Since early days, Bollywood or Hindi film industry has been dominated by Punjabis. Many producers, directors, writers and especially heroes of the past were Punjabis. Quite a few among those Punjabis were either Sikhs or came from mixed Hindu-Sikh Punjabi families. But still the Sikh characters in Hindi films during those days were mostly reduced to stereotypes. Either they were there to provide a comic angle or to play an over the top super nice/super brave character. I guess the reason that in spite of the presence of many Punjabis at the helm of affairs during those days, we still didnt ever see a full Sardar as a hero was that both producers and the directors thought that a turbaned Sikh with a beard wont find much takers among the masses. Also, remember that those were the times when even some Muslim actors and actresses changed their names to more North Indian sounding Hindu names. I guess most people wanted to play safe in the still nascent Bombay film industry of the 50’s and the 60’s.
But the characterization of Sikhs in Hindi movies didnt change much even all through the 70’s, 80’s and the 90’s. Numerous films had a Punjabi character playing the leading man or a story set in Punjabi household, but the hero was always a clean shaven young man. A Sardar, at the best, might have played a good friend. In my knowledge, the only film during that era which had turbaned Sikh playing the main protagonist was Govind Nihalini’s offbeat work, Vijeta, where Kunal Kapur played Air force Pilot Angad.
If I’m not mistaken, Border(1997), in which Sunny Deol played a Sikh Army officer, must be the first mainstream Bollywood film where a turbaned Sikh played a central character. I think the film’s success ensured that more mainstream directors and writers would now think of casting a Sikh character as a leading man or an important character. Sunny followed his Sardar act with another mainstream blockbuster, Gadar(2001). After that, things changed so much that now almost every other major Bollywood star in my knowledge has played or is playing a turbaned Sikh in one or more of of his films. Bobby Deol and Ajay Devgan both sported turbaned look in their respective film versions of Bhagat Singh; Big B played a Sikh Army officer in few of his films and the very handsome Salman Khan looked very dashing while sporting a Sardar look in the film Heroes. Last year’s over the top blockbuster, Singh is Kinng, had industry’s one of the top heroes, Akshay Kumar, playing a turbaned Sikh with much success; the film’s title, Singh is King, has gotten so embedded in the popular culture now that any Sikh achievement anywhere in the world finds resonance with that. Lately, even the current heart throbs, Saif Ali Khan and Ranbir Kapoor, are playing turbaned Sikhs in their forthcoming movies Love Aaj Kal and Rocket Singh respectively. Here, I would also like to mention that I found it very interesting and realistic when perhaps for the first time, a grey character, Lucky Singh (played by Boman Irani) in the now cult film Lage Raho Munnabhai, was shown as a Sikh. In this film, rather than showing Lucky Singh as a stereotype (funny, cheerful, big-hearted etc) Sardar, he was instead shown as a shrewd & scheming businessman, something which many businessmen (including Sikhs) are in real too.
I’m not sure what are the exact reasons for this turbaned Sikh hero gaining popularity in mainstream Bollywood. Is it because that in recent years both Bollywood & audiences have become more experimental/open not only in terms of different stories but also in accepting different looking leading men? Or it’s because that certain such films with leading men as Sardar did well and it was a cascading effect after that? Or perhaps it’s just a fad? I really dont know..perhaps it’s the combination of all these factors or something else. But the way things are going, it will be interesting to see if in the near future, a real Sardar actor, rather than our established heroes sporting fake beards and turbans, also breaks into the scene as a leading man in a mainstream Bollywood film.
31 responses so far ↓
Nita // June 3, 2009 at 6:47 am |
Ver Interesting post Dev. I think as you said earlier the movie makers were not sure whether a sardar hero would click. Why sardar, even bearded heroes were not there and still not common. Beards cover the face and that is why I think the clean shaven hero where a person’s full expressions could be seen were preferred. Even in Hollywood one sees bearded heroes rarely and mostly as a kind of character trait which means showing age, or a professor type. even in singh is kingg, Akshay Kumar was half shaven most of the time! But yes the film did show that films with sardar characters can succeed and I too think this is a trend. There are films with other minorities as heroes too nowadays. I think because the audience has matured and does not want to see only people from their own community and maybe this is due to satellite tv, globalisation and more of travel within the country and mor exposure to the educated classes at least.
Mahendra // June 3, 2009 at 7:21 am |
I too have been thinking about this maturing of the Sikh roles in our film industry, so your post is very much engrossing to me.
Nita too points out an interesting aspect regarding visibility of the face…I had not thought of that as relevant before.
In any case, I am happy they are coming out of the stereotypes. I think this is part of the overall maturing of characterizations, experimentation, etc.
Reema // June 3, 2009 at 5:03 pm |
I think its a fad. But Ranbir is looking very good
Pranav // June 3, 2009 at 9:07 pm |
If you think about it, its not only sardars. Most religious segments have been under-represented in movies. Despite Bollywood having a whole gamut of Khans, they almost always play Hindu characters in movies. Maybe my view is quite extreme, but I’m seeing this as some sort of religious chauvinism.
Solilo // June 4, 2009 at 4:46 am |
For long most leading heroes were Hindus. Now things are changing and our scripts are getting innovative, the gap between commercial and parallel cinema is reduced and the central characters also belong to different religions. It is a welcome change.
Ranbir here looks like Pakka Sardar.
Gomolo.in // June 4, 2009 at 5:05 am |
Yes the times have been changing. Initially sardars were portrayed in the films as only comic elements, but today they have grown into full fledged main leads.
Nowadays even Muslim characters are shown as the main lead which was missing till the 80’s.
Really can’t say when a Dalit will be shown as a Hero romancing all the beautiful heroines of Bollywood, which I don’t think has been done till now.
http://www.gomolo.in
Gomolo.in // June 4, 2009 at 5:20 am |
Times are really changing. Before 90’s Sardar characters were only used as comic elements, but today they are taking the centre stage in films.
Initially I had thought that this idea would not work, but it worked wonders with Singh is Kinng. So today more movies with Sardar characters in the main lead are coming up, which is good for Indian Cinema.
Amit // June 4, 2009 at 7:42 pm |
Its just that our scripts need to break out of the set pattern.
Dev // June 5, 2009 at 1:18 am |
Thanks everyone for your comments.
Nita, I agree with your take. It’s true that bearded hero has never been much popular even in Hollywood. Yes, Akshay was not with full beard in Singh is King, but I see some other actors playing Sikh who look more and more like pucca Sardars.
Mahendra, very true that stories and characters in Bollywood have to go beyond stereotypes now..one cannot digest these stereotyped characters anymore just for easy laughs or to substitute good stories.
Reema, no matter how much I hate you for praising my dushman Ranbir on my blog, I have to admit that among all our heroes who sported a Turban, he looks the best and also most natural..perhaps his mother (Neetu Singh) being a Sardarni has something to do with that.
Pranav, I think that’s one way of looking at this. I dont really think that’s religious chauvinism..it’s more of a practical approach by filmmakers..filmmaking is a business at the end of the day. Anything which runs a risk of not finding many takers is not attempted often..India is a Hindu majority country and hence most of the audiences too. So, it makes sense to have most of the stories or protagonists coming from that background only; it’s the same in Hollywood too where Asians or Indians are hardly represented and often stereotyped too. But, as I and some other people also mentioned here, things are indeed changing in Bollywood.
Solilo, agree with you completely.
Amit, ofcourse.
Rahul // June 5, 2009 at 4:32 pm |
Really nice one…I really liked this point of view u shared…
Adding u in my blog list to read more from you!!!
My blog is http://rahul-bhattacharya.blogspot.com/
Neha Kapoor // June 6, 2009 at 9:48 am |
how can i subscribe to ur blog?
Dev // June 7, 2009 at 3:22 am |
Neha, as far as my limited knowledge goes, you can add this blog on your blog surfer to follow it.
Thanks.
cutting_chai // June 7, 2009 at 11:13 am |
Hi,
I think its a fad and will end soon…Many times when you see old pix of clean shaven sikhs, they look more handsome in a turban! Maybe I’m biased as my Dad is a handsome sardar….ha..ha!
Preeti // June 7, 2009 at 1:24 pm |
I too agree Ranveer is looking fantastic as a sardar,Dev I too agree with you may be Neetu singh is the factor behind his that original look.
I feel impact of globalization, acceptance among all and story lines referring to realities and going beyond just chocolate boy looks for a hero.
Neha Kapoor // June 7, 2009 at 2:54 pm |
Suggestion: put up a RSS feed or subscribe via email link on your blog.
Dev // June 8, 2009 at 1:06 am |
Thanks Cutting_chai and Preeti for your comments.
Neha, I dont know how to do that..but I will check with few people who might know about it.
Amit // June 8, 2009 at 5:33 pm |
Warning: long comment.
Interesting post, Dev. It is true that Sikhs have been depicted more often than not in comedic roles (Raja Hindustani had Johnny Lever playing a sardar). By the way, don’t forget Manoj Kumar’s role as a bearded and turbaned Bhagat Singh in Shaheed (1965).
As an aside and slightly nit-picky (though this always bothers me when I see it), I’m a bit unsure of your following statement and whether it is backed by facts/some analysis:
“Also, remember that those were the times when even most Muslim actors and actresses changed their names to more North Indian sounding Hindu names.”
I can list quite a few actors, actresses, singers, writers, producers/directors (Nargis, Waheeda Rehman, Rehman, Suraiya, Mohammad Rafi, Talat Mehmood, Shamshad Begum, K. Asif) who were contemporary of Dilip Kumar, kept their Muslim names and were quite successful in Bollywood – which clearly shows that there was no such coercion/compulsion – spoken or unspoken – to change names. Noorjehan, Murad etc. who started their careers before 1947, continued to taste success and popularity post-1947, and Saira Banu and Mumtaz are two among many Muslim actresses who started their careers post-1947 and were quite successful. Unless I see some concrete examples, this seems to be another of those “liberal”/self-loathing canards that plays into “how bad we Hindus are” theme, which is easily accepted without some inquiry. So many of Bollywood’s famous lyricists are/were Muslims and didn’t change their names – if there was indeed an unspoken rule that Muslims need to change their names to be successful in Bollywood, then these lyricists wouldn’t have been so famous or successful. I’ve always been puzzled by how a (famous) data point of one (Dilip Kumar) can lead to this opinion/meme about Bollywood/India/Hindus while ignoring so many other contradicting data points, and even though Dilip Kumar started his career before 1947. Besides, if it is common knowledge that Dilip Kumar’s previous name was Yusuf Khan, doesn’t that defeat the supposed purpose of the name change? There were some Hindus too who changed their names or used a modified/shortened version (Sunil Dutt/Balraj Dutt, Dharam Dev Pishorimal Anand, Dharmendra Singh Deol), so it’s not as if Dilip Kumar is the only one who modified his name. Would you know if there were other Muslims who changed their names to Hindu-sounding ones when they entered/tasted success in Bollywood after independence? The other two instances I know of are Mumtaz who was billed as Madhubala starting with the film Neel Kamal and supposedly, her screen-name was given by Devika Rani; and Meena Kumari who was billed as Baby Meena when she started her career as a child actress in 1939-40.) In fact, given that so many Muslims have been successful in Bollywood in different capacities (director, actor, writer, singer, songwriter, musician) post-independence and the circumstances under which partition happened, speaks of the liberal and accepting attitude of those in power in Bollywood at that time.
I also agree with you that depicting Hindus in movies is not religious chauvinism, as Pranav commented above. (BTW, why do people, who look at religion of characters in movies to arrive at some conclusion about the society, ignore that the villains depicted are Hindus too? Let’s use one yardstick as well as look at all depictions, instead of picking-and-choosing.) Depiction of minorities by majority in popular media can invite controversy and charges of misrepresentation or propagating stereotypes (a case of damned if they do, damned if they don’t), and Bollywood is in the business of making money, so they likely opted for the safer course. I don’t see any conspiracy in that, more so given the political situation of minority appeasement in India. There have been a few movies that depict Muslims and their societies – Saudagar (with Amitabh Bachchan-Nutan), Chaudhavi Ka Chand, Garam Hawa, Pakeezah, Mere Mehboob, Nikaah and Bazaar come to mind – though how realistic those depictions are/were is a whole another debate. Besides, if my memory serves me right, so many Bollywood movies from the 70s and 80s depicted Hindu pujaris as hypocrites and indulging in smuggling and other unlawful activities, thus perpetuating a stereotype, but I guess this stereotype is acceptable and OK.
Amit // June 8, 2009 at 6:17 pm |
Dev, by the way, I didn’t mean to imply that you suggested with that statement, that Muslims in Bollywood changed their names under some compulsion by the majority. Just wanted to clarify that, and my comment was more expansive in scope than just responding to your specific statement, which served as the jumping-off point.
Dev // June 8, 2009 at 9:12 pm |
Wow..that was a long comment indeed.
Thanks for your views Amit and I agree with you that my statement “most Muslim actors and actresses…” needs to be changed with “some Muslim actors”. As you showed with your examples, there were indeed many Muslim actors and technicians who didnt change their names and were accepted by everybody & had/have successfull careers. And, yes, as you mentioned in your follow up comment, I didnt mean that they were forced/coerced by the majority. I suspect that some of them changed their names by their own free will thinking that their Hindu sounding names will give them more acceptance. Infact I remember reading Naseerudin Shah criticizing Dilip Kumar and the likes of him who changed their names during earlier days. He was of the view that people would have still liked and respected Dilip Kumar the same even if he had continued with his original name, Yusuf Khan.
Jasmine // June 21, 2009 at 9:22 pm |
Hi there,
This is an interesting blog. Just wanted to clarify something. Typically Sikh women are referred to as simply Sikh, or Singhni as it appears in the scriptures. It would be more correct to use “Sikh” or “Singhni” rather than ’sardarni’…Kind of like saying “Hinduni” or “Muslimi” would not be technically correct…
Anyways, popped up and found this article and very nice and interesting…
Dev // June 22, 2009 at 3:21 pm |
Jasmine, thanks for your comment here. Iam not sure if using the word Sardarni is same as using Hinduni etc because Sardarni word is often used in the common lingo and I have even seen that word used in formal writing. So, technically it might not be correct as you say, but it’s still commonly used unlike Hinduni or Muslimi which are never used I guess.
Jasmine // June 22, 2009 at 5:37 pm |
Dev,
I understand your point! I think using that word is just about not being aware…For example, it is used by a layman because they may believe there is a female counterpart to the ’sardar’ used for the men…but technically it is incorrect.
In fact, even the word ’sardar’ is not used in the Sikh scriptures. The scriptures mainly use “Sikh” for both men and women, which meant “learner”, while the later bani (but not the Guru Granth Sahib) used the word “Singh” and “Singhni”. The word “sardar” was given to the male Sikhs later (I believe by the British) due to their involvement in the army. “Sardarni” was not really a word that was used for female Sikhs, although many female Sikhs have also been a part of the army, including a very potent one that was the commander of the army of Guru Gobind Singh (Mai Bhago).
I think there is less awareness of Sikhism, and perhaps that is why this happens. I have also read the word ’sardarni’ in formal writing, such as movie reviews, etc. but I doubt that it is a researched word by the writers. In fact, I have even heard “Sikhni” used in formal writings, which is obviously not the best word to be used…that would be equivalent of saying “Hinduni” or “Muslimi”.
Again, it is not quite the fault of the individual using the word, but as a Sikh I feel the fault is in us that we Sikhs haven’t brought about that awareness.
God Bless.
Dev // June 22, 2009 at 8:29 pm |
Jasmine, thanks for your detailed comment again. I guess I have nothing to add except that your knowledge regarding this issue is more than me and hence I will take your word on it.
Jasmine // June 23, 2009 at 1:16 am |
Dev, I felt I had to comment. I think you have made some great observations in your entry, and certainly provoked an insightful discussion. Do look forward to the continuing comments…
Sardarni // June 28, 2009 at 9:41 am |
Hi Dev,
gr8 post, keep it up. As 4 jasmines comments, im not sure using word Sardarni or Sikhni is derogatory or bad. In fact, i love when someone calls me like that. If thakurain or panditain or chodhrain words r ok, then y crib about sardarin?
Jasmine // June 29, 2009 at 2:39 pm |
Dear Sardarni,
I understand your point, but I feel we have missed the point. The discussion is not whether it is bad or derogatory (which it may or may not be, that is a different conversation)…but it is not the best term to use.
Thakurain is certainly a valid word in the Hindi diction…
In my limited experience, I haven’t seen chodrain or panditain being used in contemporary writing or in reporting, but if they are used in that context, then you have a valid point.
shuz // July 9, 2009 at 10:01 am |
WoW! nice post dev, but i seriously never realised tht ‘turbaned sikh’ is a fad only ‘now’!! this has always been a huge part of the hindi movie industry. But there is one thing i would like to point out here… i only got to see the two extremes… either too serious (read action) or comedy!
Dev // July 10, 2009 at 12:03 am |
Shuu, you are back?
. Yes, mostly it was either of two roles, super brave or comic, but as I mentioned above, things seem to be changing now.
cinematickets // July 29, 2009 at 11:09 am |
Things are made really easy with a click of a button where you can book movie tickets online..Get movie tickets for Love Aaj Kal and many more only on Kyazoonga.
Nova // September 2, 2009 at 9:51 am |
Good observation Dev.
Dev // September 2, 2009 at 11:01 pm
Thanks Nova.