As the Federation of Western India Cine Employees’ (FWICE) non-cooperation directive against Ranveer Singh continues to dominate industry chatter, veteran actor Chunky Panday has recalled a similar — and far more personal — experience from nearly four decades ago.
In 1987, Chunky was slapped with a week-long “ban” by the federation. The reason? He continued shooting for Pahlaj Nihalani’s ‘Aag Hi Aag’ while the entire industry was on strike. But here’s the twist that makes his story strikingly relevant today: despite being part of the same film, megastars Dharmendra and Shatrughan Sinha faced no action .
‘Main naya tha, isliye mujhe ban kiya’
Speaking to ETimes, Chunky recalled how the industry strike of 1987 had brought all shootings to a halt. However, producer Pahlaj Nihalani moved his team to Bangalore and later Ooty to continue filming ‘Aag Hi Aag’. Chunky, then a newcomer whose debut film hadn’t even released, was part of that team .
“Dharmendra ji aur Shatrughan Sinha ji bhi uss film mein the. Lekin woh itne bade stars the — ek saath 30-40 films mein kaam kar rahe the — unhe ban karna practical nahi tha,” Chunky explained .
The federation’s logic, as Chunky recalls it, was brutally simple: taking action against established superstars working on multiple projects was difficult, if not impossible. But a newcomer with no release to his name? That was easy .
“Since they couldn’t take action against the bigger stars, they took action against me instead. Later, I apologised, and the ban was lifted within a week,” he said .
A pattern of selective action
Chunky’s recollection has reignited debates about whether industry bodies like FWICE apply rules selectively — protecting established stars while using smaller names as cautionary examples .
The 1987 strike was called to protest heavy taxes and surcharges on cinema tickets and equipment — an industry-wide issue. Yet while Dharmendra and Shatrughan Sinha continued shooting ‘Aag Hi Aag’ without consequence, Chunky bore the brunt of the federation’s disciplinary action .
“Bade stars par action nahi ho sakta tha, toh mujh par hua. Waajah seedhi thi,” Chunky said, adding that he holds no bitterness about the incident today .
FWICE vs Ranveer: The current controversy
Chunky’s story comes at a time when FWICE has issued a “non-cooperation directive” — not a ban, as the federation clarifies — against Ranveer Singh over his abrupt exit from Farhan Akhtar’s ‘Don 3’. The actor reportedly walked out just three weeks before the unit was to leave for shoot, causing alleged losses of up to ₹45 crore .
FWICE Chief Advisor Ashoke Pandit has clarified that the federation is “not a court” and cannot impose legal bans. “We have issued a non-cooperation directive. Non-cooperation means all our members who belong to 30 crafts will not work with him until the matter is sorted out,” Pandit said .
Unlike the 1987 strike case, Ranveer is a top star today — arguably as big as Dharmendra was in his era. Yet FWICE has proceeded with action, raising questions about whether industry dynamics have genuinely changed since Chunky’s time, or whether the rules simply apply differently depending on the situation .
‘Industry bahut chhoti aur fragile hai’
Chunky, however, refused to comment on the ongoing ‘Don 3’ controversy, stating he was not “fully aware” of the details .
Instead, he reflected on the nature of the film industry itself: “Yeh sab cheezein industry mein hoti rehti hain. Hamari film industry bahut chhoti aur fragile hai, isliye yahan aisi baatein jaldi asar daalti hain” (These things keep happening in the industry. Our film industry is very small and fragile, so such matters have an impact quickly) .
The bottom line
Chunky Panday’s story — of a newcomer punished while superstars walked free — offers a telling glimpse into how industry power dynamics have long shaped disciplinary action in Bollywood. Whether the current action against Ranveer Singh represents a genuine shift in accountability or merely a different application of the same selective principles remains an open question.
For Chunky, now a established character actor with decades of work behind him, the memory of that week-long ban in 1987 is just another chapter in a long career. But it’s a chapter that, even today, resonates loudly through the industry’s corridors of power.
