Swaraat / Pattukottai Balaraman
When Director K Balachandar and Director Maniratnam both South Indian Hindu brahmins gave opportunity to Mr A.R. Rahman it was sweet and nice. He chose to name himself Rahman and not Dileep. Nobody questioned his prerogative.
When the greats like Shri S.P. Balasubramaniam, Shrimathi Vani Jayaram , even Shri K.J. Yesudoss to Some extent could not sustain themselves in Bollywood , they never complained or grumbled. Why even The mighty Shri. Kamalhasan could not continue despite his versatile talents in Bollywood. He never cribbed about Bollywood.
When the same Mr A.R. Rahman tasted Bollywood and attained unattainable heights from Slumdog Millionaire, it was secular. When his mother purportedly asked poet Shri. Piraisoodan to remove his Hindu ostensible religious sacred marks from his forehead, it was fair for Mr A.R. Rahman.
When the Government of India welcomed his vande mataram, though he slid salam surreptitiously, he enjoyed it. Was it not gruesome and sadistic on his part to criticize Bharat’s operation Sindhoor as an aftermath of pahalgam brutal innocent killings! Most appalling, anti national inhuman gesture.
The accolades, the market and revenue share he had from bollywood, he was turning off low budget movies from Tamil , his native language, then bollywood was resilient with social justice.
The selective criticism of movie Chava, being divisive, revealed his petty mindedness/crooked mindedness and his penchant for portraying wicked, wretched and dastardly moghuls as saints .
The greatest legend Mellisai Mannar Shri. M.S.Vishwanathan never used to crib for being not presented with any national award. His humility and human touch are epitome and paragon of behaviour and character. Even the great Shri M.K.Thyagaraja Bhagavathar, the then super star had downfall in market. They never blamed social justice.
Shri M.S.Vishwanathan was not just master in music composition and orchestration, he had gentle grace to appreciate and accept upcoming younger musicians. Alas! Mr A.R. Rahman lacks it. It is his leaning towards our enemy country, which has brought this ignomy. He should be counted among 0.5.
Dear Mr A.R. Rahman, it is hightime you realise your follies and shortcomings, rather than blame others. Armtwisting others to buckle under your religious pressure is not secularism. It is apparent that you have lost market and your natural talent was there only for initial few years.
When the likes of Salman Khan, Amir Khan, Sharuk khan and others can rule Bollywood. It is unfortunate you choose the religious card for your downfall.
Shame on your anti nationalism
Shame on your anti Hinduism
Shame on your superiority complex
Shame on your selective amnesia
*Empty vessels make more sound*
I read this recent piece on A.R. Rahman with interest. While I believe every artist should be open to critique regarding their professional choices and public statements, I felt your article moved beyond a debate on music and into a space that felt unnecessarily divisive and personal.
Artistic legacies are rarely a zero-sum game. To elevate the legendary M.S. Viswanathan (MSV)—who is undoubtedly a paragon of Indian music—one does not need to tear down A.R. Rahman. Both men represent different eras of Indian excellence. MSV’s humility is a beautiful trait, but Rahman’s choice to speak on the shifting “power dynamics” in Bollywood (which many industry insiders have also noted) shouldn’t be dismissed simply as “cribbing.” It is a reflection on how the industry has changed from a creative-led space to one led by corporate interests.
Regarding the labels of “anti-national” or “anti-Hindu,” it is difficult to reconcile those claims with Rahman’s body of work. For decades, he has been one of India’s greatest cultural ambassadors. His rendition of “Vande Mataram” didn’t just win awards; it re-ignited a sense of modern patriotism for an entire generation. Whether it is his work on Lagaan, Swades, or the upcoming Ramayana, his music has consistently celebrated the Indian spirit on the global stage.
Bringing his personal faith and his name change into the argument feels like an attempt to invalidate his Indian identity, which seems unfair given his lifelong service to Indian cinema. To suggest he leans toward an “enemy country” is a very heavy accusation to level against a man who has consistently represented India with grace at the Oscars, the Grammys, and beyond.
We can disagree with his take on specific films like Chhaava without questioning his loyalty to the nation. A respectful debate about the “divisiveness” of cinema is healthy; questioning a person’s “secularism” based on their religious identity is less so.
Ultimately, music should be a bridge. Rahman, like MSV before him, has built more bridges for Indian music globally than almost any other contemporary artist. Let’s judge him by the notes he plays and the integrity of his work, rather than through a lens of religious or political suspicion.
“When the Music Stops, the Noise Begins”
I read your piece regarding A.R. Rahman, and while everyone is entitled to an opinion on his recent comments, the jump from “industry critique” to “anti-nationalism” is both baseless and extreme.
A few points deserve a more objective look:
The MSV Comparison: It is a logical fallacy to suggest that to respect the legendary M.S. Viswanathan, one must disparage Rahman. Both are titans of Indian music from different eras. To use MSV’s humility as a weapon against Rahman’s right to discuss industry politics is a disservice to both.
The Question of Patriotism: Labeling a man “anti-national” when he has spent 30 years as India’s premier cultural ambassador is a massive reach. From the global success of Vande Mataram to his work on the upcoming Ramayana, his contribution to India’s “soft power” on the world stage is indisputable.
Religion vs. Merit: Dragging Rahman’s name change or personal faith into a professional discussion is a “below-the-belt” tactic. He has been a dominant force in Indian music for decades based on merit, not “religious pressure.” Furthermore, accusing him of “leaning toward an enemy country” without evidence is defamatory and unbecoming of a respectful debate.
Professional Critique: It is entirely fair to disagree with his views on specific films like Chhaava. However, suggesting his “talent has faded” or calling him “0.5” because of those views ignores his ongoing global relevance and recent successful scores.
Art should be a bridge, not a battlefield for communal politics. We can hold Rahman accountable for his words without questioning his identity as an Indian or his monumental legacy in music. Using “shame” as a closing argument doesn’t win a debate; it only highlights a lack of constructive dialogue.