It is a common human trait to embrace credit for success while seeking external factors to blame when things go awry. When accolades pour in, individuals often cite their own grit, talent, and sleepless nights. However, when a career hits a plateau or a setback occurs, the narrative often shifts toward blaming the industry, the system, or invisible enemies.

This phenomenon recently took center stage in a conversation featuring one of India’s most celebrated musical icons. In a revealing interview, the Oscar-winning composer A.R. Rahman looked back on his professional path, attributing his recent lack of work in the Hindi film industry, Bollywood, to ‘communalism’ and ‘industry politics’ over the last eight years.

Speaking to the BBC Asian Network, Rahman was questioned about his experiences in the industry during the 1990s and whether he faced any prejudice at the time. Rahman clarified that he did not feel any overt bias during his earlier years. However, he claimed that the situation has shifted drastically in the last eight years, leading to a significant slowdown in his Bollywood projects. He described this as a result of a "power shift."

Going beyond the usual complaints of industry rivalries, Rahman insinuated that his Tamil background or, more controversially, his religious identity might be the cause. He relied on hearsay—"Chinese whispers"—to suggest that his exclusion from major Bollywood projects could be a "communal thing."

“Maybe I didn’t get to know all this stuff. Maybe God concealed all this stuff. But for me, I never felt any of those, but the past eight years, maybe, because the power shift has happened. People who are not creative have the power now to decide things, and this might have been a communal thing also, but not in my face. It comes to me as Chinese whispers that they booked you, but the music company went ahead and hired their five composers. I said, ‘Oh, that’s great, rest for me, I can chill out with my family,’ told Rahman to the BBC’s Haroon Rashid.

For those following Rahman’s public statements, this narrative of victimization is not entirely new, though the specific blame has shifted. It is important to recall that back in 2020, Rahman voiced similar grievances. At that time, he alleged that a specific ‘gang’ was operating within Bollywood, spreading false rumors to create misunderstandings and actively preventing good projects from reaching him. He claimed this forced him to work on ‘dark movies’ rather than mainstream blockbusters. However, in 2020, there was no mention of religious targeting or communalism. The narrative was strictly about professional jealousy and gatekeeping. The leap from complaining about a "gang" to claiming "communal targeting" due to his Muslim identity marks a significant and controversial escalation in his rhetoric.

There is a profound irony in A.R. Rahman labeling Bollywood as communal. Historically, the Hindi film industry has been perhaps the most secular, if not Muslim-leaning, industry in the country. It is an ecosystem where talent has always trumped religion. Legends like Mohammed Rafi, Dilip Kumar (born Yusuf Khan), the writing duo Salim-Javed, and the dominance of the three Khans (Shah Rukh, Salman, and Aamir) are testaments to the fact that Muslims have not only survived but ruled Bollywood.

It is undeniable that there has been a cultural shift in recent years. We are witnessing the rise of a Hindi cinema that is more unapologetic about showcasing Hindu history, grievances, and culture. However, equating this rise in diverse storytelling with the industry becoming "anti-Muslim" is a logical fallacy.

One must look at the data. Numerous singers, lyricists, and composers who follow the Islamic faith are currently thriving in Mumbai. If there were a systemic "communal thing" at play, surely it would affect them as well?

Bollywood, like any high-stakes business, is certainly flawed. It can be nepotistic, cliquish, and driven purely by profit margins. Agendas—be they regional, religious, or ideological—may indeed influence individual scripts. However, the idea that there is a widespread communal conspiracy against Muslim artists, particularly one of Rahman’s legendary stature, is a claim that is difficult to digest.

A.R. Rahman’s career is the stuff of dreams. Spanning three decades, his work has defined the soundscape of Tamil, Hindi, and international cinema. From winning Oscars to accumulating dozens of Filmfare awards, his mantelpiece is full. Yet, past success does not guarantee future dominance in a creative field.

Even recently, his work has found takers when the content resonated. His compositions for the Bollywood film starring Dhanush—a star primarily known for Tamil cinema—were well-received. Furthermore, looking at the charts, other Muslim artists are delivering massive hits. Singer Faheem Abdullah’s track ‘Aawara Angara’ became a sensation. Similarly, Abdullah’s title track for the 2025 blockbuster ‘Saiyara’ stayed on the top of the music charts for four solid months.

This begs the question: How is it that artists like Faheem Abdullah, the duo Salim-Sulaiman, the Mallik brothers (Armaan and Amaal), and Javed Ali are consistently getting work and topping charts? If the "communal thing" is real, why is it selectively targeting only A.R. Rahman?

Unless Rahman can name the specific "non-creative decision makers" he referred to, his allegations remain in the realm of speculation. It comes across less as a genuine systemic issue and more as a case of needless Muslim victimhood. If biases exist, they are likely specific to individuals or business disagreements rather than a religion-centric boycott.

It is interesting to note that this behavior—attributing career slumps to external "gangs" or political "boycotts"—is becoming a trend among established artists. Actors like Taapsee Pannu, Swara Bhasker, and Richa Chadha have frequently been vocal on political issues. While they have every right to their opinions, when their films underperform at the box office, the blame is often shifted to their political stance rather than the quality of the film.

This serves as a convenient, albeit dishonest, excuse. The reality is often simpler: audiences rejected the movies because of poor scripting, mediocre acting, or unengaging content. Films such as Dobaara, Anarkali of Aarah, Jahaan Chaar Yaar, Ishqeria, Shakeela, and Madam Prime Minister failed to draw crowds. In contrast, when these same actors appeared in well-made films like Pink, Fukrey, or Veere Di Wedding, the audience praised them and the box office numbers reflected that success.

Instead of introspection regarding script choices, the tendency is to blame ‘trolling’, ‘boycott campaigns’, or ‘communalism’ (often a code word for ‘Hindutva’). In reality, the content is usually the problem.

Returning to Rahman’s situation, one must acknowledge the natural evolution of the music industry. The maestro has scored over 200 films. But the sound of Bollywood is not static. Just as in any corporate or creative field, new talent emerges to challenge and eventually replace the old guard. Composers like Amit Trivedi, Mithoon, Pritam, and Sachin-Jigar have introduced new sounds that resonate with today's youth. They, too, face criticism, but they are getting the work because they are delivering what the current market demands.

Time changes everything. There was an era ruled by Kishore Kumar and Mohammad Rafi. They gave way to Kumar Sanu and Udit Narayan, who in turn were succeeded by Sonu Nigam and KK. There was a time when a film felt incomplete without Mohit Chauhan’s voice; today, Arijit Singh is the undisputed king of playback singing. This doesn't mean the predecessors lost their talent or were targeted by a conspiracy; it simply means a new crop of singers captured the public imagination.

Furthermore, the audience's taste has pivoted. We have moved from song-centric movies to content-driven narratives. While a musical like Aashiqui 2 or Saiyara can still pull crowds, a good soundtrack alone is no longer a safety net for a bad movie. With the democratization of music via YouTube and social media, filmmakers don't rely on a "star composer" to sell tickets the way they used to. Recent hits like Dhurandhar, Animal, and Chhaava succeeded primarily because of their powerful storytelling and performances, with music serving as a complement rather than the main attraction.

Speaking of Chhaava, one of the biggest hits of 2025, many critics argued that its music was actually its weakest link. Ironically, that music was composed by A.R. Rahman.

In his interview with the BBC, Rahman spoke about Chhaava, a film featuring Vicky Kaushal as Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj. The movie depicts the Maratha warrior’s resistance against the Mughal tyrant Aurangzeb, highlighting the brutality Sambhaji endured for 40 days for refusing to convert to Islam. Despite the film’s historical grounding, Rahman labeled it "divisive."

“It is divisive. I think it cashed on the divisiveness of it, but I think the core of it is to show the bravery… I told the director, ‘Why do you need me for this?’ He said we need only you for this. I think it was an enjoyable finish. But I definitely think people are smarter than that. Do you think people are going to get influenced by movies? They have something called internal conscience which knows what the truth is and what manipulation is…” said Rahman.

This perspective is baffling. Contrary to Rahman’s view, Chhaava was not a tool for division. It was a cinematic representation of historical facts—the courage of Sambhaji Maharaj and his devotion to Hindu Dharma, contrasted with the documented fanaticism of Aurangzeb.

There is a disturbing double standard at play here. When films attempt to tell stories of Hindu persecution—such as Chhaava or The Kashmir Files (which depicted the genocide of Kashmiri Hindus)—they are immediately branded as ‘communal’, ‘propaganda’, or ‘divisive’. Yet, the industry remains silent when movies like Fanaa humanize terrorists, or when Haider features a song referring to the ancient Martand Surya Mandir as a ‘Shaitan ki Gufa’ (Devil’s Cave). There was no outrage when the Tiger franchise whitewashed the actions of Pakistan’s ISI, or when Article 15 presented a distorted narrative.

The ultimate contradiction lies in Rahman’s professional choices. If he truly believed Chhaava was a "divisive" film that "cashed in on divisiveness," why did he agree to compose the music for it? Furthermore, if a "communal thing" is blocking his career, how did he land the massive, prestigious project of Ramayana—a film centered entirely on Hindu epics and deities?

The Irony of Intolerance: Examining Rahman’s Personal Controversies

A.R. Rahman’s complaints about a "communal thing" become even more perplexing when viewed against the backdrop of allegations regarding his own family’s conduct. In 2020, a controversy erupted involving the late Tamil poet and lyricist Piraisoodan, who made shocking claims about the intolerance he faced from Rahman’s household.

Piraisoodan recounted an incident where he was invited to Rahman’s home. Upon arrival, he alleged that Rahman’s mother requested him to remove his Vibuthi (sacred ash) and Kumkum Tilak before entering.

“I refused to remove the Hindu religious marks on his forehead,” Piraisoodan stated in an interview, highlighting a rigid intolerance toward Hindu symbols.

It is worth noting that A.R. Rahman was born a Hindu named Dileep Kumar. He converted to Islam later in life after his father and sister fell ill, and a Sufi healer advised the family that conversion would save the girl’s life. Dileep Kumar became A.R. Rahman, and his mother, Kasturi Shekhar, took the name Kareema Begum.

This is not the only time Rahman’s personal views have sparked debate. He once courted controversy by allegedly blaming Hindu deities for his father’s death, stating that the idols his father worshipped "killed him." Additionally, his daughter, Khatija Rahman, faced public scrutiny for her defense of wearing a burqa, claiming it "empowers" her, a stance that drew mixed reactions.

Today, A.R. Rahman is a recipient of the Padma Shri and Padma Bhushan, holds six National Awards, and remains one of the highest-paid composers in India. He is actively working on mainstream mega-projects like Chhaava, Tere Ishk Mein, and the upcoming Ramayana. For a man of such immense stature and continued success to claim he is being sidelined for communal reasons is not just contradictory—it borders on the ludicrous.