Band, Baaja, Business: How Bollywood Inspired Real-Life Lavish Weddings

The 1994 family drama Hum Aapke Hain Koun..! (HAHK) opens to a cricket match. The camera glides up to frame a mansion facing a ground. It바카라�s decked with a pitch, wickets, and bails, rimmed by a white picket fence, spectators, and lamp posts. Without a line of dialogue, director Sooraj Barjatya establishes three key facts about the family: that it is rich, chic, and serious바카라�or, well, 바카라�professional바카라�바카라�about having fun. A family that functions as a corporation. Everyone serves a fixed function in this scene (much like a job designation): the players wear golf caps that say 바카라�Boy바카라� and 바카라�Girl바카라�. The spectators move and cheer in unison, like coordinated robots. When a woman, a peripheral character, wants to bat, the hero, Prem (Salman Khan), mocks her and sends her away. Even though it바카라�s a small, silly scene, it underscores the family바카라�s ethos in precise details (confirmed by the rest of the film): that it prizes segregation and homogenisation, hierarchy and tradition.

For the next 214 minutes, the movie unfolds, in essence, as a 바카라�wedding video바카라� (as it was lampooned in its initial weeks), where Barjatya inverts all the rules of a Bollywood blockbuster: no bloodshed, no conflict, no villains. Like a cola-dispensing machine, HAHK never runs out of sugar. Or affluence: its business-owning family is so rich that it has a swimming pool inside the house. Or consumption: gustatory pleasure is so ubiquitous that food appears across multiple scenes and songs (remember Chocolate, lime juice, ice cream, toffeeya?).

The gifts of economic liberalisation바카라�or the lure of Western capitalism바카라�pervade this family drama, sometimes straining to make a point. In an early scene, the domestic help Lallu (Laxmikant Berde), who is trying to learn English, holds a book upside down. What바카라�s on its cover? Four letters in red: 바카라�USSR바카라�. But Barjatya would only allow a certain kind of Western dominance; he바카라�d temper it, in fact, with his fixation on Indian (actually, Hindu) culture. This is a film where the bride and the groom meet for the first time in a temple, where she gets the Ramayana as a wedding gift, where characters pray (and plead) to gods multiple times.

Also Read: The Big Fat Indian Wedding

This cultural assertion isn바카라�t just pious but also melodramatic, as every conceivable wedding ritual바카라�the engagement, the tilak, the shoe stealing, the bidaai바카라�produces a song. HAHK was so successful and influential that it set the trend for wedding dramas featuring pomp, opulence, and religiosity. Such movies had resolved the conflict between the mandir and the market, making the former as prominent as the latter. 바카라�Bollywood wedding is a specific class-based gendered response,바카라� wrote Jyotsna Kapur in a 2009 research paper, 바카라�to India바카라�s turn to neoliberalism.바카라�

But Barjatya wasn바카라�t operating in a cultural silo바카라�even though his production house바카라�s Nadiya Ke Paar (1982), which had the same story as HAHK, was a much modest fare바카라�as plush Indian weddings trace a long history. 바카라�In the Ramcharitmanas [1.92바카라� 1.102, 1.286 바카라� 1.342],바카라� writes Philip Lutgendorf in the paper 바카라�Ritual Reverb: Two Blockbuster Hindi Films바카라� (2012), 바카라�Tulsidas twice 바카라�interrupts바카라� the first book with multi-page descriptions of weddings that feature feasts served on golden platters as well as such non-Sanskritic rituals as women바카라�s song sessions that mock the groom and his relatives.바카라� Such descriptions, he adds, 바카라�have said to influence popular practice, even becoming, in some regions, a liturgical text to accompany weddings.바카라�

Post HAHK, several NRI dramas revolved around weddings, even if we don바카라�t remember them as such. Take the blockbuster Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge (1995)바카라�which tucks the word 바카라�bride바카라� in its title바카라�where the hero바카라�s (Shah Rukh Khan) transcontinental journey, from London to Punjab, seeks to not challenge but assuage the patriarchal order. In Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham (2001), Khan and Kajol바카라�s wedding, flouting parental order, sets the central conflict. Both Kuch Kuch Hota Hai (1998) and Kal Ho Na Ho (2003), written by Karan Johar, derive their dramatic mileage from one protagonist facilitating the marriage of the other. Year after year, these films perfected the dance of tradition and modernity, following their progenitor바카라�s footsteps. Just hear what Prem says when asked about the kind of wedding he wants: 바카라�arranged love marriage바카라�. Love and arranged, East and West, unending capital and patriarchal control stitched a world unto itself: spend like a baron, pray like a priest.

Once these blockbusters had devised a language, subsequent movies바카라�such as Mere Yaar Ki Shaadi Hai (2002), Hum Tum (2004), Yeh Jawani Hai Diwani (2013), and many others바카라�wrote the script. And this script could be homogenised바카라�tripping on uniform Punjabi bling바카라�because Bollywood, too, functions like a family, a family of dynasts, who have little interest (or curiosity) beyond their own cultures. By then, it had also become a 바카라�culture industry,바카라� according to film scholar Ashish Rajadhyaksha, defined by happy, feel-good dramas that underscored 바카라�family values바카라� and 바카라�investment in our culture바카라�.

If popular Hindi cinema changed, then so did the conception of wealth among the Indian elites who, pre-economic liberalisation, felt sheepish to flaunt their riches. But in the aughts, money could buy you all바카라�even a Shah Rukh Khan performance. This, too, became a trend, with other Bollywood stars entering the festivities (all at an appropriate price). The ostentatiousness of Indian weddings had reached such a high in 2007 that it compelled then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh바카라�the architect of economic liberalisation바카라�to comment on their 바카라�vulgar display of wealth바카라�바카라� that 바카라�insult[ed] the poverty of the less privileged바카라� and planted 바카라�seeds of resentment바카라� among the 바카라�have-nots바카라�.

Little did he know that the party had just begun.

Because if the Indian weddings could make the bride and groom feel like stars, then they could design appropriate 바카라�mise en scène바카라� justifying their Bollywood-fuelled narcissism. There was demand, and the flag bearers of 바카라�sanskaari capitalism바카라� swooped in. In the late aughts, for instance, the website IndianWeddingSite.com, writes Kapur, 바카라�encouraged their clients to watch Bollywood movies for inspiration, including designing outfits, staging festivities, and choreographing dance numbers바카라�. And if that wasn바카라�t enough, Ramoji Film City, a film studio facility in Hyderabad, heightened the interplay between cinema and life, providing a host of services, such as 바카라�(cinematic) pre-wedding shoots바카라�, 바카라�customised wedding sets (as if for the silver screen)바카라�, and 바카라�mesmerising dream venues바카라�.

Also Read: The Runaway Groom: Are Tribal Wedding Customs Becoming Extinct?

As real-life weddings became increasingly inspired by Bollywood바카라�an industry known for its broad homogenised sweeps바카라�they also began to look, feel, and sound the same. Because if popular cinema had shown only a sliver of Indian culture바카라�chiefly Punjabi바카라�then that바카라�s what the masses could copy, making an India the India, drowning out local customs and contexts. This is what 바카라�cultural colonialism바카라� does: It makes you homeless in your own home. In the 1990s, for example, the sangeet ceremony was mostly part of a Punjabi wedding, but now it바카라�s spread all over. My wedding too바카라�which happened last month, an alliance between a Bihari and a Rajasthani바카라�had a sangeet (and the juta churayi ceremony, where I paid Rs 9,000 for a Rs 3,000 shoe).

Two more factors, though, would alter this landscape forever, making us reach where we are today: celebrities and Instagram. Virat Kohli and Anushka Sharma바카라�s wedding led the way in December 2017. It popularised wedding hashtags (#Virushka), lavender and pink frames, and professional videos (shot by Vishal Punjabi, founder of the production company The Wedding Filmer). Then came Priyanka Chopra-Nick Jonas (who sold their wedding photos to People magazine for $2.5 million), followed by Deepika Padukone-Ranveer Singh and Sidharth Malhotra-Kiara Advani (who hired the same director, Punjabi, as Sharma and Kohli). Often secretive about their weddings, stars release curated photos and videos for their fans on social media, influencing their choices, such as in decor, make-up, or mehendi.

By spending a huge sum of money, regular individuals can now marry like stars, and they make sure the world knows. Opulence has become meaningful, tied to an identity. This has inflated the cost of an average wedding, making desperation trickle down to the economically marginalised families who rely on loans to keep up. The pressure on Indian brides바카라�irrespective of class and due to Instagram바카라�is stratospheric. Before social media, we saw ourselves, and others saw us. But now, we see others seeing us, and we see ourselves seeing others. So the wedding becomes a quest for #GramWorthy perfection: the perfect lehenga, the perfect make-up, the perfect (sunset) shot. No one is immune from the last concern, not even Alia Bhatt, who, during her long wedding rituals, worried about losing daylight and, consequently, perfect pictures.

As weddings acquired the tenor of events바카라�or performances바카라�they moved from familial circles to service providers, exemplifying how the market overshadows the community. Because what once lay within the family바카라�the preparation and execution of different functions, via parents, uncles, and aunts바카라�has now been outsourced to wedding planners, choreographers, and photographers. With their Excel sheets and tablets and walkie talkies, wedding planners make intimate ceremonies resemble corporate events, and their demand has seen such an upsurge that it바카라�s resulted in a critically acclaimed web series, Made in Heaven (2019, 2023).

With Indian weddings becoming larger than themselves바카라�signalling financial might, networking power, and social status바카라�they바카라�ve culminated in what they were destined to be: political statements. Guest lists are no longer restricted to friends and families but hold in them a vast gamut of business and political possibilities. It wasn바카라�t always like this. In the mid-1960s, the government ensured that a host couldn바카라�t serve more than 25 people at home in a wedding. The various Guest Control Orders in the late 1960s and 70s continued to reflect a country in sync with its wallet and soul. Over the last decade, too, several bills (or proposals) have sought to restrain such excesses, but this India is different. It바카라�s a country where money doesn바카라�t just buy personality, money is personality.

And the recent Anant Ambani-Radhika Merchant바카라�s pre-wedding festivities바카라�a dizzying confluence of business, cinema, and politics바카라�truly finished in life what HAHK had unleashed on screen. It was an expensive celebration, yes (at a reported budget of $120 million), but that alone didn바카라�t make it remarkable바카라�or that it, once more, reduced Bollywood stars to dancing puppets. It was about what it showed and how바카라�and whom it reassured and why. Sure, you expect an avalanche of Hindu iconographies at the wedding of two Hindus. But what explains a Muslim star, Shah Rukh Khan, greeting the guests with 바카라�Jai Shri Ram바카라�? Or special provisions to make Jamnagar an international airport? Or the incessant fawning coverage, almost stopping short of displaying price tags of media houses? Besides, there was no condemnation of 바카라�vulgar display of wealth바카라� this time but endorsement, as in January 2024, PM Narendra Modi encouraged moneyed Indians to 바카라�Wed in India바카라�.

The Ambani pre-wedding, inviting both Rihanna and Sachin Tendulkar, coincided with a fresh wave of farmers바카라� protests. Three years ago, she had supported them on Twitter, while the cricketer, like many Indian celebrities, posted a tweet reminding 바카라�external forces바카라� that, in Indian affairs, they should remain 바카라�spectators바카라� not 바카라�participants바카라�. The 2024 event, though, reversed their identities: Rihanna, performer; Tendulkar, spectator. It also gave a strange fillip to Indian identity, with many on social media pointing at it to proclaim national supremacy. It was a baffling equation바카라�a business tycoon바카라�s wealth became a poor country바카라�s pride. But the most telling moment in the three-day extravaganza came when Merchant had to give a speech standing beside her fiancé. 바카라�Your life will not go unnoticed because I바카라�ll notice it,바카라� she said at one point. 바카라�Your life will not go unwitnessed because I바카라�ll witness it.바카라� Sounds familiar? It바카라�s almost a word-by-word copy of Susan Sarandon바카라�s dialogue from Shall We Dance? (2004). All the money in the world couldn바카라�t buy a 바카라�heartfelt바카라� speech. It makes sense: After all, there are some things money can바카라�t buy, for everything else there are electoral bonds.

(This appeared in the print as 'Band, Baaja, Business')