Mukesh Khanna occupies a unique position in the history of Indian television and cinema. For millions of viewers, he will always be remembered as Bhishma Pitamah from B. R. Chopra’s Mahabharat and later as India’s iconic superhero Shaktimaan. His towering personality, commanding voice and serious screen presence also made him a natural choice for police officers, military men, judges, authority figures and powerful supporting characters.

But there is an interesting contradiction in his career. Despite looking like the perfect actor for intimidating villains, Mukesh Khanna largely avoided conventional negative roles. In fact, he has spoken openly about his reluctance to portray villains, particularly on television. His choice makes a list of “20 villain roles” difficult to produce accurately.

A better description is 20 dark, antagonistic, powerful or morally complex roles after Mahabharat. Some were genuinely negative, while others were stern authority figures who are sometimes incorrectly listed online as villains.

1. Mahesh Chandra — Dhana 51 (2005)

One of the clearest examples of Mukesh Khanna actually playing a negative character came in the Telugu film Dhana 51. Khanna played Mahesh Chandra, and the film’s published cast information specifically identifies his performance as a negative role.

This is particularly interesting because it demonstrates that Khanna was not completely opposed to playing antagonistic characters. Rather, he was selective about when and where he did so.

2. Lala — Gang (2000)

Khanna appeared as Lala in the crime drama Gang. The film, starring an ensemble cast including Jackie Shroff, Nana Patekar and Sanjay Dutt, deals with the criminal underworld.

Because of its gangster-oriented storyline and Khanna’s naturally authoritative appearance, this remains one of the performances that audiences can associate with his darker screen persona. His role, however, should not automatically be described as a conventional Bollywood super-villain.

3. Bismillah — International Khiladi (1999)

In International Khiladi, Khanna played Bismillah, appearing alongside Akshay Kumar and other major actors.

The film belongs to the action-thriller genre, where deception, crime and confrontation are central to the story. Khanna’s imposing presence fitted naturally into this world, even though his role is not best described simply as “the villain.”

4. Inspector Liyaqat Khan — Zulm-O-Sitam (1998)

Khanna played Inspector Liyaqat Khan in Zulm-O-Sitam. The character placed him inside a crime-oriented narrative involving police investigation and conspiracy.

This is an excellent example of why his stern appearance can lead viewers to assume that a character is negative. In reality, Khanna frequently played police and law-enforcement figures rather than criminals.

5. ACP Jaidev Singh — Khauff (2000)

In Khauff, Khanna portrayed ACP Jaidev Singh. The film is a crime thriller, and his senior police position gives him considerable authority within the story.

Although not a straightforward villain, the character belongs to the darker, intense side of Khanna’s post-Mahabharat filmography.

6. Police Commissioner Prakash — Hera Pheri (2000)

Khanna appeared as Police Commissioner Prakash in the cult comedy Hera Pheri. This is certainly not a villainous performance, but his commanding appearance and police uniform made him another memorable authority figure.

The film is a useful reminder that Khanna’s serious persona was often used for comic contrast.

7. Inspector Dayal — Talaashi

Khanna played Inspector Dayal in Talaashi, another crime-oriented film. The role fits the pattern of his 1990s work, in which he repeatedly appeared as police officers and senior officials.

Rather than being a villain, Inspector Dayal represents Khanna’s ability to bring gravitas to investigative characters.

8. Inspector Rajeshwar — Himmatvar (1996)

Khanna portrayed Inspector Rajeshwar in Himmatvar. Again, the character demonstrates his tendency toward powerful law-enforcement roles.

His physique, deep voice and intense expression made him particularly convincing as an officer who could dominate a scene without needing exaggerated dialogue.

9. Inspector D’Souza — Himmat (1996)

Another police role came with Inspector D’Souza in Himmat. Khanna’s 1990s filmography contains numerous such parts, showing that filmmakers frequently used him as a symbol of authority.

These roles sometimes get grouped with his “negative roles” because of their stern presentation, but there is no justification for automatically calling them villains.

10. Inspector Pratham — Police Lockup (1995)

In Police Lockup, Khanna played Inspector Pratham. The title itself indicates the film’s crime-and-police setting.

The performance belongs to the same period in which Khanna was establishing himself as a reliable actor for strong supporting parts following the enormous success of Mahabharat.

11. Inspector Chauhan — Policewala Gunda (1995)

Khanna played Inspector Chauhan in Policewala Gunda. The film’s action-oriented atmosphere suited his physical presence.

Once again, the role was not necessarily a villain, but it demonstrates why audiences often associate Khanna with powerful confrontational characters.

12. ACP Ashwini Kumar — Paandav (1995)

In Paandav, Khanna portrayed ACP Ashwini Kumar. His character belonged to the law-enforcement side of the narrative.

The role is another example of the distinction between being an intimidating character and being a negative character.

13. Sardar Gul Khan — Salma Pe Dil Aa Gaya (1997)

Khanna appeared as Sardar Gul Khan in Salma Pe Dil Aa Gaya. This was another supporting performance from his prolific 1990s film period.

The character’s imposing personality illustrates how directors could exploit Khanna’s physical presence without turning him into an outright villain.

14. Mangal Singh — Judge Mujrim (1997)

Khanna played Mangal Singh in Judge Mujrim. The film belongs to the crime/action genre and gave him another opportunity to appear in a powerful dramatic setting.

Such roles helped establish the screen persona that audiences associated with him after Mahabharat: serious, commanding and difficult to intimidate.

15. Shakti Singh — Aakhri Sanghursh (1997)

Khanna played Shakti Singh in Aakhri Sanghursh. The character’s name and the film’s action-oriented environment fit the powerful image that Khanna had developed during the decade.

Again, however, it is safer to describe this as a forceful supporting role rather than automatically labeling it a villainous performance.

16. Balwan — Betaj Badshah (1994)

Khanna appeared as Balwan in Betaj Badshah. His commanding screen personality made such roles particularly memorable.

The performance came during a period when Khanna was appearing regularly in Hindi commercial cinema, often as police officers, officials, aristocrats and physically imposing supporting characters.

17. Thakur Raghuveer Singh — Bal Brahmachari (1996)

Khanna played Thakur Raghuveer Singh in Bal Brahmachari. The title and character setting gave him another larger-than-life role.

This is important to his career because it shows how filmmakers continued to cast him in roles requiring authority and stature rather than relying solely on his mythological reputation.

18. Rana Mahendra Pratap Garhwal — Raja (1995)

In Raja, Khanna played Rana Mahendra Pratap Garhwal. His royal and authoritative screen presence again became an important part of the characterization.

The role illustrates an important point: Khanna’s powerful physical appearance did not automatically mean that he was playing an antagonist.

19. Justice Bharat Kumar — Chal Chalein (2009)

Khanna portrayed Justice Bharat Kumar in Chal Chalein. By this point in his career, his image had evolved from the action-oriented supporting roles of the 1990s toward senior and authoritative characters.

Playing a judge was particularly appropriate for an actor whose voice and presence naturally conveyed seriousness and command.

20. Sikhander — Rajadhi Raja (2014)

Khanna appeared as Sikhander in the Malayalam film Rajadhi Raja. This later-career performance demonstrates that he continued to accept powerful supporting characters across different Indian film industries.

His filmography includes Hindi, Telugu, Malayalam and Marathi projects, showing that his appeal was never restricted to Hindi television.

Why Did Mukesh Khanna Avoid Villain Roles?

The answer goes back to Mahabharat.

Khanna was initially associated with the possibility of playing Duryodhana, but he rejected the negative character and eventually became Bhishma Pitamah. Accounts of his career have repeatedly highlighted his reluctance toward negative roles and his belief that actors with a strong public image should be conscious of the characters they portray.

That decision became even more important after Mahabharat became a phenomenon.

Bhishma was not simply another television character. He represented duty, discipline, sacrifice and moral authority. Khanna’s performance became deeply associated with those qualities.

Then came Shaktimaan.

From 1997 to 2005, Khanna starred as Shaktimaan and Gangadhar, with the series becoming one of the defining children’s television shows of its era. His filmography also credits him with other characters within the Shaktimaan universe, including Major Ranjit Singh, Shri Satya and Clone Shaktimaan.

The combination of Bhishma and Shaktimaan created an unusually strong public image.

The Difference Between a Villain and an Antagonistic Role

This distinction is crucial when discussing Mukesh Khanna.

A villain is a character whose primary function is to oppose the protagonist or commit wrongdoing. An antagonistic character, on the other hand, may simply create conflict or stand in opposition to another character.

A police officer can be intimidating without being evil. A judge can be stern without being corrupt. A royal character can be authoritarian without being a villain.

Khanna’s filmography contains many such roles.

His listed film credits include characters such as Inspector Arjun Joglekar in Main Khiladi Tu Anari, Commissioner Ashfaque Khan in Meri Aan, Inspector Arjun in Pathreela Raasta, Inspector Rajeshwar in Himmatvar, ACP Jaidev Singh in Khauff and Police Commissioner Prakash in Hera Pheri.

Therefore, calling all of them “negative roles” would be historically inaccurate.

The Rare Exception: Dhana 51

If fans are searching specifically for a confirmed negative Mukesh Khanna performance, Dhana 51 deserves special attention.

Released in 2005, the Telugu film featured Khanna as Mahesh Chandra, and available film documentation explicitly identifies him as playing a negative role.

That makes the performance particularly interesting because it proves that Khanna could step outside his heroic image when the project called for it.

A Career Defined by Authority, Not Villainy

Mukesh Khanna’s post-Mahabharat career is ultimately more fascinating than a simple list of villains suggests.

His filmography shows a performer repeatedly chosen for characters with authority, strength, dignity and presence. Police officers, commissioners, judges, kings, aristocrats, military figures and powerful family members became recurring parts of his screen identity.

According to his recorded filmography, Khanna remained active across decades, with films ranging from Saugandh, Saudagar and Yalgaar in the early 1990s to Dhana 51, Chal Chalein, Rajadhi Raja, 3 Shyaane and later projects.

So the most accurate answer to the question “What were Mukesh Khanna’s 20 villain roles after Mahabharat?” is actually more nuanced:

He did not play 20 confirmed villains. He played a large number of powerful, stern, antagonistic and morally complex characters, with Dhana 51 being one of the clearest documented examples of a genuine negative role.

That is perhaps the most interesting aspect of his career. At a time when many actors deliberately moved from heroic roles into villainous characters to demonstrate versatility, Mukesh Khanna went in the opposite direction. He protected the powerful image created by Bhishma Pitamah and later reinforced by Shaktimaan.

For Mukesh Khanna, being remembered as a man of strength and principle was not a limitation—it became the defining feature of his extraordinary career.