"Please don’t look at me with the hope that something intelligent is going to be said,” said actor Anupam Kher in his characteristic style, to an audience full of students in Bengaluru. The crowd erupted in applause. “And don’t put on those intelligent expressions in front of me either,” he added. There was more applause. He was delivering the keynote address on ‘The Power of Failure’ at 'Communication Quotient', a symposium organised by Symbiosis School of Media and Communication. “I’m sure most of you sitting here have scored more marks than I ever have in my life. And yet, God is kind for it is me who is giving this lecture and you looking up at me. This is because my father taught me never to be scared of failure.” The reference point of his lecture, Kher said, was his life thus far.
Son of a forest department clerk who used to earn Rs.90 a month, Kher was brought up in a joint family that was, as Kher puts it, “strangely happy despite being poor.” “My grandfather used to tell me that when you are so poor, the cheapest commodity available is happiness.”
A series of failures, Kher said, shaped his life. Whether it was the number of disastrous plays he was part of in school or failing in his tenth standard, or when he was diagnosed with facial paralysis or even when he reached Bombay and realised that he had been cheated and was left homeless with just thirty seven rupees in his hand, Kher says, each of those experiences taught him about life.
He landed his first role in Mahesh Bhatt's Saransh and that too was almost given off to Sanjeev Kapoor. "I was devastated and decided to leave Bombay. But before going, I decided to tell Mahesh Bhatt that he was a fraud and that despite thinking about making a film on truth, he had no conviction in his first choice for the lead actor." Mahesh Bhatt changed his mind and the rest is history.
There is a sense of fearlessness and a fierce optimism that is evident in Kher and he says that it is this fearlessness that helps him speak his mind on a range of issues, not just pertaining to cinema. This has become even more apparent in the recent past, ever since Kher decided to voice his opinions on the intolerance debate, the perception of India outside and so on... He has been championed as the mascot of the 'tolerance brigade'. His tweets and opinions are public knowledge now and are increasingly scrutinised for the stance he chooses to take. Naturally then, his new avatar became the topic of discussion as he sat down for a conversation after his lecture. Excerpts:
Why did you choose to participate in the debate on intolerance? You are someone that holds a lot of influence over people…therefore, what you choose to say becomes that much more important…
It is precisely because I hold this kind of influence over people that it became important for me to speak…to become the voice of the silent majority. It was not based on any agenda but on what I feel as an Indian. I don’t consider it a moral position but…just like the Constitution of India allows others to speak their mind, it also gives me the same freedom. Sometimes in life, you need to be more right than popular.
Why do you feel angry about a negative perception about India… it is, after all, based on certain incidents…?
It is not anger. It is a kind of passion. When you talk about certain issues, you cannot talk with anger, you should talk with fervour. I’m like that about most things. I was one among those who participated in a movement like India Against Corruption. I have always spoken my mind. And if I have been wrong on certain things, I have learnt to educate myself. But…the media makes you a champion of certain things…of the tolerance brigade or whatever.
I’d rather stay with my truth than applaud something that I don’t believe in. They call my actions a ‘crusade’. They keep saying that I’m calling them anti-national. But nowhere have I thought that! In the construction of a country, you need all kinds of people. But, I only have one point to make. The rules that you apply at home need to be applied in the country too…whether it is freedom of speech, intolerance, tolerance, etc.
What if I were to ask you to draw a distinction between an intolerant State and an intolerant nation?
You are a lot younger than I am…but before this whole debate began around six months back, did you ever hear this word ‘intolerance’? It is a coined word. It is marketed well by whosoever has done it and that’s why we are talking so much about it. We have lived in a country where we have seen all kinds of times and we have survived it. We are only a 68-year-old nation. But we are fantastic as people. We have a captain of a cricket team from Ranchi, a small town. We have a Nawazuddin Siddiqui, an Irrfan Khan and an Anupam Kher too coming from zero and making it.
This country has given me so many opportunities. And if you want to talk about the State, we have seen worse times. We have seen the Emergency, the 1984 massacre. State apna kaam karti rehti hain [The State will go on pursuing its agenda].
We may have seen worse times. But if people are choosing to speak up against the current scenario, is that really so bad?
I feel that the situation is not as bad as they are making it out to be. What is the issue? We have a Prime Minister who came from nothing. He was a chaiwallah. He rightfully got elected, came with the biggest mandate, does not take offs, goes and spends time with jawans during Diwali, has given a certain boost to our country abroad. I have not heard of as many corruption cases as we used to hear under the previous governments.
Even if we try to take the credibility of this man away, we cannot say that he is lazy or that he is not a good Prime Minister. So the idea is to figure out a way to attack him- this is my theory. I’m not saying it is true. But I feel that by saying he is intolerant, they are trying to take his credibility away.
Do you necessarily have to speak your mind on all issues, considering how influential you are?
I’ve lived my life like that. I don’t know any other way. All I’m saying is that the country comes first. If that’s influencing people, then so is the narrative from all other quarters, be it about Afzal Guru or intolerance.
There are people creating fear today. If students in an institution like JNU can champion Afzal Guru, I need to be a part of the counter narrative. As I’ve always said, there is much more to life than cinema and acting.
The media is part of a sinister game and it is frightening. Therefore, it is absolutely important to create a counter voice.
It is time to say what you feel. We need the country to be together. We are on the verge of being inducted in the Security Council. We are surging ahead of China. Why would I not want my country to be the best in the world when it has potential to be so?
What does the Padma Vibhushan mean to you?
It is the ultimate recognition of me as a person, not only as an actor. I’ve grown up reading about teachers, postmasters etc getting Padmashri. I’m not someone who will say that the awards don’t mean to me. Also, with such an award comes a sense of responsibility and I realise that.
Has your politics ever intersected with the actor that you are? Especially now, does that influence the kind of roles that you take up?
In fact, it is the other way around. People now shy away from giving me work, sometimes. Only now, actually. When you make people uncomfortable, it is bound to happen and I don’t blame them. I’m a self-made person and those who want to give me work will give me work anyway.
But in the film industry, friendship and enmity barely lasts for a long time.
Did you consciously and carefully choose the roles you played throughout your career?
For the first fifteen years, I took whatever came to me. I had seen so much hardship in my early years in Bombay that I eagerly took on work when it was offered to me. I used to work 22 hours a day.
When you came to Bombay, did you think a film like Saransh would be your first film?
No, I thought I’d be a hero. I’ll wear a wig and manage, I thought. But the three first years in Bombay taught me a lot about life. And Saransh’s role was the biggest hero I could have found. He was the ultimate angry old man!
You’ve seen the Hindi film industry change in your own time. What is your assessment of the present?
I think we are in the most exciting times today. There is certainly competition. There is also less communication between people today. Earlier, the cast would sit together and chat. Now we go into our own vanity vans and be by ourselves. We also have a lot more managers suddenly.
But in terms of creativity, Indian cinema is going through a golden period. You can make a Khosla Ka Ghosla and also a Salman Khan film simultaneously.
What is it about the present that nurtures this creativity?
People are more educated, the audience is more educated. We have more channels, more competition, more avenues for entertainment and so the audiences need to be attracted to the theatre.
We have to have trained actors now. We cannot give people 13-14 chances to become actors. Film schools, therefore, are playing an important role. Film education not only teaches you about acting but about life too.
