Page - 94 - in JRFM - Journal Religion Film Media, Volume 06/01

While it might be true that villains bear Christian names because of actual Chris- tian involvement in the Mumbai underworld, there is a more salient reason for these stereotypes. After all, the Mumbai underworld, like Mumbai itself, is religiously di- verse and cosmopolitan. More significantly, a difference in dress (the scantily clad, oversexed Westernized woman), or name (Julie, Anita, Helen, Robert, Anthony), or diet (alcohol, meat) marks one as the Other in our midst, a denatured reminder of a shameful colonial past fitting uneasily into both secular nationalist and Hindutva narratives of the nation-state (fig. 4) Every identity is fashioned by its perceived Oth- er, and the deracinated, Westernized, Indian Christian serves to bolster what Nandy often calls the “anti-self”, through which the modern Indian self is constituted.45 Obviously this leaves Indian Christians wondering where they fit in. The Christian, like the Muslim, is rendered a stranger in her own country. Indian religious minori- ties often look in vain for Hindi filmic characterizations that do not lazily at best and nefariously at worst hew to hackneyed stereotypes. Tolerant Hinduism and the Secular Ideal? If Hindi popular film can be read as a window into the mind and soul of the Indi- an middle class, as this essay rather conventionally assumes, then they provide us with clues about the individual and social tensions of 1960s India as well as enduring tropes in the Indian imaginary. In light of subsequent shifting ideologies, we can say it does more. Adapted from R. K. Narayan’s novel, Guide (Vijay Anand, IN 1965) is an allegory for two seemingly paradoxical themes: India’s tryst with modern, secular nationhood, and spiritual liberation (mokṣa) through faith and renunciation. Star- ring and produced by screen legend Dev Anand, the movie has as its protagonist 45 Christian representations are neither consistent nor uniform. We might ask how to account for the use of Christian sacred space in Hindu popular film, as when the character Simran makes a special point of praying in a Swiss church in Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge. A clue might be found in the fact that many Bollywood filmmakers and actors were educated in Christian schools and convents run by priests and nuns, a constituency that directors seem to know and respect. Shah Rukh Khan studied at St Columba’s School, run by the Catholic Congregation of Christian Brothers, and Aamir Khan stud- ied at the Bombay Scottish School and St. Anne’s High School. We must also recall the genuine rever- ence shown by Hindus for sacred space generally, regardless of sectarian affiliation, which explains the use of churches in film. So even as Christians might be scapegoated as dangerous purveyors of “Westernized non-Indian family values”, there is also a (more oblique) recognition of the influ- ence of Christians on Indian society, particularly in the niche areas of medicine, education, and social work. I would argue further that to admit the place of Christians in the Indian social is perceived as a type of disloyalty to Indian independence, even though Christianity has played a significant role not just in the development of post-Independence India, but also in South Asia’s tryst with Western modernity. Perhaps such a role is inherently ambivalent. Suffice it to say, the taint stemming from Christianity’s relationship with British colonialism continues to negatively affect Indian Christians and Indian Christianities seven decades after the demise of British India. Dharma and the Religious Other in Hindi Popular Cinema | 93www.jrfm.eu 2020, 6/1, 73–102