The Rise and Rise of SRK
Shah Rukh Khan’s resurgence as a brand ambassador challenging conventional Hindutva norms of religious polarisation and exclusion has elicited a divided response. Some commend his subtle defiance, while others perceive his alignment with the status quo as hypocritical. His strength lies in openly embracing this paradox.
He genuinely appears as a progressive figure opposing communal polarization, comprehends the market’s notion of success, and exerts substantial influence. His charisma, rather than the films he stars in, defines his appeal. He largely remains impervious to diplomatic pressures, enhancing his appeal as a steadfast critic of normative politics of power. Of course, we know that he is not above the ideological forces governing the capitalist class of which he is a part. The ruling class comes in all shades and people are entitled to their preferences of shades of grey.
In a Bollywood kingdom led by autocrats, in a country with an enslaved press, in a time of intense cinematic conservatism, in a period of desperate political reaction in which even the tiniest outgrowth of political discontent and protest is persecuted; the popular appeal of SRK suddenly forced its way into the censored cinema before the government realised what had happened and discovered in him a new enemy-collaborator.
However, if cinema is not only a collective agitator and propagandist but also a social organiser then the task of politics is to elevate the discontent that finds expression in and through SRK. Our task is not to “co-opt” SRK and aggrandise him as a political champion but to follow and sharpen the threads of discontent he bears.
Sometimes, celebrities are depicted as possessing a universal charm that seems to rise above the distinctions of culture and society. Yet, this perception can be deceiving if it’s rooted in a shallow image or marketing tactics. For instance, a celebrity may be promoted as universally adored, but in truth, this image is often crafted selectively and may not truly represent their popularity across a variety of audiences.
On the other hand, a celebrity like Shah Rukh Khan has achieved a form of concrete universality in the context of Bollywood and Indian cinema. His appeal goes beyond mere marketing; it’s deeply rooted in his ability to connect with a wide range of people through his acting talent, charisma, and relatability. He doesn’t impose his popularity externally; rather, it’s shaped by the diverse audiences he engages with.
Crucially, he maintains his universal appeal while fully embracing his specific roles within the unique cultural landscape of Bollywood. He doesn’t engage in a purely secular politics characterized by mutual appreciation and tolerance.
Instead, he embodies a coexistence of religious and cultural specificities, acknowledging their vulnerabilities, and rejecting any attempts at totalizing these differences and refusing to assume a symptomatic or reactionary popularity characterised by direct oppositionary politics which his detractors label as ‘hypocrisy.’ He achieves this through his enigmatic charm, which transcends societal sections and continuously expands his fan base.
As a beloved figure with widespread appeal, SRK contributes to films, even when the scripts themselves don’t contribute significantly to political discourse. His charisma imparts an ineffable quality to otherwise ordinary narratives. He seems to have assumed a role akin to a god-like curator of political reality, translating people’s aspirations onto the screen on their behalf.
In an era of disillusioned politics, SRK emerges as a figure who kindles hope and shapes the very essence of cinema. The core of cinema lies in its ability to unveil the unexpected, provoking a fresh outlook that exposes the intricacies of political influence on our own locations. It sheds light on the incongruities within the realm of power, revealing the divide between capital’s oppressive grip and the enduring communal divisions. This challenges the notions of social cohesion, universal harmony, and the elusive emergence of a ‘pure hero’ or ‘savior’ in a society divided by caste and communal tensions.
While some elements in his recent movies may echo militarized themes that have become commonplace, SRK’s films invite viewers to engage in interpretation and intellectualization. Viewers ponder, “Is SRK subtly critiquing the ruling regime?” or “Was ‘Jawan’ a clever jab at his detractors?” The intellectualization of SRK’s work becomes the task of the audience.
This is a radical gesture of SRK’s cinema — the sublime invitation to investigate the political antagonisms mediating everyday relations — which unfortunately gets negated by the will to enthrone him as King Khan.
The question then becomes: Is the King political, and not whether the King’s intervention in cinema has a profound impact on political discourse? The former leads to a futile exposition of judgment, while the latter allows for a more collective and personal journey of questioning political realities.
To qualify actors as political and non-political is a false social and moral responsibility to assume. The political organiser’s task is to not exploit his popularity or oppose it but rather comprehend it. By doing so, we can gain insight into why this popularity doesn’t necessarily align with the seemingly all-encompassing dominant ideology.
To falsely present oneself as opposing the growing influence of SRK, driven by envy and a compulsion to shatter people’s illusions, is unproductive. If the illusion serves as a means for people to contemplate society’s state, the dialogue should be prolonged rather than prematurely shut down by dismissing its politically weaker aspects.
The interpretation of “Jawan” as a critique of those in power should be acknowledged in its uniqueness. Some may perceive SRK’s virtue signaling as no different from others, while others may view his political messaging as a timely intervention leading up to general elections.
Especially in his last few films, public has assumed the role of intellectually adept spectators, engaging in witty quasi-theoretical discussions while leaving the direct experience of the work to SRK as the Subject Supposed to Experience the work of cinema, particularly in the context of right-wing populism, given his status as the “last emperor” of Bollywood.
Only SRK can reveal the ‘true intentions’ of his film and yet, paradoxically, there is nothing to reveal through such an explanation. The revelations of reality actually emerge from people being allowed to fantasise, speculate and imbue meaning to his cinema and its messaging – thus filling out the the empty essence of cinema with political content.
In the light of this libidinal-social investment in SRK, it would be a mistake to underestimate the ‘power’ inherent in what appears as SRK’s veiled opposition to the ruling regime by reducing it solely to his actions or words. The persuasive power of words and cinema carries the potential to effectuate real change. Therefore we must take appearances seriously, even if they’re undergirded by market-driven logic.
A Populist Battle of Emperors
However a populist reception of SRK seems to hold sway in civil society. Amidst the rise of populist demagoguery, he emerges as a champion of multicultural openness, representing a ‘counter-public,’ a hero of the people. The essence of populism remains intact as an ambivalent ‘mass’ emerges in contrast to the dominant mass. This further solidifies and deepens the populist struggle of ideas, morals, and ethics in a realm of cultural dominance.
Will the vice-signaling of the ruling regime prevail over the virtue signaling of those in dissent? Will love conquer hate? These are the grand questions that transcend the concrete politics of Hindutva, reducing it to a byproduct of naturalised values of capitalism: power, greed, corruption, and evil. One must resist the populist temptation here.
SRK’s personal journey within Bollywood has been elevated to a universal symbol of people yearning for justice, particularly by those in the uncertain realms of the middle class. For this group, he becomes a surrogate for political action, a tangible representation of the ongoing struggle.
Furthermore, it often appears that when civil society wishes to hide or indirectly express its cultural inclinations and sources of enjoyment, it professes to appreciate cinema and culture in the name of the ‘masses.’ Thus, becoming engrossed in dissecting Shahrukh Khan’s political position through ‘silences’ that are discernible only to the ‘attentive’ observers of politics and culture.
This becomes a frivolous yet entertaining pastime championed by secular progressives deeply immersed in the populist narrative of choosing their champions of love. Consequently, this undermines the potential for Shahrukh Khan’s films to bring about a strange unity across sections of society among cinema and SRK lovers. It rebuilds the gap between the masses who ‘enjoy’ him and the cultural elite who ‘understand’ him through the work of interpretation.
The subtle diplomatic maneuvers of tactfully surviving and conquering the market while still maintaining relative autonomy to shape a critical narrative of the regime is able to tickle those who themselves are looking for ways to reconcile their guilt and silence, through gestural politics of silent rebellions. To these spectators, the voice takes centrality in politics: the act of ‘speaking up’ is political par excellence.
To paradoxically maintain complacency within a system that sustains inequality, their direct and vocal opposition makes bearable an unbearable social reality. This symptomatic and reactionary opposition is what SRK’s figurative politics certainly and perhaps unconsciously undermines, and the liberal-populist tendency to valorise him as “our guy” must be resisted for the true radical potential of his universal social appeal which invites attention to everyday realities of politics through cinema.
Candid admission: I am yet to watch Jawan. This is not an act of rebellion against popular culture. All shows appear to be sold out!