Conclusion

As Dumont (1960) has noted, the man-in-the-world is subsumed within the framework of caste holism. Hinduism, he argued, is structured in terms of the dialectical relationship between the worldly householder and the world renouncer. Das (1977) and Heesterman (1985) have both suggested that the Brahman embodies the tension between these two categories. The Brahman remains, nevertheless, embedded within the world of caste relations. The ascetic practices of the Brahman only serve to underscore his spiritual authority and his caste purity.

As an ideology, wrestling goes beyond the bounds of a caste model by appealing to a visionary—but no less real—social ethic. Being nonsectarian, and outside the bounds of caste relations, wrestlers are not conscripted by the terms of hierarchy. By adopting the somatic practices of world renunciation, the wrestler effectively realigns the relational categories which structure the caste ideology. The regimen of wrestling juxtaposes sannyas ascetics to worldly nationalism. What is most intriguing about this relationship is that the ideology of wrestling accommodates the individuality of sannyas and defines for it a social role which transcends the bounds of caste. This works not because of an active protest against caste values, but because of a tacit and covert realignment of the dominant ideology’s primary coordinates. Within the scheme of wrestling the conceptual framework of caste relations is replaced by a utopian vision of national ideals. Here, as we will see in the next chapter, the individual is accorded a preeminent position as the embodiment of moral, physical, and spiritual strength. The value of individuality is thereby recast in the light of somatic reform.

In his discussion of the Chamar ideology, Khare observes that the vocation of sannyas is like “walking on the sharp edge of a sword” (1984: 68). The sannyasi must step carefully so as not to become mired in the world of sensory illusion. When wrestlers reflect on their avocation they say it is a “bitter cup” or “like chewing iron chana.” Unlike the sannyasi who steps out of the world to achieve his goal of self-realization, the wrestler takes on the world as a domain for moral action. Both walk a similar path but in different directions, in relation to different points, and with quite different consequences.