When Genius Speaks, Responsibility Must Follow
A Critical Look at A.R. Rahman’s “Power Shift” Remarks
In January 2026, celebrated music composer A.R. Rahman stirred controversy by suggesting that his reduced presence in Hindi cinema over the past eight years was due to a “power shift” — and hinted that non-creative forces now control key decisions in the industry. He also alluded, albeit indirectly, to uncomfortable undercurrents influencing project allocations.
Before reacting emotionally, it’s worth unpacking what was said — and what remains questionable.
The Core Claims — And the Questions They Raise
Reduced Work & a Creative “Power Shift”: Rahman suggested that fewer opportunities came his way because decision-making power has moved away from creative minds.
Doesn’t it sound like, “these grapes are sour…” This argument invites scrutiny. Creativity is inherently subjective. Who defines it, and by what measure? If non-selection automatically implies a decline in creative judgment, where does that leave artists whose work itself has faced criticism — including accusations of repetition, excessive digital reliance, or stylistic “inspirations” from global composers?
A changing industry does not always indicate declining standards; sometimes, it simply reflects changing tastes. This is what has happened in the 90’s when he entered the scenario! Other composers never blamed on lack of creativity!
The “Communal” Angle: He hinted that some projects initially discussed with him were later handed to other composers due to preferences exercised by music companies.
This is where the narrative becomes fragile. Without clear evidence, such implications risk sounding speculative. Commercial studios routinely make decisions based on budgets, timelines, audience appeal, and branding — not all exclusions require deeper subtexts.
Kettle calling the pot black? People are aware of Rahman’s behaviour with lyricist Piraisoodan on his religious practices and also insisted him to reword the lyrics when it was not aligning with the sentiments of the religion Rahman followed! Kangana too tweeted a similar experience she had with him. Can he say Who is communal?
One can empathize Rahman. A religious-convert has to prove his loyalty to the converted faith from time and again. So, they pretend to be more orthodox than the originals. This is one such syndrome!
“Chinese Whispers” as Explanation: Rahman clarified that none of these issues were directly communicated to him, but reached him through informal channels.
This admission weakens the argument further. If sources are unclear and unverified, why elevate them to public discourse? In an era of instant amplification, ambiguity can easily become misinformation.
When claims are based on hearsay, public disclosure raises more questions than it answers.
Philosophy on Work & Ironies of Change: Rahman stated he doesn’t chase work and prefers opportunities to come organically — even joking that fewer projects allow more family time.
Fair enough. But this sits uneasily alongside his role in accelerating digital music production — a shift that transformed the industry and displaced many traditional musicians. Change, after all, cuts both ways. If evolution was acceptable then, it must be accepted now.
Contextual Contradictions
On “Chhaava” and Historical Sensitivity: Rahman described Chhaava as a divisive film but defended his intent.
Yet critics point out that the music bore little relationship to the film’s historical period or cultural context. When background scores feel disconnected from narrative and setting, audience and industry scepticism is inevitable.
Language, Career, and Choice: Rahman spoke about learning Hindi and Urdu to sustain his career.
That’s neither unusual nor controversial. Artists adapt to markets; markets reward adaptability. This is pragmatism, not sacrifice — and it shouldn’t be reframed otherwise.
The Aftermath: Damage Control or Reflection? - Following the backlash, Rahman released a video stating his intentions were misunderstood and reaffirming his love for India, multiculturalism, and his upcoming projects like Ramayana and Gandhi.
Intentions aside, public figures must recognize that words — especially vague ones — carry consequences. Influence magnifies responsibility.
A Closing Thought
In public life, admiration and criticism coexist. Legends are not diminished by silence, but by defensiveness. The industry that once elevated an artist can also move on — not out of malice, but momentum.
Instead of framing professional decline as external injustice, perhaps the more enduring response lies in reinvention, relevance, and renewed musical courage.
History remembers those who adapt — not those who complain about the tide.
No comments:
Post a Comment