Shah Rukh Khan and Aamir Khan’s security trimmed; withdrawn for 25 others

Aamir Khan and Shah Rukh Khan were provided additional force in the wake of their comments on the subject of intolerance.

Written by Rashmi Rajput | Mumbai | Updated: January 8, 2016 8:13 pm
aamir khan, shah rukh khan, srk security cut, aamir security cut, amitabh bachchan security, bollywood stars security, mumbai police, mumbai police bollywood security, bollywood news, mumbai news, india news, entertainment news While Shah Rukh Khan has been considered a target since 2013, Aamir Khan got an additional cover after he expressed his views on the raging debate over acts of intolerance in November.

In a major overhaul, Mumbai Police have downgraded or nixed the security cover for 25 Bollywood celebrities, including actors Aamir Khan and Shah Rukh Khan. Senior officials confirming the development stressed that the move was needed to nix ‘unwanted’ security cover.

The two Khans were provided additional force in the wake of their comments on the subject of intolerance. The officials said an assessment review had pointed out the actors no longer faced any threat. While Shah Rukh Khan has been considered a target since 2013, Aamir Khan got an additional cover after he expressed his views on the raging debate over acts of intolerance in November. But now, after the overhaul, only two armed constables will shadow the two actors in two shifts. The armed protocol and armed vehicles have been called back, confirmed officials.

“We were providing security to around 40 Bollywood celebrities. But now we have trimmed the list and have brought it down to around 15 personalities against whom there are genuine threat perception,” confirmed an IPS official. “A lot of manpower gets wasted in providing security to celebrities, and it is at times unwarranted. An audit was recently conducted and security of over 20 personalities have been either nixed or trimmed,” added a police source. (Amitabh Bachchan first choice to replace Aamir Khan for ‘Incredible India’ campaign)

Of the 25 personalities whose security has now been fully withdrawn are Bollywood director and producer Vidhu Vinod Chopra, director Rajkumar Hirani, director Farah Khan and producer siblings Ali and Karim Morani.

Police said the threat perceptions concerning Shah Rukh Khan had begun surfacing during the release of his movie My Name is Khan. Further, in January 2013, Jamaat-ud-Dawa chief Hafiz Saeed’s comments, offering the actor asylum in Pakistan if he felt insecure in India, saw fringe groups attacking him. The actor had written an article in a leading English magazine about how he was a ‘soft target’ and always has to prove his patriotism. The article led to another bunch of vicious attacks against him on social media, with several threats coming his way. “However, the latest assessment does not indicate any imminent threat to the actor and, hence, we have downgraded his cover,” said a senior official.

Security to Aamir Khan was extended post the release of his movie PK. Last November, the actor had also allegedly received extortion calls from gangster Abu Salem. Recently, the actor spoke on the issue of intolerance, saying that he was “alarmed” by a number of incidents of intolerance and that his wife Kiran Rao has suggested that they should probably leave the country. His comment sparked a row and BJP workers staged protests outside his Mumbai residence.

“Post their comments on intolerance, we had provided round-the-clock security to the two actors which included two armed constables and an armed guard on two shifts and an armed escort vehicle. Following the recent assessment, we have pulled out the escorts and the armed in-charge. Now only two armed constables will cover them in two shifts,” said a senior official.

Of the 15 Bollywood personalities who continue to remain under the security cover are actor Akshay Kumar and producers Mahesh and Mukesh Bhatt. “While Akshay Kumar had a threat perception since the release of his movies Khiladi 786 and Oh My God, he also received extortion calls from the underworld. He had also complained that he received death threats after he sacked his 46-year-old domestic help. The Bhatt brothers have threat both from the underworld and terror outfits like the Indian Mujahideen,” said a source. Lata Mangeshkar, Dilip Kumar and Amitabh Bachchan, viewed as iconic figures, will enjoy round-the-clock security cover, besides a police escort.

For all the latest Entertainment News, download Indian Express App now

  1. मनीष
    Jan 8, 2016 at 3:30 am
    I need security for posting following comment ...
    Reply
    1. मनीष
      Jan 8, 2016 at 3:30 am
      There are two types of Muslims: The Extremists and the Moderates. Technically there is no difference between them. The Extremists will cut your throat for not believing in pedophile M0h@m@d, and the Moderates would like Extremists cut your throat for not agreeing with them. Islam is a deadly disease, its followers should find a different religion or become atheist.
      Reply
      1. R
        Rob krishnan
        Jan 8, 2016 at 11:49 am
        Oh poor ignorant me! I didn't realize us taxpayers were paying for the security of people who we already pay huge amounts in event/shows ticket fees. Does that mean that when these entertainers travel to the US, UK etc. we are stuck with their security bills? Wow, we should also bow to these gods every morning and pray for their safety so our tax bills don't rise
        Reply
        1. A
          ak dev
          Jan 8, 2016 at 11:52 am
          Government may provide security cover to ultra rich people but it must recover 50% to 100% cost of these security covers. Why these billionaires be funded their security by taxpayers?
          Reply
          1. A
            Al Barkistani
            Jan 8, 2016 at 11:12 pm
            Those who feel threatened should be paying for their own security after all none of their earnings are designated for the state. As for the taxes they pay, so do the rest of the potion who do not get any additional security.
            Reply
            1. A
              amitava ghosh
              Jan 9, 2016 at 12:51 pm
              It cannot be deciphered as to the reasons why these so called actors, minting crores of money need security cover.If they have threat perceptions they are at liberty to seek police help to nab these people who are threatning them.On the contrary these police maybe deplo in the interest of the common people.
              Reply
              1. A
                Avinash
                Jan 8, 2016 at 2:56 pm
                It would have been interesting to know whose security has been retained by Govt.
                Reply
                1. A
                  Azhar Ali
                  Jan 8, 2016 at 1:37 pm
                  The argument that both the Khans are in an extremely strong financial condition as they make fast bucks in the entertainment business and, hence, are able to take care of their safety and security themselves, carries weight. Moreover, they are people's boys and safe in their hands.
                  Reply
                  1. R
                    Rajesh
                    Jan 8, 2016 at 9:40 am
                    Wow! This country is so "intolerant" that it provides security to s who abuse it.
                    Reply
                    1. B
                      Bijan Mohanty
                      Jan 8, 2016 at 2:28 pm
                      What about Baba Ramdev ? Does he make less money ? Is he not able to take care of his security expenses ? Why state security cover for him ?
                      Reply
                      1. B
                        bitterhoney
                        Jan 8, 2016 at 9:55 am
                        Nobody deserves any special security in India whether prime minister or a rickshaw puller. A rickshaw puller's life is as sacred as that of the prime minister.
                        Reply
                        1. B
                          Bharat
                          Jan 8, 2016 at 1:28 pm
                          GOOD, all them make tons of money, let them get their own security and pay for it.
                          Reply
                          1. B
                            B
                            Jan 8, 2016 at 8:42 am
                            Correct decisions. Tax payers money is saved.
                            Reply
                            1. A
                              A.Chandramouliswaran
                              Jan 8, 2016 at 7:01 am
                              I do not know how it was decided to provide security at the tax payers' expense. If they wish to have security, they should arrange it at their own cost which they could very well afford. We should take this opportunity to review security provided to many politicians belonging to various parties and remove the security in the case of most of them.
                              Reply
                              1. C
                                Col S
                                Jan 8, 2016 at 2:07 am
                                VIP SECURITY of any kind is SNUSE of SCARCE SECURITY RESOURCES, a THREAT to SECURITY of Nation and safety of WOMEN. TAhis has made POLICE irresponsible as and lazy. Every case of terror strike or rape is ROOTED in this ABUSE. Police is visible in thana, lines or in service of VIP. BIG SHME ,in as DEMOCRACY. Withdraw this ABUSE and PUT them on road for PATROLLING. Crime Weill refuvce.
                                Reply
                                1. D
                                  david
                                  Jan 8, 2016 at 11:29 am
                                  They must go to stan being unfit in India.
                                  Reply
                                  1. V
                                    Viswa Gi
                                    Jan 8, 2016 at 3:48 am
                                    They are highly paid people enjoying the citizen's money. They can afford their own security. Withdraw all govt security personnel paid from the tax-payers' money
                                    Reply
                                    1. G
                                      guest
                                      Jan 8, 2016 at 8:28 am
                                      Is the cost of security borne by the movie stars?
                                      Reply
                                      1. R
                                        Ravi
                                        Jan 8, 2016 at 8:54 am
                                        Am I not citizen of India? Pls provide also security why only film stars and rich people and politicians? If you provide pls charge double to them. stupid Indian rule.
                                        Reply
                                        1. P
                                          PUSPARAJ SAHOO
                                          Jan 8, 2016 at 8:19 am
                                          Jai Bharat! We have raised this issue that if the celebrities are provided the security must pay the amount to the department . The public money cannot be spent on cricket matches ,celebrities others when the ratio of a police personnel to the number of common citizen is too large. We must prove the ethics of serving people rather than a bunch of people who live well beyond the basic needs of life. I Appreciate of the IPS Officer who took this step to call a spade a spade. They should not worry of what comments are put. Jai Hind!
                                          Reply
                                          1. I
                                            Indian
                                            Jan 8, 2016 at 1:46 am
                                            We do not need to provide security to anyone be it actors or politicians. I will truly appreciate if the same rule of thumb is applied for policiticians across all parties... All the ex ministers and the current barring a few key roles like PM etc should not be given security.. Use the force to protect we the citizens. We are the ones who pay taxes..
                                            Reply
                                            1. Load More Comments