‘Kill one, extort ten’: Ram Gopal Varma reveals why the underworld targeted Rakesh Roshan and Gulshan Kumar

According to Varma, this wasn’t just about money, it was about dominance. “To become a ‘hero’, they need to overpower someone bigger. These are big stars, you can’t just get Hrithik Roshan’s dates. So they create fear. The idea is: if the star refuses, what will happen to him?”

ALSO READ: Ram Gopal Varma reveals his only criticism for Dhurandhar 2: ‘Dawood Ibrahim’s portrayal was incorrect’

He added that there was also confusion over who exactly was behind these threats, whether it was Chhota Shakeel, Dawood Ibrahim’s network, or others.

“Many people were not giving in to gangsters’ demands, so they had to set an example—‘Look what happened to him, it can happen to you too.’ There’s a saying in the underworld: ‘Kill one, extort money from ten.’”

Rakesh Roshan shooting

Varma linked this ecosystem of fear directly to the shooting of Rakesh Roshan in January 2000, shortly after Kaho Naa… Pyaar Hai’s success.

“They wanted Hrithik Roshan’s dates. The plan was to make a film together, there would be a front name, but Chhota Shakeel would control things from behind. Rakesh Roshan resisted that, and that’s why shots were fired,” Varma claimed.

Roshan was shot at outside his office on January 21, 2000, in an attack widely believed to be linked to underworld pressure. He survived. Recalling the pressure from underworld on giving Hrithik’s dates to them for a movie, Rakesh had said in an interview with Bollywood Hungama in 2025: “I never gave any indication that Hrithik could do a film for them. I kept putting them off saying Hrithik had no dates, which in any case, was the truth. They then asked me to take dates away from other producers and give it to them. This again, I refused to do.” He had described that time as ‘full of fear’.

Gulshan Kumar murder

Speaking about the killing of Gulshan Kumar in August 1997, Varma suggested that multiple factors converged.

“At one point, Gulshan Kumar was extremely successful—people were jealous. He was introducing new talent and making money,” he said, describing an atmosphere where even unrelated failures were pinned on him. “If anything went wrong, the first reaction was—‘Gulshan Kumar must have done something.’ That was the mindset.”

“Some people would meet Abu Salem and, out of jealousy, say things about Gulshan Kumar. Influenced by that, he might have thought that killing him would make him a ‘hero’. I’m not justifying it, but that was one reason.”

He also pointed to extortion demands and Kumar’s refusal to give in. “He was not someone who would get scared. A man of his stature wouldn’t be intimidated by a phone call.”

Another key factor, Varma said, was Abu Salem’s ambition to break away from D-Company and establish his own identity. “He saw this as his ‘film’, his big move. After Gulshan Kumar was killed, Abu Salem became more famous than even Dawood Ibrahim for a while.”

Recalling the day of the murder, August 12, 1997, Varma added, “I was at Jhamu Sugandh’s house when he got the call. He was shaken and immediately left for Gulshan Kumar’s home.” Varma, who later explored the Mumbai underworld in films like Satya, Company and D, has often drawn from these real-life accounts.

The 90s saw Bollywood entangled with the Mumbai underworld at multiple levels, from extortion calls to alleged interference in casting and financing. The industry operated under an unspoken tension. Mumbai joint CP Crime from 1998-2001, D Sivanandhan, has claimed in his book published in 2025 that films like Satya, Company, Daddy, Shootout At Wadala, Shootout At Lokhandwala were made to “lift the image of the gangsters and were all funded and financed by them only.” Photos from the 90s featured Bollywood stars with underworld dons in the Middle-East.

D Sivanandhan told ANI that stars were summoned there and had no choice but to go. “Dawood Ibrahim could summon cinema actresses to Dubai and give them rewards and send them back.” He also recalled how stars will go to Dubai to do entertainment shows at the behest of dons.

The following content discusses historical criminal activity and violence within the film industry. These accounts are based on individual perspectives and public narratives; they are intended for informational purposes and have not been independently verified.