Exactly what is it that compelled Aamir Khan to do what he did, particularlywhen there was no run up of any kind, and no association with any cause in thepast? Be that as it may, there is no denying that his landing up at JantarMantar with the entire team of Rang De Basanti did create space forsceptics and fence-sitters to wonder whether this was an attempt to use theNarmada issue to breathe new vitality into his product. This perception comesfrom a stereotype that is created in the minds of people that celebs don’tsupport a cause without a motive. Such cynicism exists because the image of anactor is that he’s apathetic--or stupid--about real issues.
I feel that there is no need for a man like Aamir to require a certificatefrom anyone. If he is sincerely concerned, if his heart is in the right placeand he was motivated by the concerns of the people, why does he require acertificate? This whole desperation to look for certificates and repeatedlyexplain his stand to the world makes him look pathetic. It’s not essential, it’snot necessary and it’s absurd. It just completely demeans him and whatever hewants to do.
His credibility will only be demonstrated to the world after he consistentlyand persistently articulates his position. for the cause. Till then he will haveto live with these demons which will keep on questioning him. There is nodenying that celebs need to understand that when they are supporting a cause,they can't just wade in and recite lines given by a director or writer and hopeto have an impact as it would in a film.
This is real life, not reel life. The issues are not black and white and theyare far too complicated even for experts to understand, leave alone the ranknewcomers. There is no denying that there should have have been an attempt onhis part to have done his homework. I think the actors, when they turnactivists, should arm themselves with facts and have the humility and theintelligence to understand that they don’t know it all -- even the experts don’tknow it all. See how much trouble the poor souls are having wondering how totackle the issue -- the PMO is having problems, all the states are having aproblem.
Unfortunately, this time Narendar Modi was one up on everyone because he wasarticulating a very sane rationale - the greater common good - that the damaffects the life of lakhs of people in Gujarat, and is progress-oriented and youcan't just descend there and not look at the wider picture and only take whatseems to be a very popular stand. This is unfortunately what Aamir ended upcommunicating to the world at large. I have no love for Modi and his politics atall. I have personally stood up against him for what happened in Gujarat, butyou can't say that even in this issue he is wrong.
This should be treated as a wake up call. You remember the Diana effect --she achieved much more by holding an AIDS patient than all the billboards couldachieve in the entire HIV campaign. A celebrity does certainly introduce anissue to the larger world that is apathetic. But the issue here is: Does theceleb help the cause or is the cause being used by the celebrity to add a newhalo to his persona? This whole celebratisation of activism, is this going to bethe new phenomenon? The need to be politically correct, and the need to be seennot merely as an entertainer may be another issue that, people think, Aamirmight have been motivated by.
And then there was the more important Coca Cola angle. Now Aamir endorsesCoke. When he goes to the Narmada protest, heis told that the Coke manufacturingunits are a menace to UP and Kerala, that Coke is a threat to the water-levelwhich is being eroded by sucking away all the water from the wells and thefarmers are having a tough time as a result, and so, he is asked: whose side areyou on? I knew a young guy from Varanasi who was working with Coke but left thejob and joined the activists when he was told about this problem . But whereAamir is concerned, people will necessarily ask him questions and he must have aresponse not in words but in action. You are what you do not what you say. Andaction defines character, not words. Politicians too keep on saying so manythings, so what would be the difference between politicians and celebrities? Ifeel if Aamir is interested in walking his talk, he should be more there at theprotests, he needs to act on the ground, not just talk about it.
When he makes statements like "I don’t have the bandwidth to domore" etcetera, it would seem that he’s using the event as a photo-op andprovides an opportunity to people to say, "I told you so". I’dask, are you willing to say, "I will take responsibility for my words andfight till the end as the activists of the Narmada andolan have"?.If you will, nobody will ask questions. If no, then it’ll show your tone andtenor. It was heartbreaking to see him duck and avoid questions. Every pore inhis body was apologetic. Most of us want life’s wrongs to be corrected but arewilling to do precious little for it. That's the affliction of our times.
In the virtual world, the celebrity sees a 6-foot man magnified to 60-footman, and gets used to looking for fairy tale endings. He can't deal with themonotony, the drudgery or with the realisation that almost nothing is doneright. A celebrity's life is structured around black and white so he forgetsthat life resides in the greys. You may have great views opposing Modi’sfundamentalism, but at this instance you can't fault him because he’sconcerned about the lives of lakhs of people who will get water. So you have tostep out of your pet biases, and that’s when life becomes very complicated.
As told to Lata Khubchandani. This piece did not appear in print.
