The Man, the Myth, the Larger than Life: Effects on a Nation Desperately Seeking Shah Rukh
This paper was written in 2023
In an interview for Yasmin Kidwai’s documentary Filmistaan: The Euphoric State of Bollywood (2018), Shah Rukh Khan stated, “There must be 1600 languages and dialects in our country, and every 10-15 kilometres, the dialect changes. I don’t know how many hundreds of religions co-exist. Being diverse is a good thing, being divisive is not. Like art has no religion, I think our country really has no religion, and all of them amalgamated together to make India a beautiful painting, and all colours enhance each other. You take away one colour or start saying one colour is better than the other, then it is no longer a painting.”[1]
It is this very notion of multiculturalism and homogeneity that has defined much of Shah Rukh’s career, which has in turn, due to his incomprehensible popularity, subsequently shaped the Hindi film industry. Within an industry where ‘cinema hall managers, film producers, and film directors all talk about the financial necessity to appeal to filmgoers across age, gender, and class divisions’[2], there is no better person to be than Shah Rukh Khan. The extensive reach of Khan’s influence aside, it is important to also note the impact of India’s globalization on the industry, which began in 1991 and precipitated the nation’s ‘simultaneous solidification of global flows and the consolidation of local identities’[3]. Although this undoubtedly shaped the trajectory of Bollywood films via the projection of diasporic narratives, Hindu nationalism and consumerist tendencies, these characteristics have equally counteracted the same multiculturalism and homogeneity. Therefore I am more concerned with focusing on the ways in which Khan has centralized these concepts through his cultural diversity, socio-economic background, and his construction of the cosmopolitan Indian male. In doing so, I hope to reach an understanding of the ways in which Khan has contributed to and exacerbated the remapping of national and transnational social borders.
Born in 1965, Khan was raised in New Delhi to freedom fighter Mir Taj Mohammed Khan and magistrate Lateef Fatima. His parents’ respective careers allude to a childhood colourfully shaped by allegiances to Indian nationhood, particularly his father, whose activism entailed ‘courting arrests under Mahatma Gandhi’s 1942 Quit India Movement against British imperialists.’[4] Khan’s inevitable devotion to Indian nationalism is met with an inherent hybridized cultural identity, as evidenced by his classification of himself as ‘Half Hyderabadi (Mom), half Pathan (Dad), some Kashmiri (Grandmom), born in Delhi, liv[ed] in Mumbai, Punjabi [Hindu] wife, Kolkata team, Indian at heart.’[5] In doing so, this prefaces the SRK brand’s philosophy to establish connections that apply to India’s mass diversity that spans its population of 1.4 billion. An additionally tactical approach ventured by the SRK brand is the display of a judicious coexistence between religious groups, which is often juxtaposed by Hindi cinema. Khan’s position to do so is endorsed by an a life and career ‘built on the old Nehruvian idea of India – pluralism, brotherhood, and symbiosis between its two biggest religions, Hinduism and Islam.’[6] Contrary to Bollywood’s characterization of Muslims as the oppressors or the oppressed, whose supposed primitivity directly opposes the enlightenment of India’s progressive modernity, Khan’s films attempt to construct a climate wherein both religious groups maintain diplomacy and amicability. In addition, Khan maintains a fluidity whereby he is able to play characters across both religions, illustrating a capacity to not only reflect but skilfully heighten this pluralism in order to reimagine the pan-Indian hero, thus extending his reach to various audiences and sensibilities. ‘He has played Hindu (Devdas, 2002) and Muslim (Chak De India, 2007) characters. He has been a country bumpkin trying to adjust to urban life (Chaahat, 1996) and an urban executive trying to succeed in the big city (Yes Boss, 1997); a non-resident Indian working on a NASA project in the US (Swades, 2004) and an Indian pilot in love with a Pakistani woman (Veer Zaara, 2004).’[7] It is evident from this selection of performances that it would be a disservice to simply classify Khan as an actor, when it is apparent that he is at the service of, and completely enchanted by the limitless possibilities of Bharat Mata (Mother India). Troubled by what is holding Bharat Mata back, it seems Khan hopes to erase the social boundaries that divide her very being and poses a total reassessment of what it means to be Indian.
A socio-economic demarcation that further divides the nation is the epidemic of nepotism. Having come from a family far from the folds of Bollywood’s ‘hereditary and nepotic industry’[8], it is often noted how unusual Khan’s stardom is. However I would argue that it is this very attribute that has propelled Khan’s popularity, as ‘he manages to craft the story of the man of the masses who has succeeded through hard work… [from] humble beginnings in New Delhi… losing his parents at an early age… [with] love for his family, all of which increase[s] his appeal as the regular approachable guy.’[9] In the wake of Indian Independence, Bollywood’s historical trajectory of leading men was defined by the need to confront the remnants of imperialism i.e. poverty, class disparities and caste discrimination, thereby amounting to the archetype of the “little man” often centred in Raj Kapoor’s films of the 1950s and 60s. In them, the “little man” ‘straddles some of the great divides in the Indian folk imagination: village and city, poverty and wealth, naïveté or innocence and cleverness or pseudo-sophistication.’[10] Although the challenges and motivations of the leading Bollywood man had drastically shifted by the time Khan entered the spotlight, it is important to consider that the very humility and ambition initiated by Kapoor continues in Khan. However in Shah Rukh’s case, although he has played characters from a multitude of cultural and socio-economic backgrounds, it is his use of ‘the urban, upper-class… [often] Westernized characters’[11] that resonated most with audiences. Characters such as this resonated with India’s diasporic communities in the West, who were no stranger to the urban and capitalistic motions of Western modernity, thus contributing to the ‘exponential demand for Bollywood in the UK as well as the US Indian diaspora at the turn of the twenty-first century.’[12] Once diaspora films became Bollywood’s main export in the 2000s, the sheer expansion was that which reached not only the West but also the Middle East, parts of Africa, Southeast Asia and the Soviet Union.[13] Although continuing his streak as the urban, upper class Indian man in the West or NRI (non-resident Indian), Khan explored the varied intersections of this archetype from film to film. Readers may look to Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham (2001), Kal Ho Naa Ho (2003) and My Name Is Khan (2010), all of which allow for differing accounts of assimilation in the West. However what remains consistent throughout each effort, is an undying allegiance to the motherland and the sacred values that are to never be lost to the snare of Westernization. What proceeded was a total reassessment of how, where and with what means one could exercise their nationhood.
The next and final section of this investigation looks at Khan not as an actor, ‘but as a global celebrity whose image tried to cut across boundaries to surpass the Indian diaspora’[14]. Much as Raj Kapoor’s “little man” was outdated by the outset of India’s globalization, Amitabh Bachchan’s archetype of the “angry young man” of the 1970s shared a similar trajectory. At once a working-class hero opposing systemic injustice and institutional corruption, the “angry young man” was ‘slowly replaced by the image of the Indian man [who was] cosmopolitan, upwardly mobile, and resolutely ambitious.’[15] The current of India’s globalization steadfastly ventured to outdate the working-class hero’s need to revolt against the government and rather fabricate a climate of social mobility and economic advancement. Acting as a symbol of these developments, Khan’s personal narrative of migration from humble beginnings to metropolis is one that has materialized as a metaphor for socio-economic development whereby ‘31 villagers migrate to an Indian city every minute, a trend that is projected to last another 43 years.’[16] No longer was the good life reserved only for Western elites, however such as the NRI was subject to questions of allegiance to the motherlands, the cosmopolitan Indian male was also required to uphold the values of his culture and nation. This conceptualization is arguably a direct successor to Khan’s cinematic archetype, who is also mobilized by conflating modernity and nationalism, this time with the additional propensity for consumerism. With this duality of modernity and tradition, marketers were therefore able to not only ‘balance Indianness with modernization’[17] via Shah Rukh, but additionally use his embodiment of ubiquity and diversity to ‘symbolize the nation a whole.’[18] As with his filmic endeavours, however Shah Rukh’s capacity to resonate with India’s mass population lies in his ability to ‘evolve in different spheres, and to reconcile the incredible heterogeneity of the Indian subcontinent.’[19] It has been argued in this investigation that Khan, having adopted characteristics from the Hindu and Muslim, the middle and working classes, and the motherland and the diaspora, does exactly this. Having alluded to his international audiences within diasporas and beyond, one must also consider these facets as equally consequential for reaching the bounds of transnationality. The ‘SRK World Tour’ advertisement for the Indian bank ICICI is the direct incarnation of this. Walking through an apartment between windows to the world, audiences catch a glimpse of ‘diverse international monuments and landscapes’[20] including London’s Tower Bridge, New York’s Statue of Liberty, Dubai’s Burj al Arab and Hong Kong’s skyline, all places largely populated by NRIs. Posing the possibility of extending oneself out to the world, whilst remaining true to Bharat Mata, Khan proclaims that ICICI is like “coming home”, further shaping the new Indian hero as ‘a well-travelled, globally recognized urban professional… keeping true to his Indian roots.’[21] Khan’s capacity to personify the multiplicities of the Indian experience, as well as participate in both national and global exchanges of culture and capital solidifies his role as ‘a symbol of all that is bright, brilliant and possible about India and its pluralism’.
As Anupama Chopra writes, ‘Shah Rukh’s story, how a middle-class Muslim boy from Delhi became one of the biggest movie stars in the biggest film industry in the world, is legend.’[22] Khan transcends his cultural background, his socio-economic position and both social and national boundaries in order to become the all-encompassing Indian citizen and at times, a citizen of the world. As this investigation outlines, Khan’s ‘fluidity and hybridity become his most potent assets. He is able to reconcile tradition and modernity… emotion and ambition. His ability to evolve all at once in difference spheres of Indian life, to transcend… ethnic and religious divisions, helps craft his story as the Indian man. SRK stands for the Indian nation.’[23] Shah Rukh utilizes his career in order to imagine and display India through his own eyes, as a diverse and homogenous painting. Khan firstly remaps himself, which subsequently remaps the industry and thus remaps our perception of the region and its position in the world.
[1] Kidwai, Yasmin, director. Filmistaan: The Euphoric State of Bollywood, Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), Government of India, 2018
[2] Derné, Steve. "Movies, Masculinity, and Modernity." An Ethnography of Men's Filmgoing in India (2000).
[3] Oza, Rupal. The Making of Neoliberal India: Nationalism, Gender, and the Paradoxes of Globalization Routledge, 2012: 4
[4] Bhutto, Fatima. New Kings of the World: Dispatches from Bollywood, Dizi, and K-Pop Random House, 2019: 15
[5] Shah Rukh Khan (@iamsrk), i am half hyderabadi (mom) half pathan (Dad)some kashmiri (grandmom) born in delhi life in mumbai punjabi wife kolkata team.indian at heart”, Twitter, August 20 2010, https://twitter.com/iamsrk/status/21639346475
[6] Bhutto. New Kings of the World: 34
[7] Cayla, Julien. "Following the Endorser's Shadow: Shah Rukh Khan and the Creation of the Cosmopolitan Indian Male." Advertising & Society Review 9, no. 2 (2008)
[8] Raj, Sony Jalarajan, Rohini Sreekumar, and Fikri Jermadi. "The Khan Mania." Salaam Bollywood: Representations and Interpretations (2016): 243
[9] Cayla. “Following the Endorser’s Shadow”
[10] Chakravarty, Sumita S. National Identity in Indian Popular Cinema, 1947-1987. University of Texas Press, 2011: 138
[11] Cayla. “Following the Endorser’s Shadow”
[12] Mishra, Vijay, James Donald, and Michael Renov. "Re-Mapping Bollywood Cinema: A Postcolonial Case-Study." The SAGE Handbook of Film Studies (2008): 471
[13] Ibid, 474
[14] Raj, Sony Jalarajan, Rohini Sreekumar, and Fikri Jermadi. "The Khan Mania": 243
[15] Cayla. “Following the Endorser’s Shadow”
[16] Giridharadas, Anand. "Rumbling Across India to a New Life in the City." The New York Times 25, (2007)
[17] Cayla. “Following the Endorser’s Shadow”
[18] Ibid
[19] Ibid
[20] Ibid
[21] Ibid
[22] Chopra. King of Bollywood: 11
[23] Cayla. “Following the Endorser’s Shadow”
Bibliography:
Bhutto, Fatima. New Kings of the World: Dispatches from Bollywood, Dizi, and K-Pop Random House Audio, 2019.
Cayla, Julien. "Following the Endorser's Shadow: Shah Rukh Khan and the Creation of the Cosmopolitan Indian Male." Advertising & Society Review 9, no. 2 (2008). doi:10.1353/asr.0.0000.
Chakravarty, Sumita S. National Identity in Indian Popular Cinema, 1947-1987 University of Texas Press, 2011.
Chopra, Anupama. King of Bollywood: Shah Rukh Khan and the Seductive World of Indian Cinema Hachette UK, 2007.
Derné, Steve. "Movies, Masculinity, and Modernity." An Ethnography of Men'S (2000).
Giridharadas, A. "Rumbling Across India to a New Life in the City." The New York Times 25, (2007).
Khan, Shah Rukh. "I Am Half Hyderabadi (Mom) Half Pathan (Dad)some Kashmiri (Grandmom) Born in Delhi Life in Mumbai Punjabi Wife Kolkata Team. Indian at Heart”. Twitter.com. @iamsrk, 2010. https://twitter.com/iamsrk/status/21639346475?lang=en
Kidwai, Yasmin. "Besides His Indisputable Star Quality, Shah Rukh Khan Embodies Many of the Best Qualities of India that I Love… He’s Fiercely Indian, Remarkably Polite, Unashamedly Open about various Issues, Incredibly Intelligent and Well Spoken." Instagram.com. @yasminkidwai, 2023. https://www.instagram.com/reel/C1LptcCSNfN/.
Mishra, Vijay, James Donald, and Michael Renov. "Re-Mapping Bollywood Cinema: A Postcolonial Case-Study." The SAGE Handbook of Film Studies (2008): 471-493.
Oza, Rupal. The Making of Neoliberal India: Nationalism, Gender, and the Paradoxes of Globalization Routledge, 2012.
Raj, Sony Jalarajan, Rohini Sreekumar, and Fikri Jermadi. "The Khan Mania." Salaam Bollywood: Representations and Interpretations (2016).