Manoj Muntashir Hits Back at A.R. Rahman Over 'Chhaava' Propaganda Comment & Industry Bias Claims

A.R. Rahman’s comments about Chhaava and changing power structures in Hindi cinema have returned to the spotlight after lyricist Manoj Muntashir publicly challenged the Oscar-winning composer’s position.

Speaking to journalist Shubhankar Mishra, Muntashir questioned how Rahman could criticise Chhaava after composing its music and disputed the suggestion that communal factors could have contributed to the composer receiving less work from the Hindi film industry.

But one detail has become blurred as the disagreement has travelled through headlines and social media: Rahman did not straightforwardly label Chhaava a “propaganda film” in the original BBC Asian Network interview.

He called the Vicky Kaushal-starrer “divisive” and said he believed it had “cashed in on divisiveness”. At the same time, Rahman said the film’s central purpose was to depict bravery, described it as enjoyable and later said he was honoured to have composed its score.

Muntashir nevertheless challenged the apparent contradiction he saw between Rahman’s criticism of the film and his decision to work on it.

The exchange is therefore more nuanced than a conventional celebrity-versus-celebrity disagreement. It involves two separate questions: what Rahman actually thought about Chhaava, and whether his concerns about changing dynamics in Hindi cinema should be interpreted through a communal lens.

What Manoj Muntashir Said About Rahman and Chhaava

Muntashir addressed the controversy during his conversation with Shubhankar Mishra.

His central argument was straightforward: Rahman would have known what kind of story Chhaava was telling before agreeing to compose its music.

“He must have read the script,” Muntashir said while questioning the composer’s subsequent criticism of the film.

Muntashir then referred to it as a “propaganda film” while making his argument and said he could not understand why Rahman would participate in the project if he felt that way about it.

That is an opinion expressed by Muntashir, rather than evidence about how much of the screenplay Rahman had reviewed before signing the film.

There is, however, evidence that Rahman discussed the film’s premise with director Laxman Utekar. Utekar has recalled that the composer questioned why he wanted to make Chhaava before joining the project.

That makes Rahman’s participation more complicated than simply discovering the film’s themes after completing his work.

What A.R. Rahman Actually Said About Chhaava

Rahman’s original comments deserve to be separated from the interpretations that followed.

During his BBC Asian Network interview in January 2026, Rahman described Chhaava as divisive and said he believed it had benefited from that divisiveness.

But he did not stop there.

Rahman also said the film was fundamentally attempting to portray bravery and questioned how easily cinema can manipulate audiences, arguing that people possess their own understanding of truth and manipulation.

Most significantly, he also expressed admiration for the finished work.

Discussing Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj’s importance to Maharashtra and the emotional ending of the film, Rahman said he was honoured to have scored the movie and described his music as carrying its emotional pulse.

So Rahman’s position was not simply “Chhaava is propaganda.”

It was closer to a criticism of what he saw as the film’s divisive potential while simultaneously recognising its depiction of bravery and expressing pride in his own contribution.

That distinction matters when evaluating Muntashir’s response.

Manoj Also Challenged Rahman’s Comments About Bollywood and Communalism

The disagreement extends beyond Chhaava.

In the same BBC conversation, Rahman had reflected on whether prejudice might have affected the opportunities coming his way in Hindi cinema.

His wording was notably tentative.

Rahman said that he had not previously felt such discrimination directly but believed a power shift had taken place over approximately the previous eight years, leaving people he regarded as non-creative in positions of influence.

He added that it “might be a communal thing also”, while acknowledging that such discrimination had not been directly expressed to him.

That uncertainty is important.

Rahman did not claim to possess proof that religious discrimination was definitively responsible for him receiving fewer Hindi-film assignments. He raised communal bias as one possible explanation for an industry change he believed he had observed.

Muntashir Says Other Explanations Should Be Considered

Muntashir disagreed with framing Rahman’s professional situation primarily through religious identity.

He argued that other explanations should also be considered, including professional relationships and the performance of recent music.

“Maybe the songs haven’t worked in the last few years. There can be so many other reasons,” he said.

Muntashir also pointed to prominent Muslims who have occupied positions of enormous cultural and institutional importance in India, including former cricket captain Mohammad Azharuddin and Muslim Presidents of India.

His broader argument was that Rahman’s own extraordinary success complicates the suggestion that religious identity alone explains his current professional situation.

He also said he would be willing to discuss the issue directly with Rahman and described the composer as someone open to dialogue.

Again, this should be understood as Muntashir’s argument, not proof disproving Rahman’s concern.

Examples of highly successful Muslim public figures do not by themselves establish whether discrimination does or does not occur within particular professional decisions in the film industry.

Similarly, Rahman raising communalism as a possibility does not establish that it caused his reduced workload.

Neither proposition can responsibly be converted into a settled factual conclusion from these interviews alone.

The Two Men Are Really Making Different Arguments

Much of the controversy becomes easier to understand when the statements are separated.

On Chhaava, Muntashir is essentially questioning consistency: if Rahman had concerns about the film’s themes, why agree to score it?

Rahman’s original comments provide at least part of an answer.

He did have reservations about the film’s divisive potential, but he also believed its central story concerned bravery and ultimately spoke positively about aspects of the finished film and his contribution to it.

On the Hindi-film industry, the disagreement is different.

Rahman is describing his personal perception of a changing professional environment and raising communal bias as one possible factor.

Muntashir argues that other professional explanations should be considered before religious discrimination is invoked.

Those positions can be debated, but neither interview supplies enough evidence to conclusively determine why Rahman may be receiving fewer Hindi-film assignments.

Chhaava Put Rahman Inside the Debate, Not Outside It

One reason the discussion has attracted attention is that Rahman wasn't an outside commentator reviewing Chhaava.

He composed its music.

Directed by Laxman Utekar, the historical drama stars Vicky Kaushal as Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj, with Rashmika Mandanna and Akshaye Khanna among the principal cast.

That professional connection is exactly what Muntashir focused on.

But it also makes Rahman’s original comments more interesting.

A composer can work on a film while still having reservations about elements of its politics, storytelling or social effect. Participation does not necessarily imply agreement with every interpretation a film may generate.

Conversely, Muntashir’s question is legitimate as an editorial point: if those concerns existed from the beginning, audiences can reasonably ask how Rahman reconciled them with accepting the assignment.

Rahman’s BBC comments suggest that his answer lies in the distinction he drew between what he regarded as the film’s divisive qualities and its underlying story of bravery.

The Celebrity Hour Take

The most useful way to cover this disagreement is not to decide which artist “won.”

It is to preserve what each actually said.

Calling Rahman’s position simply “Chhaava is propaganda” removes the contradictions and qualifications that made his original remarks interesting. He criticised the film as divisive, but he also praised its emotional core and said he was honoured to have scored it.

Similarly, Muntashir’s alternative explanations for Rahman receiving less work professional relationships or recent musical performance — remain his hypotheses. They are not independently demonstrated explanations for Rahman’s career trajectory.

The communalism question deserves the same discipline.

Rahman himself presented communal bias as a possibility rather than a proven cause. Muntashir challenged that interpretation but cannot disprove discrimination simply by pointing to other successful Muslim personalities.

That leaves a disagreement involving perceptions, professional experience and interpretation rather than a factual question with an obvious winner.

The strongest point Muntashir raises concerns Chhaava itself: how does a creator reconcile serious reservations about a project with participating in it?

Rahman’s answer appears to be that the film contained both elements he questioned and elements he considered worthy of celebrating.

That tension is considerably more interesting than reducing the entire exchange to another Bollywood “feud.”

Sources & Verification

The Celebrity Hour reviewed reporting from Manoj Muntashir’s interview with Shubhankar Mishra and cross-checked his remarks across multiple publications documenting the conversation. Rahman’s position was separately checked against coverage of his original BBC Asian Network interview rather than relying on later paraphrases of what he supposedly said.

This distinction produced an important correction: the available record supports describing Rahman as calling Chhaava “divisive” and saying it “cashed in on divisiveness”; the word “propaganda” appears in Muntashir’s response and subsequent coverage rather than accurately summarising Rahman’s complete original position.