Kaveree Bamzai’s book The Three Khans and the Emergence of New India, published by Westland, explores the link between commerce and culture. Through personal interactions, archival research, and scholarly inputs, she studies the star power and brand equity of Shah Rukh Khan, Aamir Khan and Salman Khan. Excerpts from an interview:
What made you study the careers of the three Khans in relation to economic liberalization in India?
Economic liberalization was the most important event for the generation that came of age in the late 1980s, along with the Ram Mandir and Mandal movements. The seeds of these were sown in the era inaugurated by Rajiv Gandhi in 1984. The new economic policy he set in motion recognised that a new, urban aspirational middle class was emerging with more to spend on consumer goods.
Rajiv took numerous measures – making the industrial licensing system more flexible to creating a more modern, regulated stock market with the Securities and Exchange Board of India; initiating the telecom revolution; seamless satellite connectivity to Texas Instruments as it set up its first research and development facility abroad in Bangalore. As a new class emerged, they needed new heroes to look up to, to validate them and justify their consumerism. They found these in three young men, the Khans, who mirrored them.
Why do you refer to the Khans as “products of Nehruvian socialism and its deep-rooted secularism”?
They had a multicultural upbringing, given the schools they were sent to. In Shah Rukh's case, it was St Columba's in Delhi; Salman went to St Stanislaus High School in his neighbourhood (and briefly, Scindia School in Gwalior); and for Aamir, it was JB Petit, then St Anne's High School in Bandra, and Bombay Scottish School Mahim. They married (or dated) Hindu women. They played mostly Hindu characters, representing softer elements of the religion – festivals and marriage rituals. Who can forget the bhajan of Lagaan (2001), the Ramleela of Swades (2004), or Selfie Le Le Re of Bajrangi Bhaijaan (2015)? The public image was secular, increasingly so as they realised the huge subcontinental element to their diaspora audience through the stage shows at the beginning of their careers, which then Shah Rukh monetised as a distinct revenue stream for himself.
How has their relationship with changing political regimes affected their fortunes at the box office?
The first time they realised that their political views could impact the box office revenue of their films was when Aamir spoke up for activists of the Narmada Bachao Andolan and there was an unofficial ban on his film Fanaa (2006) in Gujarat. It lost business and Aamir decided to compensate the producers. Shah Rukh's My Name is Khan (2010) elicited a boycott call from Shiv Sena when the actor spoke up about Pakistani players being allowed in the Indian Premier League (in which he co-owns a team). After that, every time they spoke up against rising intolerance, there would be calls on social media to boycott the products they endorsed. The last time Salman spoke publicly on a Pakistan-related matter (in 2010, he said the elite had been targeted in 26/11, hence the widespread anger), there was an uproar. His father had to apologise on his behalf and testify to his nationalism.
What qualities helped the Khans establish their fan base?
For Shah Rukh, it is his image as a romantic hero who will always protect the woman's honour; no matter where he is born and raised, he is an Indian at heart. Immortalised by Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge (1995), it was such a strong image that it erased the stalker tag associated with him, thanks to Baazigar, Darr (both 1993) and Anjaam (1994).
For Aamir, it was the image established in 2001 when Lagaan was nominated for the Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film – an image of excellence, inclusive nationalism, and competing with the best in the world. A newly confident India, having tested nuclear bomb explosions in 1998, won a war against Pakistan in 1999 and seemingly solved the word's Y2K computer crisis, believed it was now time to be hailed as a superpower. Lagaan, a film on cricket, more than three hours long, and featuring British villains, captured that zeitgeist.
The turning point for Salman was Dabangg (2010). Here was a Nagpur-born superstar, a long-time insider in the industry, reclaiming his small-town roots and showing working-class India how to take pride in who they were, in their assertive masculinity, their often amoral way of working, and in the celebration of their dysfunctional but eventually loving families.
Have the Khans addressed the gender pay gap in their industry?
Shah Rukh has, only as a token, by ensuring from Chennai Express (2013) onwards that the heroine's name would get top billing. Off-screen, they have done nothing to advance the conversation on the pay gap. Aamir and producer Bobby Bedi dropped Aishwarya Rai when she demanded that her fee for Mangal Pandey: The Rising (2005) be renegotiated after her global equity rose with the screening of Devdas at the Cannes film festival in 2002. Salman has never addressed the pay gap publicly. He was dismissive of Priyanka Chopra walking out of Bharat (2019) which he said would have been one of the biggest films of her career.
How would you assess their shift from acting to direction and production?
Aamir has directed Taare Zameen Par (2007) and shown he is capable of telling a story. Shah Rukh's standing instructions to his directors now that they make the film exactly the way they envisaged, shows he realises he is not the best when it comes to storytelling. He wants to stuff it with everything entertaining; that makes it unwieldy. His choices as a producer for Red Chillies have improved when it comes to Badla and Kaamyab but the same cannot be said for the underwhelming series Bard of Blood and Betaal. Salman has become a successful producer but the sweat equity is very much his own (and assorted relatives).