Daijiworld Media Network - New Delhi
New Delhi, Aug 30: Ladakhi activist and education reformer Sonam Wangchuk has taken a playful dig at actor Aamir Khan over the latter’s recent claim that he did not know Wangchuk when the 2009 film 3 Idiots was being made, saying the actor may have suffered “short-term memory loss” because he was dressed as his Ghajini character when they met.
Wangchuk made the remarks during a conversation with YouTuber Prakhar Gupta on his podcast, reviving the long-running debate over the character Phunsukh Wangdu, played by Khan in Rajkumar Hirani’s 3 Idiots.
The exchange began after Khan said at an event in July that it was a misconception that Phunsukh Wangdu was based on Wangchuk. Khan said neither he, director Rajkumar Hirani nor writer Abhijat Joshi knew about Wangchuk while making the film.
Wangchuk, however, recalled an earlier interaction with Khan and referred to videos that later resurfaced showing the actor watching one of his speeches while wearing the look from Ghajini, the 2008 film in which Khan played Sanjay Singhania, a character suffering from short-term memory loss.
“At the time, when he said that we had never even met, some videos later surfaced showing him watching one of my speeches while dressed in the Ghajini outfit. Perhaps he was so immersed in the Ghajini character that he suffered short-term memory loss and forgot about it within 15 seconds,” Wangchuk said.
He added that their interaction was not merely a brief introduction but involved a detailed discussion.
“We had met at length and discussed several ideas,” Wangchuk said, adding that Khan may have been deeply immersed in his Ghajini role when the meeting took place. The activist has previously spoken about his connection with the film and the circumstances surrounding his interaction with Khan.
Wangchuk also recalled that the meeting took place around an awards function where he was receiving an honour. He suggested that Khan's intense involvement in his film character could explain why the actor did not remember the encounter.
The renewed controversy follows comments by Khan in July, when he rejected the widely held belief that 3 Idiots was directly based on Wangchuk's life. Khan said that when the film was being made, he was unaware of Wangchuk and that Hirani and Joshi were also unaware of him.
The issue had resurfaced after Omi Vaidya, who played Chatur Ramalingam in 3 Idiots, publicly supported Wangchuk and suggested that the Phunsukh Wangdu character was based on him. Khan subsequently rejected that claim, calling it a misconception.
Wangchuk, however, has maintained a more nuanced position on the matter. He has not claimed that 3 Idiots is a direct biography of his life. Instead, he said some ideas discussed during his interaction with Khan could have influenced the character or the film, even if the filmmakers later developed those ideas differently.
He suggested that Khan may have taken some of the ideas from their conversation, shared them with the creative team and that the director and writers may not necessarily have known where those ideas originated.
Wangchuk also stressed that he was not particularly concerned about the issue and preferred to move forward rather than remain focused on the controversy.
The debate has continued nearly two decades after 3 Idiots, starring Aamir Khan, R Madhavan, Sharman Joshi, Kareena Kapoor Khan and Omi Vaidya, became one of Hindi cinema's most popular films. Its portrayal of an unconventional inventor and education thinker through the character of Phunsukh Wangdu has long been associated by audiences with Wangchuk's work in Ladakh.
Wangchuk's latest comments have added a humorous twist to the disagreement, with his reference to Ghajini drawing attention to the contrast between Khan's claim that he did not know him and Wangchuk's recollection of their earlier meeting.
The controversy remains focused on whether Wangchuk directly inspired Phunsukh Wangdu, rather than on any claim that the film was a literal account of his life. Wangchuk's comments suggest that while he does not claim sole credit for the character, he believes his interaction and ideas may have had an influence.