AR Rahman Faces Fresh Religious Debate

AR Rahman, one of India’s most celebrated music composers, is facing renewed scrutiny over his religious beliefs, artistic decisions and public remarks. A recent article published by The Commune revisits several incidents from his career and argues that the composer’s public image as a symbol of secularism deserves closer examination. The article’s claims have triggered debate online, although several allegations remain matters of interpretation, disputed reporting or personal opinion rather than established fact.

The discussion begins with the song “Kaalaiyil Thinamum Kan Vizhithal” from the 2004 Tamil film New. According to accounts attributed to lyricist Vaali and director S.J. Suryah, the original lyrics described a mother as “Deivam,” or God. The wording was later changed to “Devathai,” meaning angel, reportedly because Rahman did not want a human being equated with God in accordance with his Islamic beliefs. The incident has since been used by critics to argue that his religious convictions influence his creative work.

Another example cited is “O Paalanhaare” from Lagaan. The song is commonly perceived as a Hindu devotional composition because of the film’s visuals, which show villagers praying in a setting associated with Lord Krishna. However, discussions involving Rahman, lyricist Javed Akhtar and director Ashutosh Gowariker have described the song as a universal prayer. Its lyrics avoid naming a specific deity, and the creators have emphasised that its language was intended to transcend religious boundaries.

For critics of AR Rahman, this explanation suggests that the song’s devotional imagery and lyrics operate at different levels. Supporters, however, view the composition as an example of India’s pluralistic cultural tradition, where music can draw from religious imagery while remaining accessible to audiences across communities.

The article also refers to songs from films such as Baba, Boys and Indian. It questions why certain Hindu deities were not explicitly named in devotional or culturally Hindu settings, and raises speculation about Rahman’s role in the composition of some songs. These arguments are presented as evidence of a religious preference, but the available accounts do not establish that every creative decision was made for sectarian reasons.

The controversy extends beyond music. The article criticises remarks Rahman made about Kashmir, particularly his call to focus on the region’s beauty and peace rather than its violent past. Critics interpreted the statement as an unwillingness to acknowledge the suffering of Kashmiri Pandits and the political history of the region. Others may view the comments as a general appeal for filmmakers to avoid glorifying violence.

His description of the 2025 film Chhaava as “divisive” also drew criticism. Rahman said he was proud of the soundtrack but believed the film could benefit from presenting historical bravery without encouraging social division. The article interpreted the remarks as part of a broader narrative of Muslim victimhood. That interpretation, however, depends heavily on the context assigned to his words.

AR Rahman has also spoken about receiving fewer professional opportunities in what he described as a possibly “communal environment.” He suggested that industry decisions may sometimes be influenced by religious prejudice, while also saying that people who understand spirituality should move beyond divisive arguments. His supporters considered the comments an expression of personal experience; opponents viewed them as politically charged.

The article further revisits an account by lyricist Piraisoodan, who claimed that he was once asked to remove vibhuti and kumkum before entering Rahman’s home. It also discusses Rahman’s social-media post featuring “Thamizhinangu,” an illustration representing Tamil identity, and his remarks supporting Tamil as a link language. These episodes have been interpreted by critics as signs of religious and linguistic politics, though the composer has not publicly accepted the article’s wider characterisation of his views.

Questions have also emerged over his response to terrorist violence. A peace-themed social-media post following the Pahalgam attack was criticised by some users as inadequate because it did not explicitly condemn the massacre. Likewise, his reference to the September 11 attacks as a moment that gave him renewed purpose has been compared with his alleged lack of similar references to terrorist attacks in India.

At the centre of the controversy is the tension between artistic freedom, personal faith and public accountability. AR Rahman has built a career that crosses languages, industries and religious traditions. His music has included patriotic anthems, spiritual compositions and films rooted in Hindu cultural narratives. Whether his choices reflect religious conviction, creative restraint or artistic universalism remains open to debate.

What is clear is that AR Rahman’s legacy cannot be reduced either to uncritical praise or sweeping condemnation. The allegations deserve verification, context and a distinction between documented statements and political interpretation. As the debate continues, audiences are likely to judge his work not only by its melody, but also by the values they believe it represents.