Music maestro A.R. Rahman’s recent remarks on what he described as growing “communalism” in the Hindi film industry have triggered a sharp and wide-ranging debate, drawing reactions not only from Bollywood veterans but also from political leaders. The discussion took a more political turn on Sunday after former Jammu and Kashmir chief minister Mehbooba Mufti publicly supported Rahman’s comments, responding to lyricist Javed Akhtar’s dismissal of the composer’s concerns.

Rahman, one of India’s most celebrated and globally recognised music composers, had spoken candidly in an interview with the BBC Asian Network about receiving fewer offers in recent years despite his continued success and stature. While clarifying that he was not actively chasing work, Rahman suggested that a shift in power within the film industry — and possibly communal bias — might be among the reasons behind the reduced number of projects coming his way.

His remarks immediately stirred controversy, with some interpreting them as a direct indictment of Bollywood’s working culture, while others argued that his words were being taken out of context. The debate intensified when Javed Akhtar, a veteran lyricist and screenwriter, publicly disagreed with Rahman’s assessment, offering an alternative explanation for the composer’s reduced visibility in mainstream Hindi cinema.

Adding a political dimension to the issue, Mehbooba Mufti weighed in through a post on X, strongly backing Rahman and criticising Akhtar’s response. “When Javed Akhtar dismisses A.R. Rahman’s concerns about the growing communalisation of Bollywood, he contradicts lived and shared realities of Indian Muslims,” she wrote. Mufti went on to cite examples close to Akhtar himself, including statements made by his wife, actor Shabana Azmi, who has previously spoken about being denied housing in Mumbai allegedly due to her religious identity.

Mufti further argued that Bollywood has historically functioned as a microcosm of Indian society. “Bollywood has always been a living mini India mirroring the country’s social realities. Brushing aside such experiences does not change the truth about today’s India,” she said, underlining that Rahman’s comments resonated with broader experiences faced by minorities in contemporary India.

The controversy began earlier this week when Rahman, speaking in the BBC interview, reflected on the changing dynamics of the Hindi film industry. He said that people who are not necessarily creative now wield significant decision-making power, and that this shift may have affected how projects are allocated. While he stopped short of making a direct allegation, Rahman noted that he had heard, through what he described as “Chinese whispers,” that projects initially intended for him were eventually handed to multiple other composers instead.

“I’m not in search of work. I want work to come to me; the sincerity of my work to earn things,” Rahman said. “I feel it’s a jinx when I go in search of things. 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.”

Rahman added that such decisions were never communicated to him directly. Instead, he would hear later that despite being initially approached, music companies opted to hire several other composers. “I said, ‘Oh, that’s great — rest for me, I can chill out with my family,’” he remarked, striking a characteristically calm and philosophical tone.

Reacting to these comments, Javed Akhtar expressed disagreement and suggested that Rahman may have been misunderstood or that his remarks were being overinterpreted. According to Akhtar, the reason many filmmakers hesitate to approach Rahman has less to do with bias and more to do with his towering reputation in the industry.

“I don’t agree with that, and I also doubt that he would ever say something like this,” Akhtar was quoted as saying by India Today. He described Rahman as a highly respected composer whose stature can be intimidating for producers and directors, particularly newcomers. “They are scared to reach him because he is so big. They are scared to talk to him and handle him,” Akhtar said, adding that people often feel Rahman is beyond their reach.

Akhtar characterised this hesitation as a mix of awe and fear rather than prejudice, suggesting that industry professionals might think, “Humare bas ka nahi hai, yeh toh bohot bada aadmi hai” — loosely translating to the idea that Rahman is too big a figure to be easily approached or managed.

While Akhtar’s comments were intended to counter the idea of communal bias, they did little to settle the debate. Instead, they prompted responses from across the political and cultural spectrum, with many arguing that Rahman’s experience should not be dismissed outright, especially in the context of wider discussions about discrimination and exclusion in various sectors of Indian society.

The controversy did not end there. Rahman also attracted criticism for remarks he made about the 2025 blockbuster Chhaava, starring Vicky Kaushal, for which he composed the music. Despite the film’s massive box office success, Rahman reportedly described it as divisive, suggesting that it capitalised on polarising sentiments. This comment drew strong reactions from several Bollywood figures, most notably actor-politician Kangana Ranaut.

Ranaut lashed out at Rahman, accusing him of being “prejudiced and hateful,” and claimed that she had not encountered anyone as biased as him in her life. Her remarks further polarised opinions, turning the debate into a broader cultural and ideological clash rather than a discussion limited to professional dynamics within the film industry.

Supporters of Rahman, however, pointed out that despite composing music for one of the biggest hits of 2025, he continues to face criticism and scepticism when he speaks about systemic issues. They argue that his comments reflect a personal perspective shaped by decades in the industry rather than a blanket accusation against Bollywood as a whole.

As reactions continue to pour in, the episode has highlighted deep divisions over how issues of identity, power, and opportunity are discussed in public life. Rahman’s original remarks, measured and indirect as they were, have opened up a larger conversation about whether certain experiences are being minimised or dismissed when they challenge dominant narratives.

With politicians, artists, and commentators now firmly entrenched on opposing sides, the debate appears far from over. What began as a reflective comment by a music legend has evolved into a larger examination of Bollywood’s role as a mirror of Indian society — and of the uncomfortable questions that reflection sometimes raises.