Opinion: Weblog | Sikandar, And The ‘Bhai’ That As soon as Was

Like a true-blue star, Salman Khan’s stardom is inseparable from his star physique. For years, it’s his chiseled, muscular body that followers revere. To them, it’s what cinema means. No surprise—as Yvonne Tasker, the movie scholar, notes in her seminal work, Spectacular Our bodies—the motion hero’s physique is rarely merely flesh and bone. It’s layered, symbolic, carrying contradictions. Khan’s mythology follows swimsuit. From his earliest days on display, he has championed brawn over the mind, turning gyms throughout the nation into sanctuaries. In his world, muscle overshadows monologue. Performing chops yield to brute power. His physique, greater than his expressions, turned his signature. And his blue bracelet got here to outline his fashion. Like a true-blue star, he serves the physique as a lot because it serves him. 

What As soon as Was

No surprise then, Being Bhaijaan, the 2014 documentary exploring the lives of three die-hard followers of Khan, opens with a montage of the star throughout a long time. His physique, sculpted and gleaming, commanding the display. However quickly, the tone evolves. The digital camera finds Shan, a younger fan from the small city of Chhindwara, drenched in sweat on the gymnasium. By way of the unflinching gaze of the lens, his type is studied like an X-ray. He speaks of his devotion, his dream of creating a physique like his idol’s. It is a terrific introduction, layered in its intent. On the floor, it fortifies the parable of Khan. However subtextually, it elevates Shan. For as soon as, the devotee stands on the identical pedestal because the deity. All through its runtime, the movie retains returning to Khan’s physique—however by way of the fixation of his followers. In doing so, it blurs the space between star and spectator. In doing so, it collapses the gaze, binding the icon and the admirer as equals.

Why Salman Was Totally different

In that sense, the movie additionally probes what binds somebody like Shan to a determine like Khan. Whereas the opposite two Khans, Shah Rukh Khan and Aamir Khan, turned icons for a cellular technology in post-liberalisation India, Khan’s stardom emerged from the fissures of that very panorama. Shah Rukh is the beloved of the aspirational center class, and Aamir, the considering man’s hero. However Khan has not often discovered favour within the polished corridors of city India. The explanations are many: from the alternatives of his movies to the turbulence of his private life and the load of authorized controversies. His kingdom was by no means in-built metropolitan multiplexes; his true reign lies in provincial cities, suburban sprawls, city slums, and mohallas. For the working-class Muslim, usually left stranded on the margins of the post-liberalisation dream, Khan has been much less of a star and extra of a messiah. They’re those who could not board the practice of upward mobility, who watched from the sidelines because the promise of prosperity handed them by. In his cinema, they discover not simply leisure, however affirmation. In his cinema, they see a rugged form of hope.

As Shohini Ghosh, a movie research professor at Jamia Millia Islamia, observes, Khan’s rise to stardom within the Nineteen Nineties was deeply linked to the period’s political and social turbulence. It was a time marked by the heightened communalisation of public life, because the Hindu Proper consolidated its energy, breeding anxieties amongst Indian Muslims. Solid as perpetual outsiders, they lived beneath the looming risk of surveillance, harassment, and even imprisonment. On this local weather of concern and alienation, Khan emerged as an unlikely image of solidarity.

The ‘Dangerous Boy’ Of Bollywood

His personal brushes with the legislation and the media’s portrayal of him as Bollywood’s “dangerous boy” created a way of familiarity. The spectacle of a star of his stature—publicly shamed, imprisoned, and devoid of the protecting sheen of movie star—mirrored the vulnerability many Muslims felt. If even Khan, together with his towering fame, was not proof against the unforgiving gaze of a polarised nation, what hope remained for the marginalised? They noticed their very own defiance in his existence. It was this fraught kinship, born from the ruptures of a divided society, that cemented his most devoted constituency.

Maybe that is why Khan’s bond together with his followers feels so visceral. A “Salman-Eid launch” is not nearly a movie; it is a second of belonging. For his Muslim viewers, it is a reminder that they matter. It is a reminder that their tales, their traditions, their celebrations, are worthy of spectacle. And when the climax arrives, when Khan bares his physique and battles his nemesis, the picture transcends fiction. His physique turns into a mirrored image of each their fears and their defiance. In his triumph, they glimpse power. In his stature, they discover significance. 

The Masculinity That Bought

One other compelling intersection between Khan, his star physique, and his followers lies in the way it engages with notions of masculinity — a theme on the coronary heart of Being Bhaijaan. Khan has lengthy promoted a macho ultimate—each on-screen and off. In reel and actual life, he has projected the picture of what as we speak’s technology may name an “alpha” or a “powerful” man. His movies exude a sure model of conservatism that conforms to conventional notions of masculinity. It’s this very ethos that Being Bhaijaan, directed by Shabani Hassanwalia and Samreen Farouqui, units out to discover, analyzing how Khan’s macho persona shapes fashionable masculinity within the small cities of India.

All through the documentary, we see Shan, alongside Balram and Bhasker, talking candidly about their deep connection to Khan. Of their phrases, a putting revelation emerges—the way in which Khan treats ladies on display usually informs their very own views on gender. Shan, as an illustration, goals of marrying a lady he describes as “pure and shy”, a super homemaker. Balram, then again, admires Khan’s refusal to kiss on display, studying it as a marker of restraint and ethical fortitude. For them, being a person means defending, offering, and embodying the identical stoic stance as their hero. So, on this unknown pact, Khan’s masculinity isn’t just admired—it’s internalised, adhered to and promoted. 

‘Bhai’ Used To Be Sufficient

Whereas these readings counsel how Khan’s male fandom usually upholds the heteronormative beliefs of the day, there’s additionally a extra layered, even subversive interpretation. The reverence his followers maintain for him—for his physique, his presence—carries an depth that many might even see as bordering on the homoerotic. It is no coincidence that, at one level in Being Bhaijaan, a fan earnestly declares that Khan should not marry, fearing the ripple impact it might need on his male followers who stay single in solidarity. This devotion is not simply admiration; it is a form of Bhai-code, a brotherhood that binds them not solely to their star however to one another. No surprise, they greet and half methods with a powerful “Jai Salman”. 

It is as if their affection for him has eclipsed all else. The actress within the merchandise quantity hardly issues; it’s Khan’s physique that instructions their gaze. His laughter, his dance, his fury—each flicker of him is sufficient.

It is also value noting that whereas Khan’s fandom usually seems unabashed, it is not totally uncritical. Their devotion can fracture, particularly when his actions disrupt the picture they maintain pricey. A potent instance emerged in early 2014, when Khan’s collaboration with then-prime ministerial candidate Narendra Modi for his electoral marketing campaign unsettled a lot of his Muslim followers. Jai Ho, his subsequent launch, suffered the influence of that momentary discontent.

This estrangement calls to thoughts the work of movie scholar Richard Dyer, who explored the inherently unstable nature of stardom. A star’s picture is rarely singular. It’s fragmented, continuously outlined and redefined by their on-screen presence, the tales spun by gossip columns, and the glimpses of their personal lives that slip into public view. Khan’s stardom is not any exception. 

A Waning Star?

Now, as his new Eid launch, Sikandar, hit the theatres final Sunday to an overwhelmingly destructive response, conversations amongst followers have began as soon as once more. This time, the main focus is on his ailing well being and a physique that appears to betray the vigour it as soon as commanded. Current misfires on the field workplace had hinted at this, however watching Sikandar has solely deepened the notion that one thing has dimmed. The agility, the kinetic power, the muscularity—all markers of his stardom—look like waning. The swagger, the nonchalant angle that when attracted all his followers are actually nowhere to be discovered. And maybe that is what makes him a true-blue star: one whose mythos is inseparable from his inevitable descent.

(Anas Arif is a movie author and a media graduate from AJKMCRC, Jamia Millia Islamia)

Disclaimer: These are the private opinions of the writer