Amitabh Bachchan, who turned 84 earlier this month, symbolises a complete entertainment package — an exceptionally brilliant and dedicated actor, an iconic superstar, a commercially reliable professional, and a graceful television host. These images, however, come to us in a remarkably neutral fashion. It appears as though Bachchan’s professional commitment to films and TV was sufficient for him to deal with the volatile nature of India’s ever-changing public life in the last six decades.
While it is true that Bachchan’s cinematic contribution played a significant role in shaping the public discourse, especially in the late 1970s, it would be incorrect to think that he, as a celebrated individual, remains completely indifferent to political and cultural debates. In fact, one cannot ignore the fact that the Bachchans had a long association with the Nehru-Gandhi family. He was an elected Congress member of Parliament from Allahabad in 1984 (although he resigned from his Lok Sabha seat in just three years). Despite portraying himself as an apolitical artist, he has always remained close to political power. There is a need to explore the connection between Bachchan’s cinematic presence (especially the characters he portrays in films) and his individual self-representation. The question is: how does he navigate these two worlds to achieve acceptability in public life?
I wish to clarify here that I use the term, public life, in a specific sense. In my view, public life may be described as the sphere in which an individual or group takes on (or claims to carry out) activities in service of the collective interests of common people (or jana/janata). There is a lot of emphasis on the idea of tyaga — sacrifice and renunciation — in the Indian context, something that underscores a dedication to an abstract national community. That
may be the reason why ‘public life’ is officially translated as sarvajanik jeevan. The public, or janata, in this schema
is the imaginary sovereign, and every public figure is supposed to work for
the satisfaction of this entity. Does it mean that there is no space for professionalism — sincere straightforwardness in working for monetary purposes — in public life? Amitabh Bachchan is a perfect example to explore this puzzling question.
Let us focus on Bachchan’s two dominant images, which overlap: a principled dissenter and a wise philosopher. Bachchan was addressed as an angry young man by the media in the 1970s. This title was useful to explain the common themes of his most successful films — Zanjeer, Deewar, Sholay, Parvarish, Muqaddar Ka Sikandar, Kaalia, Suhaag, Nastik, Shakti, Coolie, Mard and so on. Yet, the angry young man template was unable to explain his other notable works — Mili, Namak Haram, Kabhi Kabhie, Alaap, Bemisal and Manzil. It may be suggested that in the first phase of his career, Bachchan carefully cultivated an image of a principled dissenter. On the one hand, the lead character in these films opposes the system violently and does not even hesitate to go beyond the permissible limits set out by law. At the same time, this rebel hero adheres to certain values, norms and principles to create an egalitarian society. Obviously, we cannot ignore the contribution of scriptwriters (especially Salim Khan and Javed Akhtar) and directors (Prakash Mehra, Manmohan Desai and, to an extent, Hrishikesh Mukherjee) in shaping this cinematic phenomenon. However, it was Amitabh Bachchan who gave a very different interpretation of his cinematic presence.
In an interview with the BBC in 1983, Bachchan strongly argued that commercial aspects often determine the success of a film at the box office. As a result, it becomes difficult for actors like him to step outside of this established formula. The audience expects him to work in a particular kind of film and, in a way, there is an acceptability of violence. He said, “Violence is not a 20th-century phenomenon… it has always been there… our religious texts like the Mahabharata are also about a war. It is, thus, wrong to say that films encourage people to engage in violent behaviour… I agree that cinema certainly affects young minds… however, we cannot do anything about it. I am sorry to say that we prefer to make the kind of films that ensure a good return on money… there are people who would say that they are in the film industry for the perfection of art, etc.… but it is a fact that we invest money in cinema because we want to get a good return… it is, after all, our livelihood.” It is clear here that Bachchan was not invested in the image of a principled dissenter. For him, it was primarily a commercial venture.
The declining film career of Amitabh Bachchan in the 1990s encouraged him to take up cinema purely as a business. He launched the Amitabh Bachchan Corporation Limited (ABCL, which later became AB Corp). The company invested in film production, distribution, and event management. In fact, it organised the 1996 Miss World beauty pageant in Bengaluru. ABCL was a commercial disaster which affected Bachchan’s market value as a superstar in a big way.
This failure gave a new direction to Bachchan’s career. He moved to the emerging world of the TV industry. He began to host Kaun Banega Crorepati. The show was a great success. Bachchan regained his popularity in an entirely new form. Phrases like “lock kiya jaye” and “computer ji” became immensely popular. At the same time, he began to carve out a space for himself as a character artist in the film industry, which was at that time dominated by the three Khans. Exactly around the same time, Bachchan was also declared the Greatest Star of the Millennium through a prestigious online poll conducted by the BBC. These developments paved the way for a new powerful image of Bachchan — a wise philosopher. His calmness as a knowledgeable host in KBC (where he often talks about his personal and film life with contestants and celebrities) helped him to reemerge as a dedicated, wise and successful role model. The kind of roles he portrayed in films like Mohabbatein, Waqt: The Race against Time, Pink, Jhund, and Aarakshan further contributed to this image-making process.
Bachchan has created a new form of professionalism since the advent of social media. He employs social media effectively to reach out to his fans and followers in a very instructive manner. His personal blog, X (formerly Twitter), and Instagram endorse favourable public narratives and events. The secular dissenter of the past has been transformed into a devout follower of rituals and mysticism. He also reflects on issues such as ageing, mortality, time, and human existence. This new kind of public engagement aligns well with his contemporary image as a wise philosopher.
We may agree or disagree with Bachchan’s strategic positioning and interest-orientation, but we cannot underestimate how he has established a very specific model of professionalism to survive in Indian public life for such a long time.
Hilal Ahmed is a political scientist