The Test of Art and Extremism — “Allah Rakha Rahman” Failed!
When music collides with politics, when an artist becomes a pawn in someone else’s game, and when blinded by self-interest, lends his shoulder to others’ — the name today appears in memory is Allah Rakha Rahman.
Rahman is no ordinary figure. He is India’s global cultural ambassador. That is why when his name gets linked with a controversial international platform like the BBC, every word ceases to be just an interview — it becomes a narrative.
The BBC, steeped in colonial bias, has long sought to establish the narrative that M@lims face discrimination in India, is felt by every Indian today. After his interview with BBC correspondent Haroon Rashid, Rahman is in the headlines. He claimed he has not been getting work, that in the past eight years power has shifted, and now “non creative” people decide who gets work and who doesn’t. The implication was clear: since the change of government at the Centre, this has been happening. This is political language. He even suggested that communal bias might be a reason, and went so far as to call the film Chhava divisive — a film for which he himself composed the music.
Taken literally, it sounds as if Rahman is a poor, neglected artist struggling financially. But the truth is that he is among the wealthiest composers in the film industry. He owns a state of the art studio in Chennai — something no other composer has built so far. He regularly performs concerts, earns handsomely, and remains busy. Which raises natural questions:
· Does Rahman truly face a problem? If not, why the anti Hindu and anti India statements?
· Are there forces behind him — extremist or anti India — pushing this narrative? If yes, what are the implications?
In a democracy, freedom of speech is undisputed. But the bigger question is not just what he said — it is where he chose to say it. The BBC is not a cultural forum. It is a notorious anti-India narrative builder, leaning toward leftist and I@lamist organizations. Funded by British taxpayers, it often stands against its own mainstream — so what is India to it? When you speak to the BBC, you hand them a weapon against India.
A great artist is not just a citizen — he is a brand ambassador of the nation. India gave Rahman everything: the Oscar stage, countless national awards, Padma Shri, Padma Bhushan, and Padma Vibhushan. But what did he give back to the country? Deep insult.
Moral responsibility toward the nation is a duty greater than any award. I do not say Rahman should remain silent — but he showed no hesitation in speaking against the Nation, majority community (Hindus), Hindi, and against his own fans. He composed music for Chhava, earned money, and now calls the film divisive. No good self respected person would do this.
Until now, no one could imagine calling Rahman anti national. But today, as his true feelings have surfaced, his name is being condemned in every street. He insulted the Hindu faith in which he was born and lived for 22 years. He insulted his Hindu father. He insulted his Hindu relatives.
No artist in cinema can remain at the top forever. The principle of “survival of the fittest” applies here too. Dilip Kumar, Rajesh Khanna, Amitabh Bachchan — all faced competition with time. Rahman’s claim that he is denied work because he is M@lim is a grave allegation. He cannot be so naïve as to not understand its impact.
Hindi cinema has long been dominated by the Khan trio — Shah Rukh, Aamir, Salman — and their fans have largely been Hindus. M@lims, by sheer numbers and viewing habits, cannot alone make or break stardom. Yet Shah Rukh Khan, when frisked at American airports, returns to India claiming discrimination because of his faith. Aamir Khan once said his wife feared for their children. Naseeruddin Shah’s statements are well known. Many returned awards, some even threatened to leave the country. All this began after the 2014 change of government. Now Rahman has carried that chain forward.
Rahman rose to fame through Hindi songs — Vande Mataram, Jiya Jale, Chaiyya Chaiyya etc. Everything he is today, he owes to Hindi and Hindi cinema. Yet in his BBC interview he insulted Hindi and praised Urdu as the “mother of music.” Either he does not understand India, or he is pushing a sectarian agenda. To truly understand India’s classical music would take him not one lifetime, but many.
Few know Rahman was born A. S. Dilip Kumar. His father, R. K. Shekhar, was a devout Hindu and a composer in Tamil and Malayalam films. After his father’s death, the family faced economic and emotional hardship. His sister was gravely ill. Seeking relief, Rahman came under the influence of a Sufi cleric, and at around 22 converted to Islam. Today, at nearly 59, his body carries 22 years of Hindu upbringing and 37 years of Muslim identity — and this is the result. He often said: “I see religion not as a wall, but as a bridge.” Yet now, crossing that bridge, he has allied with anti India and sectarian forces, proving his conversion was for convenience.
It was Mani Ratnam who gave Rahman his break in Roja. If communal bias were real, how would he have been chosen? Slumdog Millionaire won him the Oscar. Padma Shri was awarded by Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Padma Vibhushan by Narendra Modi. If his hint is toward political power shifts, he should remember these facts. Only someone driven by an agenda could be so ungrateful.
This is not just about Rahman. Shah Rukh Khan, Aamir Khan, Salman Khan, Naseeruddin Shah — all have publicly displayed communal bias at times. More importantly, international forces pushing their “Ghazwa e Hind” agenda lure Indian M@lim celebrities into their net, using them as tools. This pattern continues across fields — cinema, sports, politics, administration. From Azharuddin to Hamid Ansari, anyone can be drawn in.
During the Kargil war, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee invited Dilip Kumar to Delhi to speak with Pakistan’s Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, to show how happy M@lms were in India. But Vajpayee was stunned when Dilip Kumar told Sharif over the phone: “For Allah’s sake, stop this. When you do such things, it becomes impossible for us M@lms to step out of our homes in India.” This was the same Dilip Kumar who had hidden his real name, yet India had honored him.
Today Rahman has become a pawn in the hands of extremists. Tomorrow it may be someone else. He has so much wealth that he no longer cares for Hindi or Hindi cinema. Which is why it is hard to believe his actions were accidental — they appear deliberate, even sponsored. Why did he never say such things to Indian journalists? Why only on the BBC? And why now, with no special occasion?
One who betrays the Nation — even if he apologizes — cannot and should not be forgiven.
— Shiv Mishra
No comments:
Post a Comment