���^�ČW:�|���c����:east & west:20:Sping/summer 2014, No.1, Volume 20 ���x

����Although these insightful analyses have shown the gendered nature of Hindu nationalism�� they do not clarify in detail how anxiety about perceived loss of manhood and virility and the compelling desire to overcome such perceived loss lies at the heart of Hindu nationalist discourse. Neither do these works explain from a rhetorical perspective how some prominent Hindu nationalist leaders created a masculine discursive space to oppose the British colonial construction of Hindu men as being effete. Additionally�� the previous works do not explicate fully the complex nature of Hindu masculinity�� which is not always a simple configuration of hegemonic masculinity that glorifies physical fitness�� strength�� and aggression.����Our essay adds to previous studies by showing that an overarching theme in Hindu nationalist discourse deals with loss of manhood and virility. Specifically�� we focus our analysis on how two major Hindu leaders�� namely Swami Vivekananda and M. S. Golwalkar sought to overcome the British colonial representation of Indian men as being effeminate by resorting to a brand of rhetoric that can be labeled as the "rhetoric of remasculinization". This rhetoric emerged to deal with the exigency of perceived loss of manliness with a view to strengthening national pride and strength. First�� we explore the "representative anecdote" (see Burke�� 1969) by which British colonial rhetoric constructed Hindu males as effeminate and argue that this anecdote functioned to construct a colonial worldview in which India's colonization was justified�� at least in part�� by the effeminate nature of Hindu men.����Next�� we show how Vivekananda and Golwalkar sought to break away from the British colonial representation of Hindus by constructing alternative views of Hindu masculinity through their own representative anecdotes. More importantly�� our essay explains how Vivekananda's notion of masculinity�� which was grounded in Hindu spiritualism�� was quite different from Golwalkar's adoption of a hypermasculinity that valorized militarism and conflict. Ultimately�� while these two influential leaders had very different approaches to masculinity�� both contribute in important ways to Hindu nationalist rhetoric of remasculinization.����We conclude our essay by showing that the rhetoric of remasculinization is not limited only to India's response to colonization. On the contrary�� one finds similar kinds of rhetorical responses by other colonized nations or cultures that were dominated by the Western powers. We suggest that paying attention to the influence of the hyper-masculine�� militant representative anecdotes�� like those used by Golwalkar�� may help us better understand contemporary nationalist movements and related incidents of violence and civil unrest.��������