110 "Presenting" the Past
lence; one-way communication; and repeated screening for constant con-
sumption. This Bollywood-type program bobs up modern Indian identity,
history, and futures.
HINDU, HINDUTVA, AND HINDUDOM
The emaciated-looking Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948) met with the
well-built Indian wrestler Gama in the late 1920s in Punjab. Joking about
their apparent physical difference, Gandhi asked Gama if he would care to
wrestle with him. Replied Gama, "How can I hope to win against one who
has single handedly flipped an empire onto its back." The real strength
of the thin and old leader was perceived by the nationalist wrestlers to
be his celibacy, which was connected to "morals, muscles and politics."^2
A similar perception, recoded into "innocence, somaticity, and strength,"
has been dominating the Hindutva ideology and actions also. Striking
their first mosque-like blow on January 30, 1948, by shooting down the
towering leader, the assassin Nathuram Godse (1910-1949), a Chitpawan
Brahmin, whimpered: "May the Country properly known as Hindusthan be
again united and be one, and may the people be taught to discard the defeatist
mentality leading them to submit to the aggressors" (italics mine).^3 The Babri
Masjid, like Mahatma Gandhi, has been a blot on the orthodox Brahmins'
innocence, somaticity, and strength. The "celibacy-supporting Hindu"
Gandhi could be identified a little with the Brahmin innocence; however,
his complicity in the Muslim conspiracy outweighed the virtue. In Godse's
own words: "I am prepared to concede that Gandhiji did undergo suffer-
ings for the sake of the Nation. I shall bow in respect to the service and to
him. But even this servant of the country had no right to vivisect the coun-
try by deceiving the people."^4 This vivisection—in other words, the weak-
ening of the Hindu body politic—was haunting the Brahmin psyche.
We have to understand that it was the Brahmins (considered to be the
"high caste") who stood out among the Hindus in the power configura-
tions during the Mughal and British periods and emerged powerful in the
independent India. It is not only misleading but also wrong to use a broad
term such as Hindu in this context, as the lower castes have always been
excluded and even discriminated against. When we talk of a "Hindu"
today we are necessarily talking about Brahmins. Of course, there are wan-
nabe Brahmins among other upper castes, and the willingly Brahminized
among the backward castes, and they all perpetuate the same oppressive
Brahminical discourse by subscribing to Brahminical mores and values.
These fake Brahmins can be lumped with the Brahminical orthodoxy for
our purposes here, for they feel, think, speak, and act the same way.
Despite some philosophical interpretations, such as that one's meritori-
ous qualities could sometimes override one's "lower" birth to become a
Brahmin, a Brahmin is invariably defined as someone who is born into a
Brahmin family of Brahmin parents, and this "pure descent" has always