Introduction 5Much has been written about the structural resemblance between the
Sangh Parivar and the Fascist and Nazi groups of Europe. The idea of
unifying the majority community under a homogenized concept ("the
Hindus"), fostering grievances over the past "injustices" perpetrated by a
specific minority group (Muslims), nurturing a sense of cultural superior-
ity over the concerned minority, basing popular appeal not on dreams but
upon hatred, being "all things to all people," thriving on the class support
of the petit bourgeoisie, being ambivalent about capitalism, reinterpreting
history favorably, rejecting contrary evidence and rational discourses out-
rightly, inciting violent sentiments among the "homogenous" community
through cunning provocations, and carrying out actual violence against
the minority community are some of the comparative aspects convinc-
ingly demonstrated by scholars.^3
The Hindutva coupling of communalism and nationalism resembles
Hitler's combining Aryan racism and German nationalism.^4 As the Fas-
cists in Italy did, the Hindutva forces penetrated the administration and
police and used religion as a convenient myth. The Fascists left no stone
unturned, as Mussolini himself acknowledged: "We play the lire [sic] on
all its strings from violence to religion, from art to politics."^5 Likewise, the
Machiavellian Sangh Parivar believes in the doctrine of the end justifying
the means and glorifies this strategy as Krishnaneeti.^6 Above all, the RSS
leader, M.S. Golwalkar, who once pointed out that "it is significant that
every Hindu god is armed,"^7 was a great admirer of Hitler and wrote a
booklet during the Second World War expressing his admiration.^8
There may be scholars who believe that this is a far-fetched comparison.
Of course, communalism as such may not qualify as full-fledged fascism,
and the prospect of having a fascist rule in democratic India may not be
especially great; however, taking consolation from the fluctuating electoral
fortunes of the BJP is clearly a misplaced notion. It is particularly so given
the careful organization of the Hindutva cultural logic, the slow but steady
growth they have achieved over the past seven decades, and the negligible
organized resistance to it. The fact that Hindutva forces have produced and
planted in the minds of some people what Gyanendra Pandey calls "the
new Hindu history" itself is proof of their creeping influence.
Building upon the basic precepts of this "new Hindu history of Ayod-
hya,"^9 we can discern a larger national scheme with clear themes. First,
as a communal interpretation of history, it holds that Hindus and Mus-
lims are distinct sociopolitical entities and are not integrated into cohesive
units at any level. The rigid framework of Us versus Them, true national-
ists versus false nationalists, or true secularists versus pseudosecularists
sets the confrontational mode of the content, tone, and dissemination of
Hindutva history. Religion and culture on the one hand and ideology and
politics on the other are often transposed, transmuted, and submerged
on the terrain of history, giving rise to mythological rhetoric and political
convulsions.