Aamir Khan's infamous creative clashes: Before replacing 'Taare Zameen Par' director, Aamir fell out with this iconic '90s filmmaker

Aamir Khan
has long carried the tag of a 'perfectionist'—a title earned early in his Bollywood career. Though it complimented his dedication, it also attracted significant criticism. Some within the industry began accusing him of covertly
directing films
under the guise of supporting roles, overshadowing official directors. While Aamir has dismissed such allegations in conversations with the media, recent remarks by
Darsheel Safary
have reignited this debate.
Darsheel, who played the lead role in
Taare Zameen Par
, recently opened up about how the film's directorial duties shifted unexpectedly. According to him, Aamir made the bold decision to re-film a major scene, despite original creative director and writer
Amole Gupte
being actively present on set. Aamir, who had previously not been attached as the director, asked everyone to disregard what had just been shot and announced that he would now helm the scene. Though Amole remained on set in a creative capacity, the reins of direction quietly passed to Aamir.
Darsheel recalled that Gupte had worked on set for only a few days before Aamir gradually assumed full directorial responsibilities. Describing his early experience, Darsheel admitted feeling intimidated by Aamir, whereas his rapport with Amole was far more relaxed and friendly. The two shared a close bond—Gupte had even discovered Darsheel at a dance workshop—and their sons were also close friends. Darsheel added that during the filming process, Aamir and Amole often exchanged creative opinions, with Aamir frequently offering his insights and suggestions.
In an interview with Galatta Plus, Aamir expressed frustration over persistent rumors accusing him of hijacking films from other directors. He explained that many assumed he was unofficially leading productions whenever a film failed after his departure, creating a pattern of speculation that became difficult to shake. He maintained that the actual directors were the ones making the final decisions, and his own involvement was often misrepresented.
Aamir will soon return to the screen in
Sitaare Zameen Par
, a follow-up to Taare Zameen Par, slated for release on June 20. While he previously portrayed a compassionate teacher, this time he takes on the role of a basketball coach.
Aamir's clashes with filmmakers have not been limited to one project. In a fan interaction on Rediff, he addressed his strained relationship with Rangeela director
Ram Gopal Varma
. Their fallout began years ago when Varma made a comment suggesting a minor actor outshone Aamir in a particular scene. This remark, misunderstood by the media, led to unresolved tensions due to lack of timely clarification. Hurt by the miscommunication, Aamir chose to distance himself from Varma moving forward.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Indian Express

an hour ago

• Indian Express

Kesari 2 isn't an ‘untold story', it's historical fiction that minimises Sankaran Nair's real-life contributions to the freedom struggle

Kesari Chapter 2, the film starring Akshay Kumar, directed by Karan Singh Tyagi, which released in theatres just a couple of months ago, centered its promotions on this being the 'untold story' of Jallianwala Bagh that had stayed hidden for over 100 years. The makers declared that the film was based on the events that happened after the massacre at Jallianwala Bagh, where thousands of innocent Indians died after Hitler-like General Reginald Dyer ordered his troops to fire at them without any warning. The events at Jallianwala Bagh were undeniably brutal and over 100 years later, Britain is yet to apologise for them. Kesari Chapter 2 reminds the audience that this apology is due but it does something else as well, it tries to rewrite the story of Sankaran Nair and in the process, it diminishes his actual contribution to the Indian freedom struggle. Nair was a hero, and he did fight against the British but there was never a case against General Dyer in any court in Amritsar. Kesari Chapter 2 claims to be the 'untold story of Jallianwala Bagh' but the fact is, that this courtroom battle never took place. Kesari Chapter 2 claims to be based on the book written by Sankaran Nair's third generation, Raghu Palat and Pushpa Palat, titled 'The Case That Shook the Empire' but upon examining this book, and the autobiography of Nair, it is evident that the acclaimed barrister was never in a trial against General Dyer but Kesari Chapter 2 tries to rewrite history as its actors and director go around claiming that history books aren't doing a good enough job. The disclaimer that Kesari 2 is essentially a work of fiction doesn't go far enough given the publicity material has tagged the film as 'the untold story'. Sankaran Nair was a member of the Viceroy's Council, and saw himself as an ally to the then-Viceroy of India, Lord Chelmsford. But soon after the massacre at Jallianwala Bagh, which was not appropriately reported by the press because of the severe press censorship implemented in Amritsar, Nair was shocked to find out the barbaric acts carried out by Dyer and his men. 'If to govern the country, it is necessary that innocent persons should be slaughtered at Jallianwala Bagh and that any Civilian Officer may, at any time, call in the military and the two together may butcher the people as at Jallianwala Bagh, the country is not worth living in,' he wrote in his autobiography. ALSO READ | Kesari Chapter 2: Akshay Kumar's courtroom drama accidentally exposes Bollywood's handling of sexual misconduct Nair expected Lord Chelmsford to criticise this episode but when he saw that no one in the British administration was willing to speak against the brutal massacre, he resigned from his position in the Viceroy's Council. His resignation shocked the British administration as prior to this, they saw Nair as a loyal ally. After his resignation, Lieutenant Governor of Punjab, Michael O'Dwyer, immediately revoked orders for press censorship in the state and martial law was called off. It was Nair's resignation that led to the formation of the Hunter Commission, which looked into the barbaric acts at the Jallianwala Bagh. The Hunter Commission was a seven-member committee composed of four British and three Indians that conducted interviews all over India, met with eyewitnesses of the massacre and also interviewed General Dyer. As per The Case That Shook the Empire, Dyer accepted that he 'planned the shooting at Jallianwala Bagh in advance' and he had no intentions of scattering the crowd because they were violating the curfew. 'More damning was his admission that he would have used machine guns and armoured cars if it had been possible,' it read. Dyer also confessed that he made the conscious choice to leave the wounded to die. This was the only time when Dyer was made to appear in front of a body that was investigating the massacre, and here, he shamelessly admitted his dastardly acts. Kesari Chapter 2 would have you believe that Dyer was made to stand in court while a former ally to the crown, Nair, badgered him with questions, but this never happened. Hunter Commission submitted its findings and declared that Dyer's actions were a 'grave error.' The crown did not wish to punish Dyer as it was seen that he had 'averted another mutiny' and so, he wasn't court-martialled or dismissed. But, they could not have him in India due to the growing resistance against him, and so, he was shipped off to England in April 1920. ALSO READ | Even as Akshay Kumar's Kesari Chapter 2 shows an imagined past, it ends up confronting the present While Reginald Dyer was the man on ground in Jallianwala Bagh, his superior was Michael O'Dwyer, who was the Lieutenant Governor of Punjab at the time. It was O'Dwyer who gave Dyer enough power that he could implement whatever laws he saw fit. At one point, Dyer ordered people to crawl through the streets of Amritsar, and he was empowered to do so by O'Dwyer. The events at Jallianwala Bagh shocked those Indians who, until then, enjoyed British aristocracy and had received knighthood from them. Rabindranth Tagore gave up his knighthood and Nair left his job with the crown and started working as the Diwan of Indore, which was a princely state then. It was here, in 1922, that he wrote a book titled Gandhi and Anarchy. Nair 'did not believe that non-violence, non-cooperation and civil disobedience was the way for India to achieve Home Rule' and he expressed the same in his book. Here, Nair also implied that Michael O'Dwyer was just as responsible as Reginald Dyer for the massacre in Punjab. 'Nair implied the Punjab atrocities were committed with O'Dwyer's full knowledge and approval,' the book read. When O'Dwyer got his hands on this book in England, he decided to sue Nair for defamation, as he had claimed innocence for the atrocities in Punjab. Sardar Udham Singh eventually assassinated Michael O'Dwyer in 1940. But in Kesari Chapter 2, O'Dwyer is reduced to a supporting character who can be seen making backroom deals but is nowhere on Nair's radar. ALSO READ | FIR lodged against film Kesari Chapter 2 for 'distorting historical facts' after police complaint in Bengal The real-life case was no less than a movie, even though the filmmakers chose not to make a movie on this. O'Dwyer claimed innocence and was 'offended' with Nair's accusations. He demanded that Nair withdraw his book, offer him an apology and damages worth £1,000. Nair, obviously, refused to bow down and was ready to go to trial. He weighed his pros and cons before making this decision. The biggest pro here was that the trial would be held in London, and the press would be covering it. With this, Nair had the opportunity of talking about the massacre at Jallianwala Bagh in front of the English press, and this was the only way the higher-ups in the British government and the locals of the country would get to know how Britain was treating its subjects in India. But, there were some major cons as well. The trial would be presided by an English judge and the judgment would be made by an English jury, and chances were, that they would support O'Dwyer because he was one of them. Nair also did not have the opportunity of presenting his witnesses in person, and would only get a chance to read out their testimony, that could be misinterpreted by foreigners. All of his disadvantages would be advantageous for O'Dwyer but he decided to fight this battle anyway. Even though the trial was was held in England, Dyer did not attend a day in court on account of his ill health so Nair never really confronted him in any court, which is the base of Kesari Chapter 2. ALSO READ | Dharma's creative head responds to Kesari 2 director's comments on film blending fact, fiction: 'Masterclass for Philistines' Nair went through many troubles while preparing for this trial. The first barrister he hired to represent him was promoted to Attorney General, so he quit. The second barrister he hired quit just a day prior. And so, in desperate times, he had to hire Sir Walter Schwabe, a former Chief Justice of the Madras High Court. Schwabe was a learned man but wasn't a trial lawyer, and thus, wasn't cut out for such court battles. In the book written by his grandson, it is questioned why Nair didn't represent himself, but there is no explanation provided for the same. 'It is unclear as to why Nair did not choose to defend himself when Simon withdrew. He would have certainly acquitted himself better than Schwabe who was not as experienced, strong or as knowledgeable about the case,' it read. Nair vs O'Dwyer began in April 30, 1924, almost five years after Jallianwala Bagh massacre and the case went on for nearly five and a half weeks, presided by Justice Henry McCardie. Nair's case was about O'Dwyer being aware of Dyer's actions in Amritsar but after the opening remarks, McCardie, who had blind faith in the British Empire and considered himself to be superior, turned it into an evaluation of Dyer's actions, as he repeatedly insisted that Dyer had to shoot at people to avoid a mutiny. The case was no longer about O'Dwyer's involvement but about justifying the barbaric acts of Dyer in the name of saving the Empire. McCardie was supposed to be an impartial judge, but he acted like he was a lawyer for O'Dwyer. Together, they painted a picture where they made the jury believe that Amritsar was in a volatile state when the events at Jallianwala Bagh happened only to avoid a mutiny. All the facts presented by Nair's lawyer fell on deaf ears and they couldn't convince the jury of the truth. But, even at the end, there was a chance that there could be a mistrial as the jury could not come to a unanimous verdict. McCardie did not want this case to go for another trial so he asked both parties if they would be comfortable with a majority vote, which means that the side getting the most votes from the jury would win the case. By this time, Nair was tired. His grandson said in his book, 'Nair was tired. The case had originally been filed in the middle of 1922. Two years had passed and, during this time, the case had entirely consumed him. He wanted it to end and to get on with his life. For Nair, it had never been about the money. He had fought this case because he had been asked to give a public apology for a claim he had made in his book – a claim he believed to be true. He had refused to apologise then and instead had chosen to fight the case in an English court. Now that an apology had not been demanded, he felt vindicated.' The terms of the case were now modified as it was mutually decided that the one who won would get £500 plus legal fees. Nair demanded that if O'Dwyer lost, he would apologise to those he wronged in Punjab, and he agreed. However, Nair lost the case, 11-1. He was now held guilty for defaming O'Dwyer. He was asked that if he gave an apology now, the monetary compensation would be ignored but Nair was ready to pay, and firmly refused to issue an apology. Nair, who had spent years working with the British, was disillusioned by the British justice system after this case. He refused to go to trial again, as he was certain that the British would not let their own people down. While Nair was a vocal critic of Mahatma Gandhi, he wrote about Nair's trial in Young India on June 12, 1924, 'By accepting Sir Michael O'Dwyer's challenge, Sir Sankaran Nair has put the British constitution and the British people on trial. They have been tried and found wanting. Even in this simple matter, a man of Sir Sankaran Nair's proved loyalty could not get justice,' the Mahatma wrote. Sankaran Nair is a man whose story deserves to be known by Indians all over the world for he truly fought an impossible fight and even though he wasn't victorious, he was an important part of India's awakening against the British. Most real-life stories are slightly modified when they are adapted in movies, but if one changes the central conflict and the verdict, then it's not even a real story anymore. Kesari Chapter 2 is historical fiction in the garb of an 'untold story'. Sampada Sharma has been the Copy Editor in the entertainment section at Indian Express Online since 2017. ... Read More

Indian Express

an hour ago

• Indian Express

Aamir Khan's defence of his patriotism reveals an embarrassing portrait of an anxious superstar, a pliant media, and a suspicious fandom

What does it mean to be a superstar in this country? The question is not that complex as its answer lies within reach. But to ask what it means to be a Muslim superstar, is to step into more uncertain ground. An arena that is subtle, shifting, and deeply textured. It is not a matter of stark contrast, not a truth wrapped in white or black. It resides somewhere in the gray, the in-between, where meaning evades simplicity. For those who insist that fame transcends identity, that a superstar is untouched by faith, name, or lineage, the evidence is not hard to find, but harder to reconcile. Take the recent episode of Aap Ki Adalat, where Aamir Khan arrived ostensibly to speak about his new film Sitaare Zameen Par. And yet, the subtext was clear: he was not there to promote a story, but to defend one — his own. He was there not as an artiste, but as a citizen. As if his belonging needed reiteration. As if patriotism were not his right, but a question he must answer. Just two minutes into the episode, the host, turns the conversation toward Aamir Khan's loyalty to the nation. And for the next 30 minutes, Khan is made to justify himself. As if acceptance must be earned, not lived — he explains, he recounts, he defends. It is not enough to be a citizen; he must account for it, line by line. At one point, he is asked whether his income has ever come from a foreign country, as if his decades-long presence in the national consciousness could still be doubted. At another moment, he explains why he gave Muslim names to children born of Hindu mothers. On and on it goes. And yet the tone of the show remains deceptively light-hearted. Khan responds with grace, even good humour. But anyone watching closely can see it. Behind the measured enthusiasm is fatigue. Behind the smiles, something restless. Just observe, if one is willing, the nature of the questions directed at him. Why did he not speak after the Pahalgam attack? Why does he not name Pakistan more often, more forcefully, more condemningly? What were his reasons for aligning, even momentarily, with Turkey? Why is he held in such regard by audiences in China? What are his views on marriages that cross faiths? And why, above all, have some of his films unsettled the sensibilities of the majority? They are questions that seem less concerned with understanding than with establishing something, something already presumed, already half-decided. And what stands out is not merely their content, but their weight, their repetition. These are not questions commonly posed to those who legislate or rule. The ones who wield real power are rarely asked to account in such granular, personal terms. Also Read | Aamir Khan answers those questioning his patriotism: 'My film Sarfarosh was the first to take Pakistan's name, suffered losses but…' So what does it really reveal? The media indeed is not just complicit, but shallow. It will not question the architecture of silence built around power. It will not look directly at the dismantling of the plural imagination. But they will indict an actor for portraying a fictional character in a progressive film for hurting the majoritarian views. But beyond the surface spectacle, what does this moment reveal, at a deeper, more human level? One could argue, perhaps cynically, that this is less about offense and more about optics. A carefully staged act of image cleansing to make him appear on national television and clarify all the doubts surrounding him for the last few years. After all, his last film suffered from similar intolerance parading as patriotism, and this time, the stakes might be too high to ignore. So, more than anything, it reveals the strange nature of fandom today. More intimately, it lays bare a deeper, more uneasy truth about the evolving, often troubling dynamic between fandom and stardom. Fans no longer stop at admiration; they seek agreement. They ask not just for stories, but for allegiance. They map their own politics onto the people they follow and expect them to comply. They contain their idols within the bounds of their own fears, and when those boundaries are crossed, they read it as betrayal. No wonder, then in the show, an audience member rises to ask Aamir Khan how he felt about Operation Sindoor. And no wonder, too, that the answer barely matters. Because the question itself isn't really about any military operation, it's about reaffirming a gaze of doubt. A gaze that demands performance not just on screen, but off it. A gaze that insists on proof. And it is not his burden alone. Whether it is him, or Shah Rukh Khan, or Salman Khan, each of them has been caught in the same cycle of suspicion, again and again. As film scholar Richard Dyer once wrote, a star image is never whole; it is always contradictory. It is built through tension, through fragments pulled in different directions. And in that tension, different groups of fans struggle to decide where their star truly stands. So perhaps the better question is not what it means to be a star in this country, but what it means to be a fan. The answer is both plain and deeply tangled. It is the expectation of performance, everywhere. Because in today's time, subservience has become a condition of storytelling.

New Indian Express

an hour ago

• New Indian Express

‘I can Never Abuse Anyone': Aamir Khan

Popularly known as Bollywood's Mr Perfectionist, Aamir Khan, who was last seen in Laal Singh Chaddha, is finally set to return to the silver screen. The actor will soon be seen in Sitaare Zameen Par, the much awaited sequel to his iconic 2007 film Taare Zameen Par. Directed by RS Prasanna, the film revolves around specially-abled kids and features Aamir Khan as a basketball coach. What were the challenges you faced while shooting with a neurodivergent cast? I have been working in this industry for 35 years and done almost 45 films. Working with creative people, whether it is the DOP, actors, director, production designer isn't always easy. But we did not witness any trouble while shooting this film. When these ten people came on the sets, they hugged and spread their energy and made everything feel calm and positive. What was your personal experience working with a neurodivergent cast? They were very much on the same level as the neuro-typical beings on set. They rehearsed the lines very well. Instead, I would ask for a retake sometimes but not even a single moment was wasted because of their re-takes. Ashish, whose character's name is Sunil was so sharp that I apologised once saying 'it is my mistake.' He replied saying, 'koi baat nahi bade bade logon se choti choti galtiyan ho jati hai' (No worries. Popular people make such small mistakes.)