Puneet Issar Questions Naseeruddin Shah, Says Critics Should Challenge Government Through Elections

A disagreement over political views has brought actors Puneet Issar and Naseeruddin Shah into the spotlight.

Issar, known for his work in films and television, spoke about Shah with respect but questioned what he described as the veteran actor’s selective approach to political issues.

Calling Shah his senior and a fine artist, Issar said he respected his work. However, he argued that public figures should speak about different issues consistently rather than focus only on matters that fit their political views.

Issar also said that people who disagree with the government have every right to express their opinions. But he suggested that those who want to change the government should consider entering politics and contesting elections.

His comments reflect a wider debate in India: what role should actors and other public figures play in political discussions, and how should their criticism of the government be viewed?

Why did Issar accuse Shah of being selective?

Issar’s main criticism was that Shah, in his view, speaks out on certain political and social issues while remaining silent on others.

He accused the veteran actor of approaching public debates from what he described as a left-leaning perspective. He also criticised people and groups whom he associated with JNU and Naxal-linked politics.

Issar brought up the issue of people convicted of crimes and individuals accused or convicted of terrorism, arguing that those who support their release should be questioned about their position.

These were Issar’s political opinions and allegations. They should not be treated as proof that Shah supports any particular criminal or terrorist organisation. The remarks provided do not establish that connection.

The larger point Issar was making was about what he sees as a lack of consistency in political commentary. In his view, people who speak about civil liberties and government actions should also address other issues that concern the country.

Whether Shah has been selective in his public statements would require examining his comments across different issues, rather than relying on one criticism.

Issar says people have the right to criticise the government

Despite his criticism, Issar acknowledged that Shah and other citizens have the right to express their views and speak against the government.

He argued, however, that people who strongly oppose the ruling government can also take the electoral route: form or join a political party, contest elections and try to win public support.

Issar said the current government had not come to power arbitrarily; voters had elected it.

His argument is based on the idea that elections provide a democratic way to change a government. But the right to criticise those in power is also an essential part of democracy. Citizens do not have to contest elections to question government decisions or express disagreement.

Both political participation and public criticism are legitimate parts of democratic life.

Why are actors’ political opinions often debated?

Actors and other celebrities have large audiences, which means their comments can reach people far beyond the film industry.

When a well-known actor speaks about politics, supporters may see the remarks as a courageous stand, while critics may view them as partisan or inconsistent. The debate can quickly become about the speaker’s ideology rather than the specific issue being discussed.

In Shah and Issar’s case, the disagreement touches on several sensitive subjects, including political ideology, freedom of expression, nationalism and the treatment of people accused or convicted of serious offences.

It is important to separate criticism of a public figure’s views from claims about that person’s actions or associations. Political disagreement alone does not establish support for unlawful activity.

The bigger picture

Puneet Issar’s remarks raise a familiar question in Indian public life: should celebrities speak out on political matters, and should they be expected to comment on every major issue?

There is no requirement that public figures speak on every subject. At the same time, their statements can reasonably be examined, questioned and challenged, just like those of any other public figure.

Issar’s position is that people who oppose the government should use elections to try to replace it. That is one way to seek political change, but it does not cancel anyone’s right to criticise the government from outside the political system.

Ultimately, the debate is not just about two actors. It is also about how India discusses political disagreement, the responsibilities of influential voices and the place of criticism in a democracy.

Note: The remarks discussed here reflect Issar’s stated views. Shah’s response to these specific comments was not included in the material available for this report.