-Siddhant Mohite, Editor in Chief – Mumbai Uncencesored:
I recently came across A. R. Rahman’s interview with BBC Asian Network, where he spoke about the film Chhaava. He said that what is being represented in the movie feels like a “fake narrative” and that it is divisive. He also added that people today are smart enough to not get influenced by such narratives.
And honestly, that’s where the problem begins.
Chhaava is not some random fictional story. It is based on the real history of our land, on figures and events that are deeply respected and documented. Calling it “fake” or dismissing it as divisive feels like undermining history itself. This is exactly why netizens are now raising their voices and demanding an apology from A.R. Rahman for this statement.
What is even more confusing is the selective outrage.
Rahman is a proud Tamilian. A Tamil movie, Annapoorni, faced severe backlash for allegedly insulting Hindu religious sentiments. The matter escalated to legal issues, and the film was eventually removed from Netflix. At that time, why didn’t this film feel “divisive”? Why was there no strong public statement calling that narrative problematic?
So now the obvious question arises — double standards?
When history rooted in Hindu or Maratha identity is shown on screen, it becomes “divisive”. But when religious sentiments are hurt in other contexts, silence follows. If this is not selective criticism, then what is?
Another important point here is freedom of speech and expression. For years, artists and filmmakers have defended creative liberty, often arguing that art should not be censored or policed. But when a film showcases historical pride, suddenly the same freedom seems negotiable. So freedom of expression exists only when it aligns with certain viewpoints?
Rahman’s comment that people are “smart enough not to get influenced” also feels dismissive. People are smart, yes — smart enough to understand history, smart enough to question narratives, and smart enough to call out hypocrisy when they see it.
As a public figure of his stature, his words carry influence whether he acknowledges it or not. And when those words question the authenticity of history while ignoring similar issues elsewhere, it is only fair that people demand accountability.
This isn’t about silencing anyone. It’s about consistency. It’s about respecting history. And it’s about asking why the standards change depending on whose story is being told.
