Summary
- A.R. Rahman’s musical genius is unquestionable, but public respect is shaped not only by talent—it is shaped by attitude, cultural sensitivity, and gratitude toward the society that enables success.
- Over the years, Rahman’s statements, silences, and perceived double standards toward Sanatan Dharma, Hindu culture, and Indian identity have caused deep hurt among Sanatanis.
- This episode has become symbolic of a larger issue: earning from Hindu society while distancing oneself from it culturally and emotionally.
- What is emerging today is not hatred, but conscious cultural choice and self-respect.
Why the Rahman Episode Matters
- A.R. Rahman is not just an individual artist; he is a cultural figure whose words and actions carry influence. When such a figure repeatedly appears dismissive of Sanatan Dharma or Hindu cultural identity, the reaction is bound to go beyond individual disagreement.
- For many Sanatanis, this is not about cancel culture or intolerance—it is about reciprocity, respect, and accountability.
- The Rahman episode has therefore become a wake-up call, forcing Hindu society to reflect on why tolerance has so often been met with contempt.
1️⃣ Livelihood from Hindu Society, Distance from Hindu Culture
A significant portion of Rahman’s:
- Fame
- Wealth
- Global recognition
- has come from Indian cinema, especially from audiences rooted in Hindu and Sanatani society.
Yet, over time, many observers have noted:
- A visible emotional distance from Hindu cultural expressions
- Discomfort or silence when Hindu beliefs are mocked
- Selective sensitivity—where respect is demanded for some faiths but not extended to Sanatan Dharma
Anecdotes from film circles about objections to Hindu symbols such as tilak may be debated individually, but their persistent circulation matters because they align with a broader public pattern.
- In a plural civilisation, selective tolerance feels indistinguishable from intolerance.
2️⃣ “Good vs Evil”: A Statement That Cut Deep
- One of the most cited sources of hurt was Rahman’s statement about choosing between “good and evil,” widely interpreted as portraying Sanatan Dharma as “evil.”
- Why did this cause such outrage? Because Sanatan Dharma:
- Is not an exclusivist ideology
- Does not demonise other faithsHas absorbed diversity and dissent for thousands of years
Reducing such a civilisation to a simplistic moral binary—especially while benefiting from it—felt to many like ingratitude bordering on contempt.
- Public figures may claim personal belief, but civilisational language carries civilisational consequences.
3️⃣ Hindi: Opportunity Embraced, Identity Dismissed
Another recurring grievance is Rahman’s public dismissal of Hindi, despite:
- Building a large part of his career through Hindi cinema
- Gaining national and international stature via Hindi music
- Continuing to monetise Hindi-speaking audiences
This criticism is not linguistic chauvinism. It is about ethical consistency:
- You cannot live off a language
- And simultaneously distance yourself from it with public disdain
Such behaviour creates the perception of cultural opportunism, not principled dissent.
4️⃣ The “Communal Industry” Narrative
- As Rahman’s mainstream visibility declined in recent years, he suggested that the film industry had become “communal,” implicitly blaming Hindu cultural assertion.
This raises uncomfortable but necessary questions:
- Do all artists who face career decline accuse society of bigotry?
- Are changing audience preferences automatically communal?
- Why is Hindu self-expression treated as a problem, while others are celebrated?
Labeling Hindu cultural resurgence as communal is not secularism—it is delegitimisation.
5️⃣ Global Living, Indian Earnings, and Moral Optics
- Living globally is not a crime. Many Indians do so.
The discomfort arises from moral optics:
- Cultural and emotional distance from Hindu society
- Public criticism of Indian cultural space
- Yet continued economic dependence on Indian audiences
This creates a perception of taking without belonging, which fuels resentment and backlash.
- Societies are not just markets; they are emotional and cultural ecosystems.
6️⃣ From Blind Admiration to Conscious Cultural Choice
No one is demanding:
- Government bans
- Censorship
- Legal action
What is emerging instead is conscious consumer choice:
- If an artist repeatedly disrespects your faith
- If he frames your civilisation negatively
- If he benefits from your society while distancing himself from it
Then choosing not to support his work is:
- Not hatred
- Not intolerance
- But self-respect and cultural awareness
Support is voluntary—and so is withdrawal of support.
7️⃣ The Larger Pattern the Rahman Episode Represents
The A.R. Rahman episode resonates because it reflects a wider pattern:
- Hindu society offers opportunity
- Sanatan Dharma offers tolerance
- And in return, sections of the cultural elite offer lectures, mockery, or silence
For decades, Hindus absorbed this quietly in the name of secularism. That silence is now ending.
Respect Must Be Mutual
- Sanatan Dharma teaches tolerance—but not self-erasure. Inclusivity does not mean funding narratives that demean you.
- The Rahman episode is not about revenge or exclusion. It is about drawing a dignified civilisational boundary.
- Hindus are not rejecting art. They are rejecting ingratitude, double standards, and cultural contempt.
Choosing Sanatani alternatives, withdrawing blind patronage, and demanding reciprocity is:
- Peaceful
- Democratic
- And long overdue
This is not extremism. This is civilisational self-respect awakening.
🇮🇳 Jai Bharat, Vandematram 🇮🇳
Read our previous blogs 👉 Click here
Join us on Arattai 👉 Click here
👉Join Our Channels 👈
