The idea of ‘camps’ is hardly new to the Hindi film industry. However, what has changed over the decades is the nature of these camps, the intensity of their rivalries and, more recently, the ways in which those rivalries play out in public.

Those familiar with the Hindi film industry of the 1940s and 1950s will remember the close professional circles surrounding stars such as Raj Kapoor, Dev Anand and Guru Dutt. Actors, directors, writers and music directors often developed long-standing working relationships. They tended to repeatedly collaborate with people they trusted, creating what, in retrospect, can be described as early versions of film-industry camps.

Although Kapoor and Anand ruled the era along with Dilip Kumar, the iconic trio rarely shared the screen. While the latter appeared with Kapoor in Andaz (1949) and with Anand in Insaniyat (1955), a direct collaboration between Anand and Kapoor never really materialised.

Kapoor and Nargis, meanwhile, formed one of the most celebrated star-actor-and-director partnerships of the period, with Nargis appearing in numerous films associated with the blue-eyed actor-director. His music directors, writers and other collaborators also formed a relatively consistent creative circle. Similar patterns existed around his contemporaries, who were also major stars.

Yet there was an important difference between those relationships and the camp culture that would emerge later. Rival professional circles did not necessarily translate into open hostility. Stars who rarely worked together could remain cordial, attend one another’s premieres and maintain a degree of mutual respect.

1970s: When camps became more visible

The nature of groupism changed dramatically in the 1970s, particularly with the arrival of Rajesh Khanna’s superstardom followed by the rise of Amitabh Bachchan.

The industry became increasingly organised around individual stars, producers and directors. This backdrop witnessed actors, writers, composers, distributors and exhibitors often developing strong professional loyalties, where people within these circles supported one another through both successes and failures.

One industry insider described the beginning of this transformation bluntly: “The jee-huzoori coterie culture started in the ’70s when actors like Khanna started surrounding themselves with sycophants. Eventually, that evolved into the camp-culture of today.”

The insider also pointed to the changing alliances among filmmakers and stars. “Distinct industry cliques are often formed around directors with strict actor preferences. Shakti Samanta, for example, initially collaborated almost exclusively with Khanna. Later, he shifted to Bachchan.”

Bachchan’s rise, however, was somewhat different. Although filmmakers such as Manmohan Desai and Prakash Mehra became closely associated with him through repeated collaborations, the actor himself was not necessarily seen as someone who cultivated a traditional group of sycophants.

“Bachchan was the only man operating without camp politics, because he didn’t keep sycophants. Directors like Manmohan Desai and Prakash Mehra were considered his camp, because they repeatedly made films together.”

Celebrating a rival’s failure

Groupism was not limited to professional collaboration. According to industry observers, competition could also become intensely personal.

One insider recalled, “Filmi camps were always there! Even during Amitabh Bachchan’s era. People always celebrated when a rival’s film failed at the box-office, they just learned to not make their emotions public.”

The phenomenon was not restricted to only the A-list stars. Outsiders, who suddenly achieved success or become overnight sensations, could become targets of resentment. “So many people used to celebrate Mithun Chakraborty’s failures, because he was seen as an outsider. Someone who came out of nowhere… So, it’s not like the Khans invented camp culture, they existed much earlier.”

Film historian Dilip Thakur recalled stories of film camps reacting to the fortunes of rival stars. One such anecdote concerns the Deols’ film, 23rd March 1931: Shaheed that released in 2002. Starring Sunny as a Chandra Shekhar Azad and Bobby as a Bhagat Singh, when the film reportedly underperformed, there were stories that some people within the industry celebrated its failure. Around the same period, reports of disagreements between Deol and producers, as well as complaints of his punctuality, also began circulating.

Such stories are difficult to separate from hearsay in the film industry, but they illustrate how quickly professional competition became part of the film industry’s folklore.

Another example often cited is Kabhi Kabhie (1976). The film, an intergenerational family drama with elements of romance and music, initially opened slowly, partly because audiences had begun associating Bachchan with the ‘Angry Young Man’ image established by films such as Deewaar and Sholay, both released in 1975.

According to Thakur, a section of the film industry began celebrating prematurely after the initial reports of the film’s failure. Kabhi Kabhie, however, went on to become a major success, driven by strong word-of-mouth (WOM) from audiences.

Rajesh Khanna-Amitabh Bachchan friction

Camp culture became entrenched with the ouster of Rajesh Khanna as the biggest superstar in the film industry. Perhaps the most defining rivalry of the 1970s, Khanna’s fall from dominance coincided with the emergence of Bachchan as the industry’s new superstar.

After Namak Haraam (1973) became successful, speculation intensified about the relationship between the two actors. Media reports suggested that Khanna had recognised Bachchan as a serious threat to his position and had begun paying greater attention to his close-ups and public image.

Stories of Khanna arriving late on sets also became increasingly common. Whether all these reports were accurate or were simply amplified by the media, they contributed to the perception of an intense rivalry between Khanna, as a failing superstar and Bachchan, his nemesis and successor.

As Bachchan’s popularity grew, some producers and distributors, previously associated with Khanna, began moving towards the newly hailed superstar. The transition demonstrated an important feature of Bollywood — camps were rarely permanent. They followed power, opportunity and commercial success.

1990s: From star camps to production houses

The industry underwent another major transformation in the 1990s. Economic liberalisation, corporate investment, professional marketing and the growing importance of organised production houses began changing the traditional power structure. Star-driven camps did not disappear, but large production houses increasingly became important centres of influence.

Shah Rukh Khan’s (SRK) rise also introduced a new approach to stardom, publicity and branding. Following the success of Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge (1995), Yash Raj Films (YRF) emerged as one of the industry’s most influential production houses. The success of Kuch Kuch Hota Hai (1998) revived and cemented Dharma Productions’ stature.

The rivalry between SRK, Aamir Khan and Salman Khan was enormous, but it was not quite the same as the camp politics of earlier decades. Their competition was increasingly about stardom, box-office performance, endorsements, visibility and marketing rather than clearly defined professional factions.

Kajol has also pushed back against the idea that every professional relationship in Bollywood must be understood through the lens of camps. Speaking about the perceived equation between her husband Ajay Devgn and SRK, she said, “There weren’t camps, just people working with who they were comfortable with. I worked with everyone. The whole system kind of eluded me.”

On Ajay and SRK, she added, “Nothing happened. They weren’t best buddies, but they’ve always respected each other. There’s no awkwardness at all, just mutual understanding and space.”

Her perspective captures an important distinction — that professional friendships and repeated collaborations do not automatically constitute organised camps.

From camps to insiders vs outsiders

The meaning of ‘camp’ changed again in the 2010s. The debate increasingly moved away from one superstar versus another and towards the larger question of : Insiders versus Outsiders.

Kangana Ranaut became one of the most prominent voices in this debate. Her appearance on Karan Johar’s television show, Koffee with Karan in 2017 brought the issue of nepotism into mainstream conversation when she described him as a prominent representative of the system and accused the industry of making it difficult for outsiders.

The debate intensified dramatically following the death of actor Sushant Singh Rajput in 2020. Social media amplified long-standing discussions about nepotism, privilege and alleged exclusion within Bollywood, turning them into a much broader argument about who gets opportunities and who does not.

Filmmaker Shekhar Kapur, who had been associated with the proposed film Paani with Rajput, also spoke publicly about the difficulties and systemic pressures that actors could face. The debate subsequently expanded beyond Rajput. Fans and sections of the media began examining the careers of other outsiders through the same framework.

Kartik Aaryan became a prime example of this trend. His departure from Dostana 2 was officially linked to creative differences, but the circumstances surrounding his exit generated intense speculation online. His subsequent departure from other projects associated with people connected to the Dharma Productions ecosystem further fuelled discussions about nepotism and the treatment of outsiders.

The ‘camp’ narrative had now acquired a new vocabulary. It was no longer simply about one actor’s professional circle competing with another. It had become a debate about insiders, outsiders, access and power.

The rise of publicity warfare

The transformation of camps cannot be separated from the transformation of Bollywood publicity. For decades, celebrity publicity was largely controlled through newspapers, film magazines, television interviews, press releases and carefully managed media access. Publicists helped create stars’ images, promote films and manage controversies.

During the 2000s, professional public relations became increasingly sophisticated. Actors and production houses began working with dedicated PR and management teams to maintain visibility, arrange interviews, generate positive coverage and shape public perception.

The arrival of social media fundamentally altered the equation. Facebook, Twitter and later, Instagram gave audiences the ability to participate directly in conversations about celebrities and films. Fan clubs became digital communities, actor-versus-actor comparisons became constant, and a single photograph, comment or rumour could reach millions of people within hours.

Publicity was no longer controlled entirely by journalists, editors and television producers. It had become a conversation involving stars, publicists, influencers, fan accounts and audiences simultaneously.

By the 2020s, negative publicity had become a much more visible part of Bollywood discourse. Actors, filmmakers and other industry figures have at various times spoken about aggressive PR tactics and alleged attempts to construct negative narratives around competing celebrities. Social-media posts, memes, hashtags and repeated online discussions can amplify a particular perception very quickly.

The new role of influencers and digital networks0

The modern publicity landscape has also expanded beyond traditional journalists. Filmmakers and actors, including Johar, Radhikka Madan and Taapsee Pannu, have spoken at different times about the influence of PR networks, social-media ecosystems and rival camps.

One example that generated speculation involved Ranveer Singh’s departure from Don 3. Following reports of his exit, an unauthorised press-note reportedly circulated suggesting that the actor had been asked to leave rather than voluntarily quit as initial reports suggested. The episode led to questions about who had circulated the information and why.

There has been speculation that rival PR interests may sometimes provide information to select journalists, although such claims are often difficult to independently establish.

This is where the modern camp system differs most dramatically from the old one. Earlier, a camp might have been visible through the same actors, directors, composers and producers repeatedly working together. Today, a network can be much less visible, because a publicist, influencer, journalist, fan account or anonymous social-media handle may all contribute to a narrative without appearing to belong to a formal group.

Insecurity at the heart of the camps

Despite all these changes, one factor appears to have remained remarkably consistent — insecurity. As one industry observer put it, “Camps will always persist because of actors’ insecurities. That insecurity never goes away. You will hardly find an actor, who is truly secure. Probably, one in a hundred.”

The same observer believes that what is described as camp politics may often be the result of individual insecurity rather than a coordinated conspiracy. “More than organised camps, it’s driven by their individual insecurities about each other.”

This was evident in the case of a franchise film in the recent past, where a producer wanted to recreate an iconic song with the original senior actor. A younger star, who was at the height of his popularity then, reportedly objected to the idea and wanted to perform the song himself.

Such incidents reveal another dimension of Bollywood politics — sometimes the issue is not about denying another actor an entire career, but about protecting one’s own screen presence, image or position within a project.

Devgn, according to the insider, represents a contrasting example. “Ajay Devgn is an exception,” he says, adding, “He seems relatively secure and doesn’t even try to dominate scenes in his own movies. He gives equal space to everyone and doesn’t interfere as an editor.”

The insider recalled that the Deols and Jackie Shroff were also not known to interfere in other actors’ spaces. “Jackie, Sunny and even, Bobby have always been cool and secure as actors. They never interfered in anyone else’s space.”

The end of the traditional camp?

The old-style camps may now be considerably weaker. The filmmaker, who prefers to go unnamed, summed up the current environment, saying, “They had their territories marked out, but those camps are mostly dead. It’s pretty much ‘every man for himself’ now.”

That may be an exaggeration because professional relationships and networks remain central to Bollywood. Actors continue to work repeatedly with directors they trust. Producers maintain long-standing relationships with stars. Publicists, journalists, influencers and digital creators develop their own professional networks.

But the structure has undoubtedly changed. The old camp was relatively easy to identify — a star, a handful of filmmakers, writers, composers and producers repeatedly working together. The contemporary network is more fluid. It can change with a film, a social-media trend, a business relationship or even a single news cycle.

Bollywood has moved through several distinct versions of camp culture, yet the fundamental competition remains familiar. Actors compete for roles. Producers compete for audiences. Stars compete for attention. Publicists compete for headlines. Fans compete over their favourites. And beneath it all lies the same insecurity and competition that have shaped the industry for generations.

The camp-game may change, but the human need to belong, compete and stay relevant remains.

Keep reading IWMBuzz.com.