Analysis & Discussion
In the 1991 film, Henna (R.K Films, directed by Randhir Kapoor,
Raj Kapoor) the character of the titular Henna’s father, played by Saeed
Jaffrey, is named Khan Baba . The film makes an absurdly
ridiculous statement right at the outset by naming the character thus.
This is because, as stated earlier, Khan is a surname found among
commonly among Muslims. In fact, it is the 12th most
common surname in the world. If one person is hailed by the name “Khan
Baba”, perhaps all the people of the village where the film is set
would turn their heads. Naming the character “Khan Baba” is not a
decision formed of artistic creativity, it is the result of a long
history of cultural misrepresentation and sedimentation of reinforced
stereotypes that films have carried out.
The film carries other similar tropes associated with the “Khan
persona” as well. When the Muslim (Khan) characters are introduced in
the film at 31:42, it begins invariably with a song. The song begins
with the sound of Rabab, playing a deeply pious and melancholic
tune, once again a trope that is consistently found among films
depicting the “Khan persona”.
The other important aspect of the character of Khan Baba in the film is
the way Saeed Jaffrey (the actor playing the character) has been dressed
and made up. The character has long hair, kohl in his eyes, wearingsalwar kameez and speaks clunky and unrealistic dialogues in
impeccable Urdu. Every time the character speaks, the rabab (or
sometimes the Bulbul Tarang) returns in the background, as if to
herald the speech of a prophet. His name is so often stressed throughout
the film, which already feels like a ridiculously desperate attempt to
paint Muslims as simple and plain, that his name becomes etched in the
minds of the viewer. There are other Muslim characters in the film, but
it is Khan Baba’s name that is repeated and called out the most, as he
is the most prominent “Khan persona” in the film.
In almost every frame that Khan Baba appears alone, there is a prayer
rug, prayer beads, agricultural tool or even a hookah that appears
alongside him. As if to say to the viewer that the “Khan” is not
complete without all these extensions of his “persona”, as if the
viewer would confuse him for someone else if these props were not to
accompany him in the frame. Khan Baba is not the “Khan persona”
without these extensions of him in the time and space of the film
universe.
Underneath all this is buried the fact that the character of Khan Baba
is a “Mary Sue”11, that is, he has no flaws at all, and thus
there is no character development or character arc for him. He is just
there to do all the good work, to preach all the good things, to tell
people calling him “Khan Baba” that Muslims should behave in a certain
way.
The character of Badshah Khan played by Amitabh Bachchan in the 1992
film Khuda Gawah (Glamour Films, directed by Mukul Anand) is
shaped in the same mould. At 9:09 minutes into the film, the character
of Danny Denzongpa first calls out the name “Badshah Khan”, heralding
the first serving of the “Khan persona” for the viewer. Here again,
although there are other Muslim characters in the film, none of them is
called by the name “Khan” as much as Badshah Khan; they are called by
their first names like people normally do. His appearance on the screen
is accompanied by the same kind of music, his eyes have kohl and he
dresses in the Pathani way (although here the dressing may be discounted
as the character is an Afghan), and his name is repeated so often that
it seems as if the makers suspected that the viewer would forget what
the name of the protagonist was. Again, like in Henna, other
Muslim characters also call Amitabh Bachchan’s character names like
“Khan” or “Khan Bhai”. Again, like in Henna, the “Khan
persona” is a Mary Sue.
At 37:44 in the film, Amitabh’s character says to a Rajput,” Hum
Pathan hai Pathan, ulta seedha baat sunne ka aadat nahi humko” (I am a
Pathan, I am not used to listening to bullshit), once again reinforcing
a stereotype typical of the Khan’s in such films. To this, the Rajput
retorts, “Aur main bhi Rajput hun Khan, ye aadat mujh mein bhi
nahi hai” (And Khan, I am a Rajput. I am not into the habit either.)The retort involves the comparison (or a shared trait, however one
interprets it) of an ethnic group (Pathans) and a surname (Khan) with a
caste (Rajput). The non Muslim makers of the film seem to have no
understanding whatsoever of this, and invariably contribute to the
propagation of the “Khan persona” among the audience of the film.
Badshah Khan’s appearance on the screen is accompanied by props - the
extensions of his persona - in this case swords, horses and flags. Once
again, the Khan persona is incomplete without these props, a shallow
assessment of a character that is supposed to drive the events in the
film.
In the 1973 film Zanjeer (Prakash Mehra Productions, directed by
Prakash Mehra), these tropes are visible as well. The background score,
the mannerisms, the props- all build up the “Khan persona”. It is
almost as if the writers of such films cannot find any other Muslim
names for their characters. Once again, the Khan is a Mary Sue.
Deewaar- Let’s Bring Our Heroes Home (2004, VR Pictures, directed
by Milan Luthria) goes one step further in typifying the surname
“Khan” as a caste. In the film, the character of Sanjay Dutt does away
with a first name completely, naming him just “Khan”, so that every
other character may conveniently call him by “Khan” throughout the
film. He is larger than life in the film, but this “Khan” is not a new
character; he is just the “Khan persona” being portrayed by a
different actor. All the clichés underneath remain the same, and this
time, he even does the name-calling himself. Throughout the 2 hour
34-minute runtime of the film, Sanjay Dutt keeps repeating the phrase,”Khan hun, Allah ki shaan hun” (I am Khan, I am Allah’s pride),as if other creations of Allah are not.
As stated at the beginning of this article, “Khan” the character name
is shaped in the mould of stupidity and idiocy as well. The prime
example of this is the hit British TV show Citizen Khan (2012, British
Broadcasting Corporation, created by Anil Gupta, Richard Pinto and Adil
Ray). Not only is the show named “Khan”, but the characters,
particularly the protagonist (portrayed by Adil Ray) make it a point to
poke fun at the name “Khan” and associate it with certain tropes. In
fact, the protagonist is called only Mr. Khan, and he introduces himself
by this surname only. All other Muslim characters have proper names;
some even are called names other than “Khan”. But it is Mr. Khan who
is the stupidest, and associated with clichés of the same order as
discussed above. His dressing, his appearance, his accent, his “props”
are all found here as well. The “Khan persona” is alive and throbbing
(the show is a major success) not just in Indian cinema, but in the
Diaspora too.
Another important trait associated with all these characters is that the
name “Khan” does not have any bearing on the plot of the film; it is
there only to reinforce the persona. If the character is named anything
else, it would not affect the plot or the narrative of the film in the
slightest manner, but it would break the mould that these characters are
shaped in. The nomenclature thus has only one objective- to present to
the audience a caste among Muslims, to present it in a predefined
manner, and to present it repeatedly and with such sheer consistency
that the idea of the “Khan persona”, that is the idea of a caste,
complete with its own traits and behaviours, may get established among
the audience.
But films are not to be blamed entirely for this creation. Films are a
mirror of the social reality and recreate and represent social truths,
or are at least inspired by them. Although some inspiration for the
whipping up of the “Khan persona” might have been taken from the
Muslim culture itself, and indeed characters must not be separated from
their cultural artifacts while being represented on the screen, the
representation of the surname “Khan” has been twisted around and
tampered with so much by playing up the name and misrepresenting and
adding revoltingly overbearing characteristics to the characters
carrying this name, that an aura has been created around the name. This
aura has caused the name to look like a caste to the viewers of such
films and shows, and has resulted in reinforcing this stereotype in the
real world as well.
The film My name is Khan portrays the miseries of the Muslims in
US after 9/11. In the film, Shah Rukh Khan playing the role of Rizwan
Khan has been portrayed as sufferings from the Asperger’s syndrome. The
surname Khan representing the whole Muslim community in US, Rizwan Khan
walks an extra mile to prove the innocence of Muslims after 9/11. The
film depicts that just by having name Khan, one is labelled as
terrorist. The film links terrorism directly with Muslims and as
depicted in the film Muslims are the Khans. As mentioned above, even
though this film has been encompassing a very serious subject but the
stupidity in which Rizwan Khan has been engaged in the film due to his
disorder as depicted in the film again represent Khans negatively. On
the other side, the film tries to link Khans with terrorists but in the
end depicts a neutral message as Rizwan Khan meets the US president. In
total, Khan has been portrayed as an unusual character, totally
different from rest of the characters in the film. This portrayal of
Khan at large has resemblance with the portrayal of Khan in other
aforementioned films.
The name ‘Khan’, although just a surname chiefly among Muslims, has come
to represent a particular “class” of people- with specific traits and
mannerisms, but almost always associated with evil or stupidity in films
and TV shows. There are also a few other moulds into which characters
named Khan are shaped in and represented in films. But all of them have
some basic, predefined and almost preordained signs associated with them
that have led to their stereotyping in such a way that the name has come
to connote a caste in films- complete with its own dress codes,
appearance, language and even background score. All this has led to the
synthesis of an almost new culture being associated with the name which
has turned the surname into a class for many.
The audience of such films (mostly made by Hindus) having been fed this
staple diet of “Khan as persona”, have been led to believe that
casteism exists in Muslims as well. But this Khan as personaphenomena is not limited to the non-Muslim perception only, but has
spread among Muslims as well. Khan has now come to represent a caste-
either associated (or confused) with the Pathan culture, or with the
violent Katta culture of the mafia of Uttar Pradesh and
Jharkhand, especially after the release of the films Gangs of
Wasseypur (Anurag Kashyap, 2012). Both these moulds have their own
peculiarities, but what unites them both is a massive distortion of the
demographics of Muslim societies and of the connotations of the surname
Khan. These dilute the identity of Khan as a surname, and whip up a
simulacrum- the “Khan persona”, one that has now become a caste in the
minds of numerous audiences of such cinema.
This system of social stratification through names and surnames has been
instrumental in describing the power structures among Muslims. Thus the
giving of a name or a nickname is an act of power (Rahman, 2015). A name
may exalt or debase a person, as they have cultural capital (Lord,
2002). In Plato’s book Cratylus, as Socrates points out, “slaves
cannot name themselves.” (as quoted in Rahman, 2015). For example: In
order to assert their high status and their right to be natural rulers,
the ruling classes of Pakistan exercise power through ‘onomastic
politics’ – the use of prestigious components in names (Bodenhorn and
Bruck, 2006: 14). Significant caste names and surnames symbolises a
socially dominant identity.