Why are We Afraid of Aamir Khan?
Aamir Khan recently expressed his concerns over growing intolerance in India, and how his wife had suggested that they move out of the country for their security.
In the couple days since, my newsfeed has erupted with a flurry of updates and memes accusing Aamir Khan of being anti-national. Some contend that it has become fashionable to criticize the government of the day, and Khan is merely jumping on the bandwagon. BJP smells a conspiracy. Even Snapdeal (Aamir is their brand ambassador) has faced the wrath of those who dissent on Khan’s note of dissent.
I was amused and troubled in equal measure. In all this noise, I couldn’t help thinking — why are we as a nation so afraid of dissent?
The reactions that have been pouring in since he made the remarks are not merely uncharitable, they are horrific. If Khan had any impressions of living in intolerant times, I am sure his impressions have only cemented in the past couple days.
One may reasonably argue that just as Mr. Khan has a right to speak his mind, so do those who disagree with him. I am not arguing against their right to express their disagreement, but merely the manner in which it is being done and what is being said — critics of Khan want to boycott him and declare (at least some of them do), in effect — that he has no right to feel the way he does, and no right to express it.
Dissent is vital — it is absolutely, tremendously vital. And for one to dissent it is not enough that the law allows it, but that we have a culture that values expression and dissent. While we typically accuse people of indifference and apathy, why do we hurl abuses when people do express their concerns?
It is worth quoting what Khan said about intolerance —
“Kiran and I have lived all our lives in India. For the first time, she said, should we move out of India? That’s a disastrous and big statement for Kiran to make to me. She fears for her child. She fears about what the atmosphere around us will be. She feels scared to open the newspapers every day. That does indicate that there is a sense of growing disquiet.”
That is it. Khan is apparently overstepping the bounds of what he can legitimately say by fearing a sense of ‘growing disquiet.’ I share that sentiment too, not merely when people kill a man for eating beef, but also when politicians ask Muslims to leave the country and a man is charged with treason for feeling insecure. Intolerance is not merely killing and maiming people — that is its most violent expression. It is evident, too, in the discourse around us — in how secure people are in expressing themselves and going about their lives. And the discourse and the happenings around us are indeed a cause for disquiet.
And even if our impression of what is happening around us is misplaced, can we as a culture not allow those who feel a particular way to freely voice their concerns and grievances? Many of those criticising Khan seem to care about upholding a certain image of India — a nation that is tolerant and inclusive. But is it a testimony to our tolerance that we rush to silence those who disagree with the dominant narrative?
Our impressions are formed, indeed, by the way we feel and what we hear around us. It is possible that they are, on occasion, off the mark. The lifeless body of a dead immigrant child would evoke far greater feeling than a mere statistic on the number of immigrants killed. But our emotional responses aren’t necessarily a cause for distortion, they can bring issues in sharp focus, things we otherwise would not think or do anything about. They can help us act with a sense of urgency. We could probably do with more of that.
We need a culture that values dissent and is receptive to people when they voice their concerns. For our public discourse to be fruitful, it needs to be guided by a willingness to engage and a modicum of restraint. Dissent, and Khan, need to be taken a lot more seriously.
