Conclusions 177Goebbels's principles of propaganda in manipulating these popular sym-
bols and sentiments to promote their political agenda. Their notorious
historical convictions and historiographical methods and their ingenious
socialization techniques and technologies are paying high dividends.
Thus the Hindu history stands corrected with the assertions that Ary-
ans were the original inhabitants of India; India's independence struggle
began 2,500 years ago; the Congress was established by the British to
perpetuate their rule in India; Hedgewar, the RSS founder, was one of
the greatest leaders of the Indian independence struggle; scores of his-
torical monuments, such as the Qutub Minar and Taj Mahal, were in fact
Hindu buildings; and so forth. In reality, however, the Hindutva history
reproduces the same logic of the colonialist history; the primordial Hindu-
Muslim conflict and the convulsions in the former discourse are portrayed
as wars in the latter. It is also not an antistatist history, as it feigns being.
This Hindutva history aims only at its propagandistic values and not at
the factual intent or historical accuracy. So the commotion and the accom-
panying emotions are the intended achievements of the Sangh Parivar,
and not scientific corroboration of any kind.^13
As Gyan Pandey points out, the Hindutva history poses as "a history
that speaks in the language and voice of the people about their most
deeply-rooted beliefs and desires"; uses the local languages; plays with
the notions of religion, culture, and politics; and effectively popularizes
its history among the people through ingenious ways.^14 They have a long
list of names and locations of Hindu temples allegedly mutilated and
converted, a brief tale of their "sad metamorphosis," and their present-
day use, which is invariably as mosques. While the national history of the
Sangh Parivar culminates in Ayodhya, their local histories also follow the
same dialectic with the same enemies all over India to entrench the desired
effects among the Hindus and to invigorate their political agenda.
Although this project has made some dent in Indian politics, there are
several social indicators, such as the voting pattern, occurrence of commu-
nal riots, and so forth that clearly suggest that the peoples of India are not
swept away completely by communal politics and that they do employ
enough political discrimination in judging the situation. However, that is
no reason to be complacent about the schemes of the Sangh Parivar.
Intervening in the Indian debate on secularism,^15 Partha Chatterjee
asserts that Western secularism and Indian secularism would inhabit com-
pletely autonomous discursive domains despite their family resemblances.
In India, the use of state legislation to achieve religious reform contradicts
the modernist principle of freedom of religion (liberty). The equality of
citizenship is also compromised by the system of religion-based personal
laws inherited from the colonial times. The separation of state and reli-
gion (neutrality) suffers the same fate, as the state is entangled in religious
affairs in many ways. So, extending the equality principle, the state could