Union Minority Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju has criticised veteran actor Naseeruddin Shah over a video in which the actor described himself as a “Dimagi Naxal” and expressed support for protesting students at Jamia Millia Islamia. The minister said Shah’s views were “extremely harmful to Indian democracy” and indicated that his opinion of the actor had changed after hearing his political statements. The exchange has brought renewed attention to the relationship between political criticism, freedom of expression, student activism and the use of labels in public debate.

The controversy emerged after Shah shared a video on Facebook supporting students at Jamia Millia Islamia in New Delhi. The students have been protesting for the restoration of their student union. In the video, Shah criticised the central government’s approach to education and accused it of attempting to weaken the education system and undermine the confidence of young people. He also used the expression “Dimagi Naxal” to describe himself, turning a politically charged label into a statement of defiance.

Rijiju responded to Shah’s remarks in a post on X on Wednesday, October 28, 2026. The minister said he had previously respected and liked the actor but had come to view his statements differently. He described Shah as a “dangerous urban Dimagi Naxal” and said the actor’s views were extremely harmful to India’s democracy. His response intensified the public discussion surrounding Shah’s video and the wider disagreement over how the government and its critics approach political dissent.

What did Kiren Rijiju say about Naseeruddin Shah?

In his post on X, Kiren Rijiju said he had once respected Naseeruddin Shah but had changed his opinion after hearing the actor’s views. The minister’s statement was sharply worded and focused on what he considered the impact of Shah’s political position on Indian democracy.

Rijiju wrote that he had thought Shah was an ordinary actor and had respected and liked him. He then said he had not known that the actor was a “dangerous urban Dimagi Naxal” and that he had come to understand his “real character” very late. He concluded by describing Shah’s views as “extremely harmful to India’s democracy”.

The comments represent a direct political criticism of a prominent film personality who has frequently spoken publicly about issues concerning society, politics and the position of young people. Shah’s video did not merely discuss a film or an entertainment-related subject. It addressed student protests, government policy and the political language used to describe people who oppose the ruling establishment.

Rijiju’s response framed the controversy around the possible consequences of such statements for democracy. However, the minister’s characterisation of Shah is a political opinion, not an independently established finding about the actor. The available report does not describe any formal legal action or official determination against Shah arising from the video.

The disagreement also illustrates how statements made by public figures can become part of a wider political argument. A minister’s criticism carries the weight of his public office, while an actor’s remarks can attract attention because of his professional standing and public following. When the two positions collide, the debate often extends beyond the original statement to questions about political accountability, acceptable language and the boundaries of public criticism.

Why did Naseeruddin Shah use the term ‘Dimagi Naxal’?

Shah used the term “Dimagi Naxal” in a Facebook video in which he supported the students protesting at Jamia Millia Islamia. The expression can be translated loosely as an intellectual or ideological Naxal, although its precise meaning depends on the context in which it is used. In political debate, labels of this kind can be used to question the motives, loyalties or ideological positions of people who criticise the government.

In the video, Shah said that he proudly declared himself a “Dimagi Naxal”. He added that he did not know what other nicknames people described as “watchmen” had given to individuals like him. He also referred to labels such as “anti-national” and the “tukde tukde gang”.

His remarks suggested that he was rejecting the negative associations attached to such descriptions and challenging the use of political labels against critics. Rather than treating the expression as an accusation he needed to distance himself from, Shah used it sarcastically and presented it as a badge of defiance.

The statement is significant because political labels can shape how public criticism is received. When a person is described as anti-national or accused of supporting extremist ideology, the discussion can move away from the actual argument and towards the character or alleged intentions of the speaker. Shah’s video appeared to challenge this pattern by openly adopting a label he said had been used against people like him.

At the same time, the meaning and implications of the term remain disputed. Supporters of the minister’s position may view Shah’s language as provocative, while supporters of the actor may see it as an expression of resistance to attempts to stigmatise dissent. The supplied report records the statements made by both sides but does not establish that Shah is associated with a banned organisation or involved in unlawful activity.

It is therefore important to distinguish between the use of a controversial phrase in a political video and evidence of actual involvement in unlawful conduct. Shah’s declaration was presented as a political statement. Rijiju’s response was a strong criticism of the actor’s views. These are distinct elements of the controversy and should not be treated as equivalent to a legal finding.

Naseeruddin Shah backs Jamia Millia Islamia students

The immediate background to the controversy is the ongoing protest by students at Jamia Millia Islamia, who have been demanding the restoration of their student union. Student unions are generally seen as platforms through which students can raise campus-related concerns, organise activities and represent their interests before university administrations.

According to the report, the students had been protesting for the restoration of their union. Shah expressed support for their position and criticised the central government’s approach to education. He accused the government of attempting to destroy the education system and break the courage of young people.

The actor’s intervention brought a prominent cultural figure into a debate that had initially centred on student demands and university affairs. His remarks connected the students’ protest to a wider argument about education, youth participation and the ability of young people to question decisions made by institutions.

Student union demands can involve questions of representation, election procedures, campus administration and the relationship between students and university authorities. The restoration of a union can be especially important to students who believe that they need an organised mechanism to raise grievances and participate in campus affairs.

However, the precise circumstances surrounding the Jamia protest should be considered separately from the political arguments that followed Shah’s video. The supplied report identifies restoration of the student union as the students’ central demand but does not provide a complete account of all negotiations, administrative decisions or the positions of every party involved.

Shah’s support has therefore become part of a larger public discussion. For those sympathetic to the students, his statement draws attention to youth participation and the importance of listening to campus concerns. For those critical of his approach, the controversy raises questions about how public figures characterise the government and whether such language contributes to constructive debate.

The available account does not establish that every claim made in Shah’s video has been independently verified. His allegations about the government’s intentions should be understood as his stated political position, while the student union demand is the reported context for his intervention.

Shah’s criticism of the government and the education system

In his video, Shah accused the Centre of trying to destroy the education system and undermine the courage of the country’s youth. His remarks reflected a broader concern about the environment in which students express disagreement with authorities and participate in political discussions.

Education is a major public policy issue because universities and other educational institutions shape future professionals, researchers, artists and public leaders. Decisions about student representation, campus rules, disciplinary procedures and academic freedom can have an impact on how students experience their education.

Debates about education policy can also become politically sensitive when students, teachers, administrators and political leaders disagree over institutional decisions. Critics may argue that government policies or administrative actions restrict debate, while officials and their supporters may argue that institutions must maintain order and follow established rules.

Shah’s video placed him on the critical side of this debate. His accusation that the government was attempting to weaken education was a serious political claim. The report does not provide independent evidence establishing that the government intended to destroy the education system. Consequently, the allegation should be attributed to the actor rather than presented as an established fact.

Rijiju’s response focused on the perceived danger of Shah’s views to democracy. The minister did not simply disagree with the actor on a specific university decision; he used the stronger label “dangerous urban Dimagi Naxal”. That wording moved the dispute into the territory of political identity and ideological characterisation.

This contrast is central to understanding the controversy. Shah used a provocative label to challenge the way critics are described, while Rijiju used the same expression to condemn the actor’s position. Both statements relied on politically charged language, although they used it for different purposes.

The exchange also highlights the difficulty of separating policy disagreements from personal attacks. Public discussion can become more focused on the identity of the speaker than on the original questions raised by students. In this case, the debate about Jamia’s student union and the education system was joined by a dispute over the meaning of “Dimagi Naxal” and the legitimacy of criticism directed at the government.

Earlier support for Satyajit Ray Film and Television Institute students

The Jamia video was not the only recent occasion on which Shah expressed support for students. The report also refers to his earlier message backing students at the Satyajit Ray Film and Television Institute (SRFTI), where students had staged an indefinite sit-in following incidents on the campus.

In that statement, Shah addressed viewers by saying, “Adab, Namaskar. I am Naseeruddin Shah.” He then criticised the Bharatiya Janata Party, referring to its victory in West Bengal and alleging that the party was pursuing revenge against people who did not share its ideology.

Shah described students at the film institute as the latest targets of what he characterised as political pressure. According to his statement, aspiring filmmakers had received show-cause notices after raising questions about accountability, had been placed under surveillance, had faced threats and had been asked to vacate their hostel.

He also alleged that the BJP was conducting a propaganda campaign and attempting either to intimidate or influence future filmmakers. He urged people whom he described as intelligent to support the students.

These allegations formed part of Shah’s public appeal. The supplied report does not independently establish every claim made in his statement, and the actor’s descriptions should therefore be attributed to him. The available account does, however, indicate that tensions had risen on the institute’s campus following a dispute between students and members of an organisation.

Students had questioned the incident and the administration’s response. Discussions also focused on student safety, their demands and the institute’s responsibilities. These issues provided the immediate campus context for the sit-in and Shah’s intervention.

The SRFTI episode is relevant to the present controversy because it shows that Shah’s public comments were not limited to Jamia Millia Islamia. He had also spoken about a separate dispute involving students at an educational institution. His statements linked the two situations through concerns about accountability, student welfare and the political environment surrounding campus disagreements.

The two cases nevertheless involve different institutions and circumstances. The available information does not establish that the disputes had identical causes or that the allegations made in one case automatically apply to the other. Each situation requires consideration of its own facts, the positions of the students and administration, and any evidence concerning the incidents.

Why the controversy has attracted political attention

The exchange between Rijiju and Shah has attracted attention because it involves a Union minister, a well-known actor and student protests at prominent educational institutions. It also brings together several subjects that often generate intense public debate in India: political dissent, education policy, youth activism and the language used to describe critics of the government.

Public figures can influence how an issue is understood by audiences who may not be closely following the original dispute. When a prominent actor supports students, the issue can receive additional visibility. When a minister responds in strong terms, the discussion can shift towards the political implications of the actor’s words.

This process can help draw attention to issues that might otherwise receive limited coverage. It can also make it more difficult to distinguish verified developments from political interpretations. A statement made by an actor, a minister’s response and an independently established fact are different kinds of information. Reporting them accurately requires clear attribution.

In this case, Shah’s support for Jamia students and his criticism of the Centre are the reported basis of his video. Rijiju’s description of the actor’s views as harmful to democracy is the minister’s response. Neither statement, by itself, resolves the wider debate about the students’ demands or the condition of the education system.

The controversy also demonstrates how language can intensify political disagreement. The expression “Dimagi Naxal” carries ideological implications and can be understood differently by different audiences. Shah used it in a deliberately provocative manner, while Rijiju used it to criticise the actor. Their exchange has made the phrase a central part of the story, potentially drawing attention away from the student issues that prompted the original video.

A more substantive discussion would examine the actual demands of the Jamia students, the steps taken by the university administration, the government’s stated position on the issues raised and the evidence supporting competing claims. Similarly, the SRFTI dispute requires attention to the specific campus incident, the administration’s actions and the concerns raised by students.

Freedom of expression and public criticism

The dispute raises broader questions about freedom of expression and the role of public figures in political debate. Actors, writers, academics, students and other citizens may express views about public policy and the conduct of governments. Ministers and other political leaders may, in turn, criticise those views.

Strong disagreement is not unusual in a democratic society. The important distinction is between opposing a person’s opinion and establishing that the person has engaged in unlawful activity. Political labels can communicate disapproval, but they are not a substitute for evidence.

Shah’s declaration that he proudly identified as a “Dimagi Naxal” was made in the context of his criticism of the way people like him are labelled. The report does not establish that his statement amounted to an admission of membership in an unlawful organisation. It would therefore be inaccurate to treat the phrase alone as proof of criminal involvement.

Similarly, Rijiju’s assertion that Shah’s views were harmful to democracy is a political judgement. It conveys the minister’s assessment of the actor’s statements but does not establish that the actor’s comments have caused a specific, measurable harm to democratic institutions.

A healthy public debate benefits when claims are evaluated on their merits. If a statement contains factual allegations, those allegations can be examined against available evidence. If it expresses an opinion, it can be debated as an opinion. If a person is accused of unlawful conduct, such an accusation requires an appropriate factual and legal basis.

These distinctions are particularly important when public personalities are involved because their statements can spread widely and become part of partisan arguments. Careful attribution helps readers understand what was said, who said it and what has actually been established.

The significance of student representation

The demand for the restoration of Jamia Millia Islamia’s student union remains an important part of the context. Student representation can provide a channel for discussing campus conditions, raising grievances and communicating with university authorities.

Student unions can also become sites of disagreement over election arrangements, leadership, rules and political participation. Different stakeholders may have competing views about how student representation should operate. Understanding such disputes requires information about the applicable university rules, the students’ demands and the administration’s response.

The report does not provide a complete account of all the details surrounding the Jamia protest. It identifies the restoration of the student union as the students’ demand and records Shah’s support for them. It also points to a separate campus dispute at SRFTI, where students raised concerns about an incident and the administration’s response.

These matters should not be overshadowed entirely by the political dispute between Shah and Rijiju. The minister’s criticism has become a prominent part of the news, but the underlying student issues involve questions about representation, accountability and the handling of campus concerns.

The experiences of students can vary from one institution to another, and conclusions should not be drawn about an entire university system from a single episode. At the same time, student protests can serve as an important source of information about grievances that students believe need to be addressed.

Whether the demands in a particular case are justified must be assessed using the available facts. That assessment should include the students’ account, the administration’s explanation and any relevant documentation or independent reporting.

Political labels and democratic debate

The use of terms such as “anti-national”, “tukde tukde gang” and “Dimagi Naxal” reflects a broader pattern in political argument, where labels can be used to describe or discredit people who hold opposing views. Such expressions often carry strong emotional and ideological associations.

Shah referred to several of these labels while explaining why he was willing to call himself a “Dimagi Naxal”. His statement appeared to challenge the stigma he associated with such descriptions. Rijiju, by contrast, used the term as part of a criticism of Shah’s political position.

The disagreement demonstrates that the same expression can be used in different ways. One speaker may use a label as an accusation, while another may repeat it sarcastically or in defiance. The meaning depends on the surrounding statement, the intended audience and the political context.

However, a label alone does not explain the substance of a disagreement. Describing a person as dangerous does not establish that their claims are false, just as a person’s rejection of a label does not automatically establish that all their arguments are correct. Both the allegations and the responses need to be examined separately.

In democratic discussion, public figures can challenge one another strongly while still being expected to support factual claims with evidence. Clear reporting also requires avoiding the presentation of contested accusations as established conclusions.

In the present case, Rijiju’s statement expresses his view that Shah’s political opinions are harmful. Shah’s video expresses support for protesting students and rejects the negative labels he says are applied to critics. The central disagreement is therefore about political interpretation, language and the role of dissent, alongside the reported demands at educational institutions.

What happens next?

The supplied report does not establish what further steps, if any, Shah or Rijiju intends to take following the exchange. It also does not report a formal legal proceeding arising from the “Dimagi Naxal” video. The immediate development is the minister’s public criticism of the actor’s statements.

Attention may continue to focus on the reaction to Shah’s video, the political response from the BJP and other public figures, and developments relating to the student protests. Any further assessment of the Jamia dispute would require updated information about the students’ demands and the university administration’s actions.

The SRFTI matter also requires attention to the underlying campus developments, including the issues raised by students and the institute’s response. The actor’s earlier statement expressed support for the protesters, but the allegations he made should not be treated as independently verified solely because they appeared in his video.

For readers, the key is to separate the confirmed details from political claims. The reported facts are that Shah posted a video supporting Jamia students and describing himself as a “Dimagi Naxal”, that he criticised the Centre’s approach to education, and that Rijiju responded by calling the actor’s views harmful to Indian democracy. Shah had also expressed support for students at SRFTI amid a campus dispute.

The wider questions about student representation, education policy, political language and freedom of expression remain subjects of debate. Their resolution depends on the facts of each case, the actions of the institutions concerned and the arguments presented by the people involved.

Conclusion

The controversy involving Kiren Rijiju and Naseeruddin Shah over the ‘Dimagi Naxal’ video has developed from the actor’s support for students protesting at Jamia Millia Islamia. Shah criticised the central government’s approach to education and used the term “Dimagi Naxal” in a statement that challenged the labels he said were applied to government critics. Rijiju responded by describing Shah as a “dangerous urban Dimagi Naxal” and saying his views were extremely harmful to Indian democracy.

The exchange has brought renewed attention to the place of political criticism in public life and the role of prominent personalities in debates about education and student activism. Shah’s earlier support for SRFTI students has added another campus dispute to the discussion, although the circumstances of the two cases are distinct.

Ultimately, the controversy involves competing political opinions rather than a single agreed interpretation of events. Rijiju has strongly condemned Shah’s views, while Shah has used his video to express solidarity with protesting students and reject politically charged labels. The student demands, the institutions’ responses and the factual basis of the allegations remain important parts of the wider story.

A balanced understanding requires distinguishing political criticism from established facts and examining the concerns of the students independently of the personalities involved. The episode serves as a reminder that public debate over democracy and education can become highly charged, especially when political leaders and prominent cultural figures use strong language to challenge one another.