The 1990s weren't just about chartbusters, blockbuster debuts, or larger-than-life stardom in Hindi cinema. Behind the glamour, there existed a chilling parallel script-one dictated not by directors or producers, but by fear, intimidation, and organised crime.

It was a decade when the lines between cinema and the underworld blurred in ways that now seem almost surreal. Filmmaker Ram Gopal Varma, known for capturing the gritty underbelly of Mumbai in films like Satya and Company, recently revisited this dark chapter in a conversation with crime writer Hussain Zaidi. What emerges is not gossip or conspiracy, but a deeply unsettling account of how power, ego, and money reshaped Bollywood's ecosystem-and why some of its biggest names became targets.

When power was performed through fear

According to Varma, the underworld in the 1990s did not operate randomly. Their targets were carefully chosen-and almost always influential. Big names in the industry became symbolic trophies.

Actors like Salman Khan and Shah Rukh Khan, along with filmmakers such as Rakesh Roshan, were not just celebrities; they represented power, reach, and money. Targeting them was a calculated move.

• The idea was simple: Strike fear at the top to control the rest
• High-profile figures ensured maximum visibility and psychological impact

Varma explained that gangsters often saw themselves as protagonists in their own stories. To feel powerful, they needed to dominate individuals who were already seen as larger-than-life.

Beyond money: The hunger for control

While extortion was a key part of the equation, it wasn't the only motive. The underworld's ambitions extended far beyond financial gain. Varma pointed out that controlling casting decisions, influencing film projects, and dictating actor availability became tools of dominance. For instance, securing dates of a rising star like Hrithik Roshan wasn't just about making a film-it was about proving authority.

The psychology, he suggested, was almost theatrical. To become a 'hero' in their own narrative, these figures needed to overpower real heroes of the screen. And when persuasion failed, intimidation followed.

The chilling logic: "Kill one, control many"

One of the most disturbing insights shared by Varma revolves around a widely believed underworld tactic-using violence as a message. There was a belief within these networks that making an example out of one high-profile individual could create a ripple effect of compliance. Refusal was not just defiance; it was seen as a challenge to authority. This climate of fear meant that even rumours carried weight. The uncertainty of who was behind threats-whether Dawood Ibrahim's network or operatives like Chhota Shakeel-only added to the anxiety within the industry.

Why Rakesh Roshan was attacked

The shooting of filmmaker Rakesh Roshan in January 2000 came shortly after the massive success of Kaho Naa… Pyaar Hai, which launched Hrithik Roshan into overnight superstardom. Varma linked the attack to demands for Hrithik's dates. The alleged plan, he claimed, was to involve the actor in a project backed by underworld interests, with control exercised from behind the scenes.

Roshan, however, refused to comply.

• He declined to prioritise their film over existing commitments
• He resisted pressure to manipulate his son's schedule

In a later interview, Rakesh Roshan recalled that period as one filled with constant fear. He maintained that he never entertained such demands, despite repeated pressure.

Did you know?

Rakesh Roshan survived the attack after being shot outside his office and returned to filmmaking not long after-an act many saw as quiet defiance.

The many layers behind Gulshan Kumar's murder

The killing of T-Series founder Gulshan Kumar in August 1997 remains one of Bollywood's most shocking moments. Varma suggested that the reasons were complex and layered. At the time, Kumar was at the peak of his success. He had transformed T-Series into a music powerhouse, introduced new talent, and disrupted the industry's traditional structure.

But success often breeds resentment.

Varma recalled how, in that environment, Kumar became an easy target for blame and suspicion. If something went wrong in the industry, fingers were quickly pointed at him-fairly or not. There were also claims that individuals with personal grudges may have influenced gangster Abu Salem by feeding narratives against Kumar. In such a volatile setup, perception often became more dangerous than reality.

Abu Salem's ambition and the power play

Another dimension Varma highlighted was Abu Salem's own aspirations. The act, he suggested, was not just about extortion or retaliation-it was also about establishing identity. Kumar was known to have resisted extortion demands. Varma described him as someone unlikely to be intimidated by threats alone.

At the same time, eliminating a figure of Kumar's stature sent shockwaves across the industry. For a brief period, it even elevated Abu Salem's notoriety, making him a dominant name independent of Dawood Ibrahim's shadow.