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.