I am brand ambassador or not, India will remain Incredible, and thats the way it should be, he is reported to have said. Many jeered at his U-turn from his initial statement of wanting to leave unsafe India. On the issue of security, Aamir tweeted that he endorsed the move to reduce his security. Ofcourse it is an upset government who has zeroed in on Aamir. If on the first they singled him out, on the second they clubbed him with others to avoid being charged with vendetta. There will be an outcry and Aamir may sit smug with an I told you so look. With the Governments action he has willy-nilly proved the point of an intolerant government sensitive to any criticism that may be directed against it. But those irked with Aamir damning India and implying that it is not worth living in are, this time around, on the side of the government. They see enough provocation for the government to act against its critics: like they see little reason for Aamir to be benefited by those he condemns: in this case the government. Ofcourse the Tourism Minister, under whose instructions the contract was discontinued, took it a bit far when he called Aamir a traitor in a meeting. One could go as far as saying that Aamir failed as an Indian and let down the spirit of nationalism with his anti India remarks but to brand him a traitor is a bit of a stretch. Somewhat similar to a case of biting the hand that feeds, Aamir should have voluntarily stepped down from the campaign, given that the government that steers it, is not in sync with his thought process. Continuing with it is similar to damning a director and still playing the lead in his film. As for the government, it is well within its rights to discontinue a contract and is under no obligation to use a face to promote it when it decries its functioning publicly. It is like an employer tolerating insolent staff. As for scaling down security, there is a bigger question here. Why should the government foot the bill for those who can afford to protect themselves? Why should the state bear the expense for protecting the rich? In any case, stars do not depend on state security; they hire their own bodyguards so the security provided by the state is notional and at best a status symbol. Should the taxpayers money be diverted for this? The consensus will certainly be a big no. Therefore this time around the government will get support on both issues: discontinuing Aamirs contract and withdrawing star security. The writer is a senior Indian journalist, political commentator and columnist of The Independent. She can be reached at: ([email protected])