Speak up but read up first

The concern raised by many, nonetheless, is how pragmatic it is for celebrities of Aamir8217;s stature to brazenly brandish their ideological leanings, considering two points. On the one hand, even though celebrities air their political views in their personal capacity, it is their professional allies who also bear the brunt of backlash. Put another way, how fair is it to allow innocent colleagues to be held guilty by association, considering not only time and cost but also the ethical implications? A case in point is the Yash Raj banner8217;s Fanaa that has had to face the political music in Gujarat simply because the star of their movie is not just any actor but the defiant Citizen Khan. On the other hand, despite half-baked knowledge and experience with the subject, celebrities hugely influence public opinion because of their star status and recklessly skew the trajectory of public intellectual debate.

While Aamir has not adequately responded to the first concern, he has been vociferous about the second. He argues that he is first and foremost a citizen of Democratic India, not just an actor, and therefore it is his right to raise his voice for or against any cause that stirs him. Besides, he says, he has learned from his own film Rang De Basanti that it is also a responsibility to do so. Intellectuals across the country have seconded him on both contentions. And the success of Rang De Basanti perhaps indicates that even the public is with him on this. To ask, therefore, why Aamir doesn8217;t speak up for other burning issues is juvenile. To burn down cinema halls and set his posters ablaze, however, is downright criminal. Those who disagree with Aamir must refute him in a civilised and democratic manner.

Still, a problem persists. For as much as Aamir insists that he is a citizen of India, he is no ordinary citizen. This is precisely why Aamir grabs media time and attention in the manner that he does. For Aamir to then take on a cause without investigating the ground reality 8212; and the story from the other side 8212; is neglectful. Far more reprehensible, nonetheless, is that Aamir did not put his celebrity status to different use. If indeed Aamir felt convinced from preliminary research that those displaced by the SSP are not adequately rehabilitated, he should first have used his influence 8212; and considerable charm 8212; with the state and central governments to push for change and hard evidence, without involving the media. Had that failed, Aamir should have gone to the media with information about both sides of the dam story, even telling people his views, but ultimately encouraging people to do their own research and arriving at their own conclusions. Had all that failed, Aamir would be justified in taking the publicly confrontational and provocative stance that he has. By skipping steps one and two and going straight to combative posturing, however, Aamir has not only come off as politically naive but also diluted his own credibility. And by subsequently offering to throw money at this problem in the guise of a donation, Aamir has made matters worse.

Yet all may not be lost. Aamir can still redeem his credibility by demonstrating a genuine commitment to the Narmada issue. It is not too late for him to visit the SSP site, spend time talking to the displaced as well as other interested citizens, and engage with various governments as well as NGOs. Aamir can still help to bring multiple stakeholders to the same table and facilitate a reasoned dialogue despite conflicting interests in what is obviously an extremely volatile situation. Aamir can also help by ensuring that this information is made available to the public in a transparent and easily accessible manner. To accomplish this, Aamir does not have to apologise to the BJP in Gujarat or even to the Gujarati people. All he has to do is walk his own talk. Then Aamir can really be a real life hero.

patel1nanditayahoo.ca