Page 287 - Religion, Media, and the Public Sphere

comment. When Hrithik Roshan emerged as a new superstar with his ¤rst ¤lm
in 2000, Hindu nationalists were said to have been delighted that a Hindu male
star was toppling “those Muslims,” even though he is married to one. Shadowy
Hindutva forces in Bombay are said to have told Salman Khan not to consider
marrying a “Hindu icon” such as Aishwarya Rai, with whom he has been ru-
mored to have a romantic connection.
Yet recent years have seen closer, though vague, connections between the
¤lm industry and Hindu nationalist groups. Bombay is located in the heart-
land of Hindu nationalism, as many Hindutva groups have their origins in
Maharashtra, while Bombay itself is home to the Shiv Sena, a localized, plebe-
ian, militant Hindu group (Hansen 2001). Its leader, Bal Thackeray, is rarely di-
rectly involved in the industry, but his daughter-in-law, Smita, rapidly became
head of the ¤lm producers’ association. Thus networks and associations may
well exist between the Shiv Sena and the industry, but, as suggested above, these
are unclear.
The recent (to 2004) BJP government had an active relationship with the ¤lm
industry, granting it industry status and promoting it vigorously abroad. This
does not mean, however, that the industry is a hotbed of Hindutva but rather
that it is seeking its own advantage and seems to have found support, for the
¤rst time, from the national government.

Censorship

Although industry personnel may not be inclined to make a “Hindutva”
¤lm, it seems unlikely that Hindi ¤lm could exist in a cultural vacuum, and
hence recent ¤lms may show traces or condensations and displacements of Hin-
dutva, although it is not clear what a Hindutva ¤lm would be.
Supporters of Hindutva are not necessarily anti-Western or antimodern, as
many welcome technology and yet are more ambivalent about consumerism,
although hoping for an Indianized version. They are clear about the groups they
oppose: the Anglicized Indians or old middle classes who support secularism,
or, in Hindutva’s phrase, “pseudo-secularism.” This group is also hostile to the
low and scheduled castes supported by Congress and the Mandal Commission
and to Christians. However, Hindutva’s major target remains Muslims, despite
the much-publicized presence of several Muslims in the party and the of¤cial
line that Muslims should accept benevolent marginalization by the majority
community. Among the various positions taken by supporters of Hindutva, the
most frequently heard complaints are opposition to India’s separate Muslim
personal law; anxieties about the higher Muslim population growth; supposed
Muslim allegiance to Pakistan and hence to other Islamic states; and the sup-
posed cultural wounds in®icted by the “Muslim period” of Indian history.
Clearly it would be dif¤cult to make a Hindutva ¤lm exacerbating such com-
munal tensions given the problems such a ¤lm would face with the censors.
Appointments to the censor boards are made under the guidance of a chair
chosen by the government. The Report of the Enquiry Committee on Film Cen-

276 Rachel Dwyer