If there's one thing you can count on, it's that Javed Akhtar will speak his mind, and the fallout is always worth watching. The legendary lyricist and writer has never been one to shy away from a difficult conversation, and recently, he’s found himself at the center of not one, but two fiery public debates. An old video of him making some incredibly blunt comments about the burqa and face coverings has roared back into the public consciousness, sparking a massive controversy that’s impossible to ignore. This isn't just old news; it's a debate that's been given a fresh, and frankly shocking, new life.
Key Highlights
- ✓ A video of Javed Akhtar questioning the logic of face coverings from November 2025 went viral.
- ✓ He controversially stated that women who cover their faces by "choice" have been brainwashed.
- ✓ The video resurfaced after Bihar CM Nitish Kumar was criticized for pulling a woman doctor's hijab.
- ✓ Akhtar strongly condemned Nitish Kumar's action, calling for an "unconditional apology" to the doctor.
- ✓ In a separate debate, he called abusive language the "chilli of language," used to spice up bland content.
- ✓ Comedian Zakir Khan offered a nuanced response, respecting Akhtar but defending artistic freedom.
What’s fascinating is how this old clip was catapulted back into our feeds. It all ties back to a recent and deeply unsettling incident involving Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar. The collision of these two events has created a perfect storm of debate around choice, dignity, societal pressure, and individual freedom. So, let's unpack what happened, what Akhtar actually said, and why his words—both on the hijab and on comedy—are forcing some very necessary, if uncomfortable, conversations.
The Viral Video: A Blunt Take on Face Coverings
Let's rewind to November 2025 at the SOA Literary Festival. During a Q&A session, a student posed a thoughtful question to Javed Akhtar: why does covering one's face necessarily make a woman less strong? It's a valid question, challenging the common assumption that attire directly correlates with inner strength. Akhtar’s reply, however, sidestepped the "strength" argument entirely and went straight for the logical foundation of the practice itself.
"It is not about being strong," he began, his tone calm but direct. He then posed a series of rhetorical questions that cut to the heart of his argument: "Why should you be ashamed of your face? ... What is so vulgar, obscene or undignified about a woman's face?" From my perspective, this is classic Akhtar. He’s not just discussing a piece of clothing; he's dissecting the underlying societal message that he believes compels a woman to hide her face in the first place. He’s questioning the premise that a woman's identity or appearance is something to be concealed for the sake of public decency.
He even drew a parallel to social norms for men, stating that everyone, regardless of gender, should dress decently for public spaces like an office or college. But for him, covering the face is in a different category altogether. It's not about modesty in clothing; it's about the erasure of one's most identifiable feature. The real story here is Akhtar's challenge to what he perceives as a deeply ingrained, patriarchal idea that a woman’s face is a source of temptation or shame that needs to be controlled.
"Brainwashed" or a Personal Choice?
This is where the conversation got truly explosive. When pressed on the idea that many women choose to wear a hijab or burqa, Akhtar didn't hold back. "If someone says she is doing it by choice, I believe she has been brainwashed to think that way," he declared. This single statement is the lightning rod of the entire controversy. It directly challenges the agency of millions of women who view their choice as an expression of faith, identity, and empowerment.
Akhtar’s argument is that this "choice" doesn't exist in a vacuum. He sees it as the end result of immense social conditioning and peer pressure. From his viewpoint, the decision is so heavily influenced by societal expectations of approval that it can't be considered a truly free choice. What this tells us is that Akhtar is operating from a framework of systemic critique. He believes that within a patriarchal structure, certain choices presented as "free" are actually symptoms of that very structure. This is a profound and deeply divisive philosophical stance, pitting the principle of individual autonomy against the analysis of societal power dynamics. To understand the various cultural and religious contexts of this practice, the Wikipedia page on the Hijab provides a comprehensive overview.
The Political Firestorm That Fanned the Flames
So, why did a video from a literary festival suddenly become a national talking point? The answer lies in a deeply problematic public incident involving Bihar's Chief Minister, Nitish Kumar. During a public event, Kumar was filmed pulling down the hijab of a Muslim woman doctor on stage, seemingly gesturing for her to remove it. The video was shocking, widely condemned, and immediately sparked a political firestorm. Figures from across the political spectrum, like Omar Abdullah and Zaira Wasim, rightly called out the act as humiliating and unacceptable.
It was in this charged atmosphere that Akhtar's old video was unearthed and went viral. People started drawing lines between Kumar's physical act and Akhtar's verbal critique. This is where things get really interesting, because Akhtar’s response to the Kumar incident revealed a crucial layer of nuance in his position. He didn't double down or use the incident to support his own views. Instead, he took to social media to unequivocally condemn the Chief Minister.
"Everyone who knows me understands that I am against the traditional concept of parda," he wrote. "But that does not mean I can accept what Mr Nitish Kumar did to a Muslim woman doctor. I condemn it strongly." He went on to say that the Chief Minister owed the woman an "unconditional apology." This clarification is vital. It shows that for Akhtar, there's a world of difference between debating a social practice and violating an individual's dignity and bodily autonomy. He is essentially saying, "We can argue about ideas, but we must never humiliate people." This thoughtful distinction, covered by outlets like The Indian Express, is often lost in the heat of outrage, but it’s the most important takeaway from his involvement.
Shifting Gears: The "Chilli of Language"
As if one national debate wasn't enough, Akhtar also recently waded into the ever-contentious world of stand-up comedy. With comedians and their content facing more scrutiny than ever, particularly around the use of profanity, Akhtar offered a characteristically sharp and memorable take. He suggested that the excessive use of abusive language in creative work is often a crutch for weak writing.
His analogy was both vivid and provocative. "In Orissa, Bihar, and Mexico—anywhere in the world where there is poverty—people eat a lot of chilli because the food is bland," he explained. "Abusive language is the chilli of language. If you can speak good language and if you are witty enough, you don’t need this chilli." This is a fascinating perspective from a man who has spent his life mastering the art of words. He sees profanity not as a valid tool of expression, but as a cheap trick to inject artificial energy into otherwise "bland" content.
What's striking here is the connection to his other arguments. Whether he's talking about face coverings or cuss words, there's a common thread: he is a purist who values substance, logic, and craft. In his view, both practices—covering a face or peppering a script with expletives—are shortcuts that avoid a more difficult, more meaningful form of expression. It’s a classic "old guard" take on a "new wave" art form, but it comes from a place of deep reverence for the power of well-crafted language.
Zakir Khan's Rebuttal: A Voice of Nuance
Enter Zakir Khan, one of India's most beloved stand-up comedians. His response to Akhtar’s "chilli" comment was a masterclass in respectful disagreement. He didn't get defensive or angry; instead, he offered a thoughtful and nuanced perspective that enriched the conversation. Zakir began by expressing his deep admiration for Akhtar and his work, acknowledging that from Akhtar's cultural and literary background, his comment is completely valid.
However, he gently pushed back on the idea that this should be a universal rule. "But it doesn’t mean people have to mandatorily apply it," Zakir noted. "If someone has cuss words in their language, you can’t stop that." This is the core of his counter-argument: language evolves, and so does art. What might be seen as a flaw by one generation can be an authentic form of expression for another. He defended the idea that comedy, like any art, reflects the language of the people.
He also made a brilliant point about personal growth. "As people grow, they do learn and refrain from certain things. But you can’t be pointing a finger at someone," he said. Zakir is arguing for evolution over regulation. He trusts that artists will mature and refine their craft over time, but that process has to be organic. It can't be dictated by external critics, no matter how respected they are. This dialogue between Akhtar and Zakir Khan isn't just about cuss words; it's a healthy debate about the very nature of art, authenticity, and creative freedom.
The Unfiltered Voice We Need?
When you put all these pieces together, a clear picture of Javed Akhtar emerges. He is a rationalist, a classicist, and an unapologetic challenger of social and religious dogma. His arguments are built on a foundation of logic that he refuses to compromise, even when it puts him at odds with popular sentiment or personal feelings. His "brainwashed" comment, while deeply offensive to many, comes from a consistent worldview that prioritizes systemic analysis over individual testimony.
What's truly crucial, however, is his ability to hold two seemingly contradictory ideas at once. He can vehemently oppose the concept of parda while fiercely defending the right of a woman wearing one to be treated with dignity. This capacity for nuanced thought is incredibly rare in today's polarized public square, where you're often expected to be either for or against something in its entirety. Akhtar reminds us that you can critique an ideology without dehumanizing the people who follow it.
Conclusion
The bottom line is that Javed Akhtar remains one of the most vital, if controversial, public intellectuals of our time. His recent comments on both the hijab and comedy have forced us to confront difficult questions about choice, freedom, art, and dignity. While his bluntness can be jarring, it serves a critical purpose: it shears away politeness to expose the core logic (or lack thereof) behind our most deeply held beliefs. His stance on the Nitish Kumar affair, in particular, provided a masterclass in separating ideological disagreement from basic human respect.
Ultimately, you don't have to agree with Javed Akhtar to appreciate the value of his voice. In a world of carefully crafted PR statements and fearful silence, his unfiltered, sometimes abrasive, but always thought-provoking commentary is a powerful catalyst for debate. He forces us to examine not just what we believe, but why we believe it—and that is a conversation worth having, no matter how uncomfortable it gets.
About the Author
This article was written by the editorial team at ChopalCharcha, dedicated to bringing you the latest news, trends, and insights across entertainment, lifestyle, sports, and more.
Stay updated with the latest trends and news by visiting chopalcharcha.com
