In an environment that encourages the promotion of self over community, Indian football captain Baichung Bhutia’s decision to opt out of the Olympic torch relay in protest against China’s crackdown in Tibet comes across as an unusually conscientious action. Carrying the torch for the most prestigious sporting event in the world is an honour that most people can only dream of. For a sportsman, especially, to deny himself that opportunity must involve no small sacrifice, and by doing so, Bhutia has raised contentious issues.

The first of course involves the Tibetan demand for autonomy, a subject that, despite the recent demonstrations and widespread media coverage, has failed to engage the average Indian. The second is the connection between sport and human rights issues, with people like Aamir Khan, P.T. Usha and Leander Paes insisting that the two must be kept separate. The third — is the person given the torch a mere carrier, playing a role crafted by others or is he a person who must answer for his participation in a public event? Or, to put it another way, is a celebrity just a famous face or a person with social responsibility?

It is a question of great significance in today’s world, a world in which celebrities wield an unprecedented degree of both affluence and influence. It is a question that has spawned a whole industry in the West that goes by the name of celebrity activism. When Time declared U2’s Bono its Person of the Year in 2005 it was acknowledging the immense power of the phenomenon. Bono, of course, is credited with focusing the developed world’s attention on issues such as global poverty and the fate of Africa.

The growing impact of celebrity activism can be gauged from the fact that three years ago, the World Economic Forum in Davos had a special programme featuring Peter Gabriel, Richard Gere and Sharon Stone. Singer Lionel Richie and actor Chris Tucker in 2002 travelled with the then US secretary of state, Colin Powell, to a development summit in South Africa and with Bill Clinton on an AIDS fund-raising mission in Africa. Indeed some celebrities such as actress Angelina Jolie, a goodwill ambassador with the UN’s High Commissioner on Refugees, is said to have greater clout than many diplomats.

In India, celebrity activism is still a relatively recent and more limited phenomenon. A parallel to Bhutia’s recent action can probably be found in Shabana Azmi’s hunger strike in the ’80s in support of evicted slumdwellers in Mumbai. Azmi and her husband, lyricist Javed Akhtar, have been prominent activists for communal harmony. More recently, one has seen other well-known individuals, such as film director Aparna Sen who spoke out on the Nandigram related violence in West Bengal, and Aamir Khan who expressed his support for the Narmada oustees, take a stand on public issues. Others like the actress Khushboo and tennis player Sania Mirza have been forced into controversies involving public issues. Mirza for instance has become representative of an alternative model of Indian womanhood though that may never have been her intention.

In general, celebrities here and elsewhere have preferred to espouse safe and non-controversial causes. Animal rights, cancer, AIDS and natural disasters are popular causes for celebrities to ally themselves with, as voluntary expressions of interest. But celebrities have now become so larger than life that the public has come to expect a certain standard from them. The Western media is full of critical stories of celebrities in rehab, indulging in anti-social behaviour or just being overweight like Britney Spears. So far the Indian paparazzi have been restrained on this score.

At the same time there is a new belligerence on the part of the public towards celebrities as regards their public persona. The outcry against Aamir Khan’s support for the Narmada oustees and his need to clarify his stand on the issue, as well as his modelling for a certain soft drink, points to this new responsibility thrust on celebrities. Preity Zinta won kudos for her forthrightness as a witness in a case involving underworld threats while model-turned actor Shayan Munshi was widely criticised for turning hostile in the Jessica Lal case.

There is something arbitrary about public expectations however. At the time of the Gujarat violence there were murmurs of discontent about the fact that the country’s top actor Shahrukh Khan didn’t issue a public statement. India’s favourite cricketer, Tendulkar, on the other hand, has never been called on to break his silence on controversial issues, not even those regarding cricket, particularly the match-fixing scandal when it broke out some years ago.

There is also something contradictory about the public’s growing expectations of celebrities. On the one hand it reveals the paucity of leadership in other areas; on the other, it reveals the massive and disproportionate power of the glamour industry in the world today. At the same time, as Bhutia’s action indicates, a spontaneous act of principle by someone in the public eye can also be an extremely inspiring thing.

amritareach@gmail.com