I have never had an issue with any character or its moralities, in any of my films-Akshaye Khanna

Rachana Dubey (BOMBAY TIMES; September 11, 2019)
With every film, Akshaye Khanna reminds us that there’s no role that he’s not at ease with. As someone who had pulled off a vanishing act between 2012 and 2016, the actor has three films releasing this year. Yes, he’s deeply committed to his acting career, even though one won’t say that he’s fiercely competitive or ambitious. He has his way of doing things, at his pace, and he’s glad that the audience doesn’t feel that they have seen enough of him. The actor spoke to BT about his upcoming film, Section 375, and why he doesn’t feel the need to socialise to a degree that makes him uncomfortable. Excerpts:
As someone who is so selective about his work, it’s quite a surprise that you have three releases this year…
This wasn’t planned (smiles). As an actor, one is constantly reading scripts and interacting with creative teams. Sometimes, things work and sometimes, they don’t. It’s never in an actor’s hands. I mean, I can’t predict what I might like in the near future and just how much work I might end up doing in a year or so. The thing is, I don’t go looking for anything. I’ve never consciously chased a particular kind of a film or role. I choose from what is offered. I am not a writer, so I don’t write my stuff. I usually don’t even suggest anyone to write something for me. Of course, I am trying to change that now.
In today’s day and age, it’s as important to be seen and heard as it is to act well. But you keep an arm’s distance from attending parties, events and even being on social media… Do you feel the need to change this, too?
I don’t enjoy being on social media or at events. Honestly, if my last film or any of my last 10 films had done Rs 200 crores, one would probably not ask me this. You wouldn’t see it as a gap that needs to be plugged. In my case, not just today, but for many years, it has been seen as a gap that needs to be filled. I don’t think I am doing any injustice to my fans by not being accessible socially. While there is nothing right or wrong, to me, being an actor or a singer doesn’t mean that I have to be everywhere. What makes it so compelling that one has to be social to the extent of feeling uncomfortable to continue being an actor? I don’t see the correlation at all. And honestly, I am sick of seeing some of the actors — as they are coming out of my nose and ears. Every day and night, they are everywhere, displaying themselves to the world. I admire the stamina, and I respect it. It’s so much display for public consumption, but I can’t do it and I salute people who can. It takes talent to keep yourself on display continuously. I understand where your question comes from, but I can’t wrap my head around it. If at all there are notional or actual disadvantages of being the way I am, I’ll happily go with them.
In recent years, your brother Rahul and you have lost your parents, has that changed your relationship in any way?
My relationship with my brother was independent of my parents. In that sense, it hasn’t changed. But the immediate family for an individual is parents and siblings, and once that starts getting smaller, you hold to what is left even more.
In 22 years, you have just 44 films to your credit, of which five have not released, which makes it less than two releases a year. Some of your peers have thrice the number of releases to their credit. Why have you been so excessively selective?
Nothing wrong with it, no? It irritates me when actors blame things on other people or circumstances. Be brave enough to take the onus for what you do and learn to take the bad with the good. This, what you see, is my doing, entirely. If someone feels that I have not done enough, I would take that positively because it essentially means that people have not seen enough of me. Which also means they’re not shouting, ‘Enough of this guy!’ The work that has come my way has given me a lot of space to display my skills as an actor.
Section 375 revolves around a rape case being heard in court. You are playing a lawyer who defends an individual, who, the society strongly feels, doesn’t deserve the defence. That is not an easy role to step into, and the premise of the film itself can lend itself to controversies?
I wouldn’t call this film controversial. The debate on whether the law is skewed in favour of a particular sex, could be the controversial part of the narrative at hand. If a section of society, big or small, feels a certain way, then it’s an interesting topic for a film, and it has the potential to strike a conversation. I looked at this film as something that could spark a conversation or debate and something that can lead to a positive outcome, not as something that can be seen as biased, unfair and titillation. It’s not that sort of a film. It doesn’t take sides. The writer and director, right till the end of the film, have not taken sides. The film depicts certain facts and circumstances and leaves you to make up your mind. Being able to stay on the fence is the USP of the film’s writing. I also liked the characterisation, dialogues and how the film not only shows what is happening in the particular case, but it gives a glimpse of what we call behind-the-scenes life in the legal system.
Did you ever feel conflicted about playing criminal lawyer Tarun Saluja in this film? Have you ever been at conflict with any role that you have played in the past?
No, I have never had an issue with any character or its moralities, in any of my films. It’s possible that an actor could feel uncomfortable with the morality of his character. Having said that, what is morally correct is so fluid, it changes with time. I mean look at Kabir Singh. It’s a flawed character. Traditionally, a lead character would not be expected to show such behaviour, but people accepted the film. Maybe my character is not going that far, but people can have an issue with his morality. People have issues with some of the biggest lawyers representing criminals in our country. Some of the biggest lawyers in the world have represented people who were alleged criminals. Sometimes, people in society decide someone is a criminal even if it is yet to be proven. That’s not how the law works. Even Ajmal Kasab got a fair trial, although one would have felt he didn’t deserve it. That is how civil society works.
While the law does not allow one to name a rape victim or a complainant, but nothing stops anyone from naming an accused. The trailer of Section 375 makes a statement about how an accused, whether found guilty or not, leads a tainted life. Many activists have been speaking out and raising awareness about the need to be fair to both the parties involved (until one is proven guilty). Your thoughts…
The laws pertaining to rape were amended after the Nirbhaya Case. The burden of proof in any other criminal case is on the person who is prosecuting, but not in a rape case. A man has to prove that he didn’t do it. Now, there are many people who feel against this. It’s an ongoing debate in legal circles. These are debates that will go on as the society evolves, and as a collective consciousness, we have to decide the direction in which we need the change. Right and wrong are difficult things to assess as one size doesn’t fit all. I think this is a tough phase for those in the legal system today. In a civil society, even if a man is not proven guilty, he faces public trial and his family suffers, too.
Section 375 was dragged to court in Pune over allegedly misrepresenting lawyers and court proceedings.
I’d rather let the lawyers on both sides discuss this. But I very strongly feel that if this person is so offended with the trailer and its content, he must go to court but if his claims are even slightly frivolous, he must not waste its time. There are thousands of cases awaiting trials; the courts are backlogged. Why should someone waste the court’s time on a film’s trailer? Whether one feels I’ve done a great job or not, is it fair to waste the court’s time? That’s the bigger question here.