Bollywood isn’t communal, Javed Akhtar tells AR Rahman

It began as a quiet, almost hesitant reflection from one of India’s most revered artistes. But by the time the Jaipur Literature Festival (JLF)-2026 settled into its rhythm of book talks, launches and debates, AR Rahman’s words had become a refrain across festival tents, media lounges as well as social media timelines. At a festival known for intellectual fireworks, it was a musician’s aside on Bollywood that struck a loud chord.

In a recent interview, Rahman spoke about his reduced presence in Hindi cinema over the past few years. He suggested that the shift in power within the industry away from creative collaborators to new decision-makers “might have been a communal thing also”. The composer was careful to add that no one had said anything directly to him, and that his observation was more about a changed ecosystem than personal grievance. Yet the tentative use of the word “communal” proved incendiary in a polarised cultural climate.

At the JLF, the response from industry veterans was swift. In his session packed to the brim, lyricist, poet and screenwriter Javed Akhtar firmly rejected the communal notion.

He argued that Bollywood had historically been shaped by talent rather than faith. Rahman, Akhtar said, enjoyed immense respect in the industry, adding that perhaps it was so much that smaller producers hesitated to approach him, assuming he was beyond their reach. To read this as discrimination, Akhtar suggested, was to misunderstand how things in Bollywood often operate.

Author and columnist Shobhaa De was equally emphatic in rejecting Rahman’s standpoint. Describing his comment as “very dangerous”, she questioned why an artiste of his maturity and standing would frame professional shifts in communal terms.

Drawing on decades of observation, she asserted that the industry has long been one of India’s most secular spaces, where success has depended on talent, not religious identity. To her, invoking communalism risked importing society’s fractures into an arena that had largely resisted them.

The buzz among the intellectually stimulated visitors at JLF suggested the debate ran deeper than agreement/disagreement. Sriram from Bangalore saw the development as a symptom of growing corporate control and shrinking creative autonomy.

As the discussions continue, one thing is clear: JLF continues to be a defining stage for a national conversation about art and the narratives we accept or reject. In that sense, the tension is likely to echo even after the music fades and the festival lights dim.