Dara Singh, gentleman and wrestler



As a life-long Dara Singh fan, I can’t help being devastated by his death. But I am also pleased by the deluge of emotion and affection that his demise has evoked. It is many years since we saw Dara Singh on the screen (Jab We Met was the last significant role that I remember) and decades more since he stepped into a ring. So it is gratifying that his passing has moved so many people, including many who were not even born during his wrestling and film heyday.

And yet, it seems to me that the obituaries have missed something; have not quite captured what it was that made Dara Singh so special. Oh yes, he was a wrestling champion. And yes, he was the star of many stunt pictures in the Sixties. And of course, his role as Hanuman in the TV Ramayan will be long remembered.

But that’s not why a nation grieves today.

The key to Dara Singh’s appeal was that he rose above everything he did, whether it was wrestling, movies or TV. No other wrestler of his era is remembered with affection. No other actor of Sixties stunt movies is remembered at all. And few TV stars have captured the public imagination so completely.

We remember Dara Singh not for the things he did, but for the qualities he represented. He had star quality, all right. But he had much more to offer. He represented an Indian ideal of goodness through strength. His persona – like his real-life personality – was straightforward: he was a good guy, who never did anything dirty or devious and who used his strength to protect the weak and to fight evil.

In that sense, he was the first Indian superhero.

Much has been written in recent days about Dara Singh’s prowess as a wrestler. The truth, as we now know, is that all professional wrestling all over the world is fixed. In America, they are open about scripting the matches and refer to it as ’sports entertainment’.

While wrestlers need to be in great physical condition and often get hurt in the ring, they also know how their bouts are going to end before the starting bell goes off. In the days when Dara Singh started out, wrestling was a morality play, a sort of Ram Leela in trunks. (It is more morally ambiguous now.) Wrestlers were given characters to play. Some were good guys (‘baby-faces’ in US wrestling parlance) and some were villains (‘heels’).

These roles were restricted to the ring. Once the bouts were over, good guys and bad guys mingled freely like a film crew at the conclusion of a day’s shooting. For instance, Emile Czaja or King Kong, who was the most celebrated ‘heel’ of the 50s and the early 60s was no real-life villain. He was actually the promoter of many of the matches, taught the stunts of Western professional wrestling to our home-grown wrestlers and coached them on how to demolish him in the ring.

When King Kong and his original promoters were setting up his Indian wrestling circuit, they needed a good guy who would take on the villains in the ring. The story goes that it was Czaja (King Kong) himself who settled on Dara Singh, then a young wrestler who had fought in Singapore and Malaysia, because he saw something special in him.

King Kong was right. His epic battles with Dara Singh, fought all over the country, became the stuff of legend and are still remembered today. But what nobody saw was that Dara Singh’s charisma was such that eventually, he would become bigger than wrestling itself.

In the Fifties, wrestling tournaments at Bombay’s Vallabhbhai Patel stadium would draw wrestlers from all over the world. But as time went on, it became clear that the crowds only came to see one man: Dara Singh. Whether he was defeating Flash Gordon or Bill Robinson or unmasking the Red Scorpion (yes, comic-book names have always been a part of wrestling), it was Dara Singh who got the masses going.

Stunt film producers picked up on this. The Dara Singh movies of the Sixties did not require Dara Singh to act. Instead, he played a variation of his ring character: the Indian super-hero who fought evil. None of those movies are remembered today. All we remember is the persona: defender of good; battler against villains; epitome of strength.

When Dara Singh was lured back into the ring in 1966, the promoters dispensed with the international tournament idea. Instead, they staged four matches a night, the finale of which always saw Dara Singh battling some foreign wrestler. As the crowds began to respond to this idea, a touch of jingoism was added: Dara Singh was fighting for India’s honour against some villainous white man.

It was a formula that worked well into the early 80s when Dara Singh was a bit long in the tooth (he was in his sixties) and could not do much more than amble through a match before applying one of his trademark ‘finisher’ moves: usually the Indian Deathlock.

I saw many of these matches and while it was clear that Singh was no longer the wrestler he had once been (at his peak, he was strong and agile, much better than the Hulk Hogans and Tripple Hs of today), it was as clear that it did not matter. The audience had not come to see a wrestler. It had come to see an icon.

I interviewed Dara Singh often in his wrestling days and then, to the horror of my producers, in this century as a guest on my Cover Story show on Star World. He recognised that I knew how wrestling worked but he also knew that I was his devoted fan. And while he never deviated from the wrestlers’ code (called ‘Kayfabe’ in America) and refused to discuss the rigging, he offered many insights into what went on behind the scenes.

What struck me about him each time we met was that unlike most wrestlers who turn into different people when they put their streets clothes on, Dara Singh was always Dara Singh, whether in trunks or in kurta-pyjamas. He was our own super-hero but there was no Clark Kent persona. He was Superman all the time.

His personality was open, innocent and straightforward. He really did see life as an adventure where his job was to oppose the forces of evil. He never had a bad word to say about anyone. He was never devious. He did not know how to be hypocritical or even discreet. What you saw in the ring was what you got in the living room.

Sometimes, reality has a way of breaking through the hype. And I think something like that happened with Dara Singh. Such was the strength of his essential simplicity, goodness and decency that it travelled from the ring, bounced off the screen and reached all of us. In our hearts we knew that Dara Singh was for real: this was a guy who epitomised strength in the defence of virtue.

In the 80s, when Dara Singh had stopped wrestling an ad agency used him as a mascot for a kiddie’s health drink. I was intrigued. Children knew little about Dara Singh, whose heyday was in the Sixties. Why was the agency using him? They told me the answer: all their market research had revealed that Indians of all ages associated Dara Singh with strength and virtue, even if they’d never seen him wrestle or in the movies.

That persona endured till the end. Alas, Indian wrestling did not. Once Dara Singh retired, promoters tried finding new champions and staged new tournaments. But the crowds never came back. As far as India was concerned, we were not going to see wrestling. We were going to see Dara Singh.

With his passing on, an era ends. Not just in terms of movies, TV or wrestling. But in terms of the collective psyche of a nation. Our very own super-hero has gone off to join the Justice League in the sky.

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (31 votes, average: 4.42 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...
  • Anonymous

    We heard similar analysis from HT journos during Bihar elections. Let the people decide.
    I am getting doubly convinced that HT is Congress mouthpiece.

    [Reply]

  • Anonymous

    I think we should pitch Rober-t Vadra for CM thru the HT.

    At least the HT staffers luv for the dynasty would be satisfied.

    [Reply]

  • Anonymous

    Why were surveys so wrong in Bihar?

    [Reply]

  • Anonymous

    Sunita,
    The thing is Rahul has never proved himself. Working hard in campaigning is no substitution for real work. What has been his contribution as MP? ZERO…
    I find Sachin Pilot much better but why HT doesn’t project him as potential PM.
    Unfortunately educated journos are becoming mouthpieces of dynasties (Nehru-Gandhi, Pawars, Thackreys included). Let there be fair level playing field rather than allowing parachute entry.

    [Reply]

  • Anonymous

    Biju,
    You may be favoring Rahul for communal reasons..I have never met a christian opposed to Sonia-Rahul.

    [Reply]

  • Kumars1

    All kinds of forecasts are being made. In 2007 Mayawati had been written off but did very well. The NDA was supposed to win in 2004. One fact doesn’t change however. HT and its columnists always pitch for the ‘baba’ and his family. This family has been in power for decades and decades, the country is still dirt poor.

    [Reply]

  • Anonymous

    What work are you talking about? Campaigning and nautanki is not work.

    [Reply]

  • Tanu Mittal

    Truly said!! Hats off to Dara Singh.He symbolised the epitome of bravery as well as a good human being.An interview given by Dara Singh to Hindustan Times way back in 2009 capture the beautiful memories of this legend.It was written about him that ”if a person coming to Mumbai does not have any place to live and food to eat ” he could definitely hope for Dara Singh’s house.Not only was he famous for his bravery but a true gentleman as well.He truly said that sports person are not given the much needed attention in terms of Money as well as facilities here in India when asked about his transition from being a sports person to entering the Filmi World!! People like him would always be remembered in the history of India.Apart from this think of the person’s who are not lucky as Dara Singh to be recognised at that level.Sports person should be given the required encouragement in every way as possible which is lacking here in India after all they are representing our country given their so much of hard work.
    Government should definitely considerate the conditions of sports person so that our coming generations could see many more Dara Singh’s.

    [Reply]

  • venkatraman ganapathi

    Its time we accepted that Babri was just a building and not a Mosque as these ****** Muslims claim. As a matter of fact it was a a Ram Mandir. I am not a Hinduvta advocate but we must stop appeasing this territorial religion. The Congress Party has done well so far-by keeping the Muslims in India and illiterate and used their beliefs to secure votes. This has stopped working. Like Pakisthan which has defranchised Hindu votes we must also defranchise the Muslims and give them reservation of 25 seats.This is the only solution for rabbits

    [Reply]

    indian Reply:

    Babri masjid was mosque destructed by hindu terrorists get that staraight,even after exavation its proved..this is old used technique keep idol or stone wherever u want to build temple..automatically people will put some orange powder some cloths and u have the illegal temple ready..BJP targets the majority votebank yet they are not able to win elections ..this shows the incompetency of BJP and hindu terrorists supporting and vot ing it..india is a secular and will be secular

    [Reply]

  • aman

    Why can t we have an agreement that Hindus offer their pooja on mon/tues and muslims on friday/other day. If we people can co-exist, I am sure god can as well and as some say, GOD is one so let them both be at ONE place.

    [Reply]

  • Ramesh Kumar

    BABAR WAS A INVADER ON INDIAN SOIL.THE MOSQUE WAS BUILT BY DEMOLISHING PART OF THE TEMPLE.
    I APPRECIATE HINDUSTAN TIMES BY CONTINUOUSLY REVIVING THESE TOPICS TO SUIT THEIR POLITICAL MASTERS -CONGRESS.
    BUT TO EXPEXT A WAYOUT ON THESE ISSUES UNDER CONGRESS LED GOVT IS IMPOSSIBLE.THEY ARE THE PEOPLE USED TO GET EDUCATION MONEY AS ENRON CHIEF USED TO SAY OR OIL MONEY WHICH LED TO OUSTER OF FOREIGN MINISTER OF CONGRESS MR.SINGH ETC.
    ONLY A STATEMAN WHO CAN THINK BEYOND THIS BLOG WRITER WILL HELP.HINDUSTAN TIMES SHOULD COME WITH SPECIAL ISSUES ON TEMPLES DESTROYED BY MUSLIMS INVADERS AND MOSQUE DESTROYED BY HINDUS AS A SPECIAL ISSUE WITH PERMISSION FROM THEIR MASTERS.

    [Reply]

    rao Reply:

    BABAR WAS A INVADER ON INDIAN SOIL.THE MOSQUE WAS BUILT BY DEMOLISHING PART OF THE TEMPLE

    bullshit and wrong.brhmns too were invaders.there is proof that any temple was demolished.

    [Reply]

  • Pradhyumna Yadav

    There is no doubt that Congress governments in many states collude with the RSS. Case in point, Andhra Pradesh, where Chief Minister and some of his cabinet colleagues are RSS followers. They have expanded the bhagmati temple at Charminar the temple never existed at the site before 1974. Muslims should create their own parties without relying on the Congress.

    [Reply]

  • Hindustani

    Muslims are curse to Humanity. No religion in the world behaves the way Muslims behave. They are fanatics.

    [Reply]

    sai Reply:

    give some example.

    [Reply]

  • kumar

    Dhaka | Dec 9 2012 | HE BD Bureau :: A Hindu young man was beaten to death by a Islamic mob near the district courts in the Old Dhaka amid nationwide Bandh (blockade) today clashes that halted the Dhaka-Aricha Highway. The Bandh was called by the opposition group of Bangladesh, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (Nationality means here the Islamic Nationality of BD) and the Jammat-e-Islami Party of Bangladesh. It has been alleged that members of the students union of both parties ‘Jatiyatabadi Chatra (Students) League’ and ‘Islami Chhatra Shibir’ were behind the brutal killing of this Hindu Youth named Biswajit Kumar Das (24 yrs) with lethal weapons like Iron rods and sharpened chopper.

    [Reply]

    Truhseeker Reply:

    ঢাকার লক্ষ্মীবাজারে ছাত্রলীগ ক্যাডারদের ছুরিকাঘাতে বিশ্বজিৎ দাস নিহত হয়েছেন।

    ছাত্রলীগ ক্যাডাররা ধাওয়া করলে বিশ্বজিৎ স্থানীয় একটি কিনিকে
    গিয়ে আশ্রয় নেন। সেখানে ঢুকে
    ছাত্রলীগ ক্যাডাররা তাকে কুপিয়ে টেনেহিঁচড়ে দোতলা থেকে রাস্তায় নামিয়ে আনে।

    [Reply]

    engrich Reply:

    he was killed by mistake.by supporter of haseena wajid.haseena supports hindus in bangladesh.he was not killed because he was hindu.

    [Reply]

    momn doter Reply:

    All politicians are in favor of other religions. Fact still stands.

    [Reply]

  • kumar

    No Muslim was killed during destruction of mosque but Indian Muslims have engaged in numerous terror attacks and killed many civilians in revenge. Contrast that with reports coming out of Muslim world where Hindu temples, Buddhist statutues, Christians praying inside churches are destroyed and killed but still no Hindu or Christian terrorists in Pakistan who massacre civilians in bomb blasts in buses or markets- only Muslim terrorists in Pakistan. How do you explain that?

    [Reply]

    indian Reply:

    kumar goons of rss and vhp burnt alive 16 poor innocent muslims on 6th december.ayodhya is not hindu place.historically it was budhhdist place later occupied by shaivites after budhdhist were annihilated and chased out of plane areas.their temples were converted into hindu temples.for short period place was occupied by jainese.its life is 2200 years.while rama was born in treta yug 4000 years ago.so it wrong bullshit and diabolic to say that rama was born here.rama cult was introduced in 16th century by ramanand misra and later by tulsidaas.
    rss vhp used rama to divide backwards of hindi speaking belt.zoinist has future plan to ignite war between shaivaites and vaishnavites(rama was made 8th avtar of vishnu.)
    the whole gme was based on fraud and lies.took india 10 years back.brhmnst and zoinists use their idol to make money and bully others.
    ram lila was started bynawab wajid ali shah of lucknow.
    it is during muslim period that ayodhya became vibrant municipality from sleeping village.

    [Reply]

    momn doter Reply:

    I don’t know who tells you these things – ram lila started by nawab wajid ali shah and all. Let me put this delicately – Ayodhya, gokul, mathura, katra, chaar dhaam, hrisikesh aur haridwar hamara hai.

    Now talking some sense – These places are of faith importance to us hindus but we couldn’t do anything when under islamic rule. Babri was made after demolishing Indian temple.
    Islam ruled entire country. Couldn’t they find other place to build mosques.

    [Reply]

    engrich Reply:

    hindu places of worship flourished under muslim rule.ayodya is not mentioned anywhere in hindu scripture.it was budhhdist place captured by brhmns,buhdhdist temples were forcibly converted into hindu temples.

    ram lila was started by nawab wajid ali shah.under muslim rule ayodhya became vibrant city from sleeping village.

    hindu built nothing.they captured budhdist holy places.now they are fabricating the bullshit to capture muslim holy places.

    Sudhir Yadav Reply:

    Any historical fact for ayodhya being budhist and other etc you mentioned.

    engrich Reply:

    CHINESE TRAVELLRS DESCRIBED this city.nowhere ayodhya is mentioned in hindu holy scripture.u will find many jain temples there as well.hidu use their idols to make money and bully others.

    momn doter Reply:

    Dude now you are irritating me. I know how islamic world works. You come across these things in blogs made by other muslims, and from other muslim extremists. After all there is always a book from which you can show your point.

    Wajid ali shah was the first muslim to start ramlila in his dynasty. Saying Ayodhya became vibrant under muslim rule is a slap on my face. ‘Ayodhya not mentioned in scriptures’ is the irritating part. Islam never had respect for other religions, nor will it ever.

  • balaji

    previously…. with the help of wapons muslims who were less than 1 percent in population converted all temples into mosques and so babri was one of it…..

    [Reply]

  • Raghavendra

    Mr Zia haq show me one election when MUSLIMS have voted with out keeping BJP in mind? people of your community have become pawns in the game played by parties like CONGRESS, LEFT, SP .

    you feel MUSLIMS really vote for issues as development and education i feel all they care about is keeping COMMUNAL BJP out at all cost.

    [Reply]

  • Faulitics

    “According to Zoya Hasan of Delhi’s Jawaharlal Nehru University, when Muslims see an emerging threat from Hindu nationalists threatening their identity,”

    Why would indian Muslims of Indian ethnic stock tie their identity to a dilapidated building built by a self confessed genocidal fanatic like Babur who came from Uzbekistan and occupied the land of their Indian ancestors ? If this is true, what sort of idiotic ideology promotes this kind of cult like mindset?

    [Reply]

  • momn doter

    Let me tell you why I hate Islam. Fact – “Muslim majority countries
    don’t develop (unless there is oil) and don’t respect minorities”. So
    I am in favor of Islam free India – A country where every religion but
    Islam is welcome. I’m not against holy Qur’an or current Muslims. I
    would like new borns to be converted to any other religion, in case you
    are not a fan of Hinduism.

    [Reply]

  • ENGRICH

    Two
    decades is almost a third of the journey that independent India has
    covered since 1947. It’s been a long journey, chequered with events that
    challenged, threatened and sometimes even sustained – in their own
    convoluted way – the idea of the Indian state. The epoch begins with
    what happened in small-town Ayodhya on Dec 6, 1992 when a medieval
    mosque, labelled as a monument of Mughal pride and persecution, was
    pulled down by a frenzied mob of right-wing Hindu ‘activists’. One need
    not go into the well-documented details of what happened that day.

    The
    only aspect I want you to consider here for the sake of the argument I
    will be making later is that the demolition of Babri Masjid, organised
    by the BJP government in UP and tacitly supported by the Congress
    government at the Centre, was still considered an assault on the Indian
    state. It was constitutionally a ‘crime’ and therefore liable to
    prosecution, which of course did happen. That nobody has been punished
    yet for the demolition and its protagonists today grace the Parliament
    and dream of
    becoming the Prime Minister of the country is a different story.

    Two
    decades later, there is a lot of talk about the nation moving on.
    Presumably towards less hatred and more ‘development’, thanks to another
    epochal event that happened a year before Ayodhya 1992 – the opening of
    the Indian market. But has the state really moved on? If so, then has
    the state moved forward on a trajectory of democracy, justice and
    equality, or has it actually regressed into a delusional and scarier
    behemoth? Let’s consider another example on the ‘decadent’ (couldn’t
    resist the pun)
    timeline as the title of this piece suggests.

    Let’s
    move a decade forward to an event that is again simply called Gujarat
    2002, undeniably the most unfortunate event since Ayodhya 1992. How do
    we look at Gujarat 2002 vis-a-vis the Indian state? Well, we can’t,
    because Gujarat 2002 was all about the state. It was a state-sponsored
    and organised pogrom against its minorities, the main protagonist of
    which has grown more powerful since the violence and represents the
    collective dream of Hindu middle-class as well as its corporates of
    becoming India’s next Prime
    Minister.

    So
    what changed? For the sake of argument, we can say with some comfort
    that the Babri protagonists were largely punished by India’s syncretism.
    Of course, the BJP gained from Ayodhya 1992, forming a short-lived
    government in 1996 and then coming back to power in 1998. Yet, the
    protagonists of the demolition – Kalyan Singh, Vinay Katiyar, Uma
    Bharti, Murli Manohar Joshi and even L K Advani – could never come out
    of its shadow. In contast, Narendra Modi’s only claim to fame, if you
    will, is Gujarat 2002. Modi without the pogrom has no resume to flaunt
    or
    claim his legitimacy as the tallest leader in the same BJP.

    Allow
    me to elaborate. What changed in a decade since 1992 – in the same BJP -
    was that while Advani, the supreme architect of Hindutva in India,
    could not become an accepted prime ministerial candidate because of
    Ayodhya 1992 and the violence that followed, Modi, on the other hand,
    has not only been largely excused from any serious prosecution by the
    law of the land for his role in Gujarat 2002, he is even the BJP’s only
    consensus candidate for the prime minister’s post.

    In
    other words, while we may bask in the growing secularisation of the
    state – marked by a larger rule of law as well as open-market capitalism
    – the fact remains that the Indian state continues to be schizophrenic
    about its self-image. If Ayodhya 1992 was about a bunch of non-state
    loonies pulling down a mosque, Gujarat 2002 was marked by the same state
    being an active participant in a pogrom against its largest minority.
    While Ayodhya 1992 sought to correct a perceived historical wrong by
    erasing its material testimony, Gujarat 2002 did not even care to show
    any pretension other than a crude and
    violent majoritarianism.

    Mumbai
    2012, to move on and conclude, further complicates the pattern of the
    Indian state’s failure to define itself in a more rational, democratic
    and more importantly, secular manner. By choosing to honour a rabid
    hate-monger who mocked at all the ideals a liberal nation is supposed to
    stand for, the state displayed its pathological schizophrenia like
    never before. The state funeral of Bal Thackeray, in other words,
    expunged him of his role in the killing of hundreds of Muslims in Mumbai
    post-Ayodhya 1992, which is just one among his and his
    party’s many assaults on the state. Moreover, as the year 2012 closes,
    the killer of Gujarat 2002 is set to return as the Chief Minister of the
    state for a record fourth term.

    [Reply]

  • X

    PLEASE SHOW ME WHERE IN KORAN IS IT WRITTEN “LOVE” “PEACE ” ..FIRST SHOW ME ..ISLAM SPREADS HATRED

    [Reply]

  • X

    islam is crazy ..fact 1) it has words like kafirs etc 2) muslim lie when they tell jihad is all about peaced etc ..now where will you dinf word like love etc..muslims only like to kill anf they cry when some body ***** them in written !!

    [Reply]

  • X

    hey writter u *** BABUR WAS NOT EVEN INDIAN LOL

    [Reply]

  • akb

    brhmns came 3000 years before muslims.they enslaved indans call them hindu.victims of brhmnsm coverted to islam.
    in practice hinuism is worst type aparteism.for 3000 years doors of education remained close to non brhmns.justice was also not equal.

    [Reply]

    momn doter Reply:

    Interesting choice of words. We enslaved, and victims then converted to Islam.

    [Reply]

  • Abhi

    “Muslims see an emerging threat from Hindu nationalists”
    When will Zia talk about Hindus seeing an emerging threat from Muslim nationalists, of whom there is no dearth in India?

    [Reply]