The social base of the Hindutva politics has broadly consisted of the trading classes, remnants of the feudal classes and the sadhus. In recent tears, it has broadened its social base extensively with the rapid expansion in its ranks of the new recruits of the middle classes who are rapidly in the transition from caste to class. Moreover it is a class that is committed to an unfettered growth of consumer capitalism and to a strong state that could manage the political crisis of the country and the economic discontents arising out of it.

Arun Shourie represents this articulate section which offers a fractured vision for the country- the commitment to a completely Western imposed type of liberalization (and not necessarily modernization) and on opposite cultural recoil of turning back to an imagined past and a chauvinistic concept of Hinduism. The increasing political space occupied by the Right since the 1980s and the gradual shifting of the weakly secular- centrist formation to the Right culminating in the wanton destruction of the Babri Masjid has given a new confidence and fillip to to this section.

Contemporary Hindutva bases itself on the distinction between the civilized (Hindu) and the barbaric (Muslim). It thereby casts itself in the role of the missionary and the Muslim as equivalent of the white man's burden. It seeks to discipline and control the barbaric coercion- and as Shourie forcefully argues in the book under review- through the unbridled coercive power of the state. The distinction between the two is sought to be captured at the popular level by appeals to common sense- evident by the stress on "specifics". The empiricism of facts is sought to lay bare simple, evident fallacies on the part of the other (secular as opposed to the Hindutva). But common sense, as Gramsci pointed out, is a site for multiple identities. The inherently unstable character of common sense based on different affiliations makes it difficult for identity based movements like the Hindutva one to appropriate it- consider the present backward class- lower caste assertion specially in UP.

According to Shourie the three specifics issues that dominate the "Hindu" mind are: the Muslim Personal Law, the Muslim infiltration from Bangladesh into India and article 370 on Kashmir. The common villain in all the three is perceived to be the "barbaric" Muslim. To provide an ideological umbrella for these accusations the author turns to seek the legitimacy to history and national leaders in defense of his views. What follows the choice of the three "specifics" is the virtual bombardment of facts and figures, all presented to drive home the message of the Islamic "danger", the need for Hindus to get rid of the secular and liberal leadership and finally the empowerment of the state apparatus to serve the needs of the strongly militaristic Hindutva. In this regard, the author has no qualms about his admiration for the military apparatus of Pakistan and his contempt for democracy in India.

He states: "In many ways…it (Pakistan) holds a lesson for us… Inspite of the turmoil and uncertainties which have bedeviled Pakistani politics in the past few months, the operations of the ISI have continued apace… In our case, by contrast, incompetence of the politicians directly impairs the work…" (page 188).

So much for Paki bashing !

Being more of the more sophisticated faces of contemporary Hindutva, the author has the capacity to look beyond Golwalkar and Hedgewar. So, we are presented with a host of quotations from Vivekanand, Aurobindo and Gandhi "elucidating" their views in regard to relations between Hindus and Muslims. Obviously all of them seem to mouth Shourie. It is not enough to state that the statements attributed to the three important national leaders are selective. The three have to be seen in their historical context.

All the three personages belong to the late 19^th- early 20^th century which was the period of nascent nationalistic arousal as well as Hindu cultural awakening, which, however, unlike the cultural awakening of the late 18^th- early 19^th century was not critical but revivalist. Though its political discourse was sharper it was not as clear or consistent as that of the leaders of the post 1920 upsurges. Vivekananda represented a break, but an incomplete one from obscurantism- a break that was carried to its logical end by his brother Bhupendranath Dutta with his turn to Marxism. Aurobindo was a contradictory character who, after the failure and subsequent disillusionment with his early revolutionary politics retreated into spiritualism and philosophical idealism.

Gandhi, too, could never abandon the ritualistic aspects of his outlook even as he matured and turned radical in his political outlook.

After bringing in these historical personages to his limp defense, the author turns directly to the "specifics" discussed above. Evidently the fundamental developments in the 1930s which contributed so much for the radicalization of the national movement is not even considered to be worth mentioning. After all, quoting Bhagat Singh or Jawaharlal Nehru will demolish the self- effacing image of the Hindu monolith.

As if finally baring its fangs, Shourie devotes one complete chapter to the eulogization of the Brahmin. He thus spares one the labor of trying to prove that the Hindutva movement is not only a communal one, but is intrinsically an upper caste formation. How far the Hindutva leadership can cling on to its upper caste nature so essential to its survival remains an open question. Right now, it is the OBC- Dalit movement under the indubitable Mulayam Singh that seems to be setting the secular agenda for the nation.