Page - 97 - in JRFM - Journal Religion Film Media, Volume 06/01

fering paeans to any (deity, nation, deified nation) other than Allah, no matter how sincere one’s love for country. This is not the Indian ethos of acceptance of religious pluralism and the Gandhian vision of secularism undergirded by what is called sarva dharma sambhāva,46 but a debasement of that ethos where the co-opted minority mouths the loyalties of the majority, where stooge becomes cipher. Whether that film be Fanaa in the new century or Guide in the last, reflected here is an acceptance of the Other not on the Other’s terms, or at least a kind of negotiation of these terms required of religious pluralism, but on terms set by those who hold the keys to the kingdom – and that rāj is Hindu. Ultimately, then, what Guide provides us, as do so many less noble films from the years that followed, is a vision as saffron as the sādhu’s robe and, in retrospect, as ominous as the gathering mob. Yet this film was created in the Nehruvian period and not in the age of Modi. I make this point only to demonstrate something has become even clearer now that the dominant national Indian ideology has shifted. With the recent resounding re-election of the Hindu nationalist BJP, this shift is simply undeniable. I am arguing that Indian secular na- tionalism has always carried, in certain respects, an uncomfortable likeness to Hindu nationalism – often despite representations to the contrary. And this is ironic, given longstanding Hindu nationalist critique of the Nehruvian dispensation as peddling a mere “pseudo-secularism”, a faux religious neutrality that in practice favors (and placates) religious minorities for the purpose of securing votes. Conclusion or Interval? Since Independence, the dominant filmic ideology has roughly paralleled that of the state. While this has much to do with placating a politicized and notoriously con- servative national censor board, that cannot be the sole cause. Shared corporate interests and national pride (conflated with religious pride) also play their parts. It is no coincidence that in the Nehruvian period the protagonist was a socialist-lean- ing artist or vagabond, while at the turn of the new century the hero had become a multimillionaire or the scion of one.47 There once had been a strong if moralizing sense in pre-liberalization India that one could not serve both God and mammon, one of the morals of Guide. Cut to contemporary popular film and resolution of the God–mammon struggle comes not through sacrifice of the latter, but through 46 Literally, “equal respect for all religions”. Gandhi’s understanding of secularism may be contrasted with Jawaharlal Nehru’s dharma nirpekṣ, or “religious neutrality”, more along the lines of Western secularism, which can (but need not) be construed as government hostility towards religion. 47 Note the shift from Shree 420 (Mr. 420, Raj Kapoor, IN 1955) and Pyaasa (Thirst, Guru Datt, IN 1957) to Taal (Rhythm, Subhash Gai, IN 1999) and Om Shantih Om (Farah Khan, IN 2008). 96 | Kerry P.  C. San Chirico www.jrfm.eu 2020, 6/1, 73–102