By V.A. Mohamad Ashrof
The convergence of Christian-Jewish-Zionist extremism, European neo-Nazism, and Hindutva ideologies — aided by arms lobbies and imperialist interests — has contributed to a global climate of war hysteria, racism, blasphemy, and social unrest. This paper examines the historical and political foundations of the Hindutva-Zionist nexus, exploring its impact on India’s political trajectory.
Nationalism and Religious Supremacy: A Path to Fascism
The fusion of racial, cultural, and religious supremacy with nationalist politics has historically led to oppressive regimes. Fascism’s rise in Italy under Benito Mussolini (1922-1944) and Nazi rule in Germany under Adolf Hitler (1933-1945) serve as stark reminders. Similar patterns are visible in various regimes, such as the Han Dynasty’s exclusionary politics in China, Hutu extremism in Rwanda, white supremacy in America, and neo-Nazi movements in Central and Eastern Europe. These ideologies typically scapegoat minorities as a means of consolidating power.
Islam and Muslims, as vocal opponents of Zionism, have become primary targets for both Zionist and Hindutva ideologues. This shared animosity has fostered ideological alignment between these forces.
India’s Shift from Secularism to Zionist Alignment
Historically, India stood as a staunch supporter of the Palestinian liberation struggle, grounded in its secular and anti-colonial values championed by Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru. Unlike Pakistan’s largely symbolic and religiously driven support for Palestine, India’s stance was rooted in genuine anti-imperialist principles, as observed by political thinker Aijaz Ahmed in the 1960s and 1970s.1
However, with the rise of Hindutva ideologies, India has increasingly distanced itself from its pro-Palestinian position and aligned itself with Zionist-Israeli interests. This ideological shift is deeply tied to the internal political transformation of India, where fascist social policies and divisive organizations have gained prominence.
The erosion of India’s commitment to human rights reflects this change. Mainstream media narratives now often depict human rights concerns as mere propaganda tools used by extremists. This distortion not only undermines the sanctity of human rights but also threatens the core values of human dignity and cultural inclusivity.
Hindutva: A Fascist Ideology in Practice
Hindutva, a political philosophy distinct from the spiritual and pluralistic traditions of Hinduism, seeks to impose a Brahminical cultural code that excludes India’s rich cultural diversity. It advocates for a hierarchical social order dominated by upper-caste elites, marginalizes minorities, and undermines equal citizenship.
The Hindu Mahasabha (founded in 1915) and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS, founded in 1925) played no role in India’s anti-colonial movement. Instead, these groups functioned as incubators of right-wing extremism, fixated on positioning Muslims and Christians as subordinate communities. Notably, Nathuram Vinayak Godse (1910-1949), an RSS-affiliated extremist, assassinated Mahatma Gandhi in 1948, a tragic consequence of such ideological extremism.
Nanaji Deshmukh (1916-2010), a prominent RSS leader, openly admitted that the RSS had no involvement in India’s anti-British resistance.2 Furthermore, M.S. Golwalkar (1906-1973), the ideological architect of Hindutva, rejected the notion that opposition to British colonialism equated to patriotism, branding it a counter-revolutionary idea.3
During the historic Quit India Movement of 1942 — a mass uprising that united Hindus, Muslims, Christians, and Sikhs in defiance of British rule — Hindutva forces collaborated with colonial authorities and engaged in acts of violence against nationalists.
Jawaharlal Nehru accurately recognized the Hindu Mahasabha’s subversive tendencies, warning that “organizations including the Hindu Mahasabha are communal, seditious, and reactionary.”4
The Rise of the Sangh and its Fascist Agenda
The Sangh forces, which held minimal political influence until the 1980s, gained traction when the Congress Party shifted away from socialism, embraced neoliberalism, and increasingly exploited religious sentiments for political advantage. This political vacuum allowed the Sangh to expand with the backing of communal elements within the bureaucracy. Today, with the support of over 20,000 Vidya Bharati schools and 30,000 branches, and with significant influence over the police, intelligence agencies, and bureaucratic apparatus, the Sangh is rapidly promoting fascist tendencies in the country.
From its inception, the Sangh harbored fascist ambitions. Historian Marzia Casolari has shown, based on archival documents, that one of the Sangh’s founding leaders, B.S. Moonje, visited Italy and held discussions with Mussolini’s regime.5
Sangh leaders have been transparent about their goals. For example, M.S. Golwalkar wrote that non-Hindus in India should adopt Hindu culture and language, glorify the Hindu race and culture, and live without citizenship in a Hindu Rashtra.6 He further stated:
“The main issue today is the resurgence of German nationalism. Germany shocked the world by excluding the Jewish-Semitic section to maintain the purity and culture of the nation. It was a high expression of patriotism. Germany proves that different races and cultures cannot be assimilated into a single unit. We have lessons to learn from this.” 7
This statement reveals Hindutva’s rejection of India’s pluralistic cultural fabric. Instead of embracing the rich diversity and tolerance inherent in Hinduism, Hindutva defines itself by vilifying perceived enemies.
The Anthropological Survey of India’s People of India study underscores the nation’s diverse cultural mosaic, identifying over 4,000 distinct communities with shared characteristics across religious and linguistic lines. The study highlighted that Hindus and Muslims share 95% of their cultural traits, while no community in India is purely indigenous or foreign. These findings directly challenge Hindutva’s exclusionary narrative.
Zionism and Hindutva: A Shared Ideology
Zionism shares ideological similarities with Hindutva in its emphasis on racial superiority. Former Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion justified Jewish exceptionalism by claiming: “The secret of our survival is moral and cultural superiority.” 8
Zionism, a racist ideology that promotes hatred and enmity towards Palestinians, has manipulated religious texts such as the Bible to justify the colonization of indigenous Palestinian lands.
Zionism has historically aligned itself with oppressive regimes and violent extremist groups across the globe. It has fostered relationships with apartheid South Africa under Botha, Mobutu’s dictatorship in Zaire, death squads in El Salvador, Lebanese Phalangists, and Colombian right-wing paramilitaries. Zionism’s embrace of Hindutva reflects this pattern of alliances with supremacist movements.
American imperialism, which praises Israel as a “democracy-loving” nation despite its racial apartheid policies, contradicts the principles of pluralism and equality.
Jewish historians have revealed that during the Nazi era, Zionist leaders prioritized establishing a Jewish ethnic state over rescuing Jewish lives from persecution.9 This approach intensified Palestinian displacement and prolonged regional instability.
Today, approximately 1.2 million Palestinians living within Israel and 3.25 million under Israeli occupation face systemic apartheid. Palestinians endure severe discrimination in housing, employment, education, access to energy, and social services. Zionist narratives perpetuate the notion that Palestinians are not only second-class citizens but also inferior human beings.
Until 1990, India maintained a principled stance, supporting the displaced Palestinian people and opposing Zionist aggression. However, much like the Sangh rulers of Gujarat and Orissa, the Israeli regime has demonstrated its extreme communalism by pardoning terrorist groups responsible for violence against Palestinian civilians in the 1980s. 10
The Rising Hindutva-Zionist Front
Hindutva-Zionist ideologies have historically aligned themselves with imperialist powers. For example, the Vajpayee regime openly supported the 1998 U.S. missile strikes on Sudan and Afghanistan, which were claimed to be retaliation for the U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. Similarly, M.S. Golwalkar unwaveringly supported the U.S. invasion of Vietnam, while Sangh leaders like Sudarshan later endorsed the American-led invasions of Iraq starting in 1991, reflecting their consistent imperialist alignment.
The British and American imperialists played a significant role in facilitating the establishment of Israel in 1948. Both Zionism and Hindutva exploit religious nationalism to divide societies and manipulate public opinion.
The U.S.-based branches of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and its student wing, the Hindu Students Council (HSC), have grown influential in American political lobbying since 1992. These groups align with rising Islamophobic forces in the West, particularly in the United States. In 2009, Colonel Prasad Purohit, an army officer arrested by India’s Anti-Terrorism Squad, confessed to having ties with Israel’s Mossad. The Indian Express reported significant Mossad ideological influence on Bajrang Dal cadres and leaders.11
Zionism rejects defined territorial boundaries for Israel, just as Hindutva ideologues define Bharat Mata as extending from Iran in the west to Singapore in the east, with Sri Lanka as its sacred foothold.12
Both ideologies employ state terrorism tactics, targeting innocent civilians and resorting to oppressive measures. Their shared commitment to aggression and violence underscores their ideological alignment.
When Hindu Unity.org, a platform notorious for spreading anti-Muslim and anti-secular propaganda, faced closure, its entire archive was transferred to the Kahane Group — a radical Zionist organization known for inciting communal hatred against Arabs. The Kahane Group operates in both the United States and Israel. Consequently, Hindu Unity.org and Kahane.org are now hosted on Israeli servers.
The Freeman Center, a U.S.-based Zionist organization linked to figures like Ariel Sharon — who faced legal scrutiny in Belgium and Lebanon for the Sabra-Shatila massacre (1982) — maintains ties to extremist ideologues. Aurobindo Ghosh, described by the Freeman Center as a “Hindu historian and publisher,” has been involved in promoting Islamophobic narratives, portraying Muslims as inherently violent in the Indian subcontinent.13
Beginning of Diplomatic Relations
Zionism, born from racial superiority narratives, faced sharp criticism from Indian leaders like Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru. However, India’s subsequent foreign policy shifted dramatically, fostering stronger ties with Israel. This shift was part of a broader India-U.S.-Israel strategic alignment, bolstered by groups like the India-American Political Action Committee, the Hindu American Foundation (HAF), and the VHPA. These organizations actively coordinate with arms lobbies and maintain clandestine ties with Christian-Jewish Zionist factions.
This ideological alliance thrives on exploiting narratives of “Islamic terrorism” to manufacture fear and justify cultural racism. By consistently depicting South Asian, Arab, and Palestinian communities as security threats, these forces promote discrimination, humiliation, and unjust profiling — even targeting high-ranking officials and ordinary travellers alike. Media bias fuels these stereotypes, normalizing cultural racism and reinforcing the alienation of minority groups.
Shockingly, many participants in this divisive agenda unknowingly support these ethnic-nationalist forces, undermining social unity in the process. The deliberate efforts by powerful elites to spread hatred continue to fracture communal harmony.
Trade relations between India and Israel have mirrored this ideological shift. Non-arms trade between the two nations reached $1.27 billion in 2002 — a six-fold increase from the previous decade — making India Israel’s second-largest trading partner.
The Shifting Dynamics of India-Palestine Relations
As a reflection of India’s changing geopolitical stance, Palestinian leaders who once maintained a permanent diplomatic presence in Delhi have been replaced by Israeli military officials. India, which once stood alongside Palestinians in their anti-colonial struggle, has increasingly aligned itself with Israeli colonial ambitions through imperialist alliances. This shift contradicts the ideals of Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, raising concerns about India’s retreat from its traditional moral leadership.
Mahatma Gandhi famously declared that “Palestine belongs to the Arabs as England belongs to the English.”14 Yet since 2001, both India and Israel have pursued a joint strategy against so-called “Islamic terrorism.” A 2009 Israeli Foreign Ministry survey revealed that India had become the second most pro-Israel country in the world, after the United States.
India’s historical position was markedly different. In 1949, India voted against granting Israel membership in the United Nations. In 1975, India supported UN Resolution 3379, which equated Zionism with racism. In 1988, India recognized the State of Palestine and permitted its embassy to operate in New Delhi. As political analyst Vijay Prashad notes, the period from 1947 to 1988 was a “spring of India-Arab relations.”15
Today, however, India is one of Israel’s largest arms buyers, purchasing nearly half of its arms exports.16 Intelligence cooperation between India’s Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) and Israel’s Mossad has been increasing, with both agencies working to counter “Islamic terrorism.”17 This growing alliance is reinforced by the ideological dominance of Hindutva and Zionist factions, both of which aim to marginalize Muslim communities.18
The roots of this diplomatic shift can be traced back to September 17, 1950, when the Indian government, under bureaucratic Hindutva influence, formally recognized Israel. In 1977, when L.K. Advani served as External Affairs Minister during the Janata government, then-Israeli Foreign Minister Moshe Dayan secretly visited India, signalling deeper ties.
India’s retreat from its longstanding policies of non-alignment, peaceful coexistence, anti-war advocacy, nuclear disarmament, and poverty eradication began to accelerate in the early 1990s. In 1991, U.S. warplanes en route to attack Iraq were allowed to refuel in Mumbai, further demonstrating India’s shift towards Western and Israeli alliances. Evidence suggests that intelligence cooperation between RAW and Mossad began as early as the 1970s.
P.V. Narasimha Rao’s government, which leaned towards Hindutva ideologies, formalized full diplomatic relations with Israel in January 1992. The subsequent BJP government strengthened these ties, with the arms lobby and communal fascists justifying extensive Israeli arms purchases by invoking “Islamophobia.” The BJP government’s policies in 1997 transformed India into Israel’s primary arms customer.19
In September 2003, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon visited India as a guest of the BJP government, marking a significant moment in India-Israel relations. During this visit, Sharon aligned his ideology with Hindutva forces, suggesting their shared hostility toward perceived “Islamic threats.” Meanwhile, the Immigration Office in Mumbai, which had operated for over two decades, became increasingly influenced by Sangh ideologues during this period.
Savarkar: The Embodiment of Hindutva Zionism
On February 26, 2003, then-President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam unveiled a portrait of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar in the Parliament Hall. About ten months earlier, on May 4, 2002, Deputy Prime Minister L.K. Advani had named the Port Blair airport in the Andamans after Veer Savarkar. It is significant to note that Savarkar, an accused in the Gandhi assassination case, was thus honoured.
Savarkar was a self-proclaimed agnostic or atheist, resembling Theodor Herzl, the founder of the Zionist movement.21 Like Herzl, Savarkar viewed Hinduism not as a purely religious identity but as a cultural and political construct. Herzl similarly conceptualized Judaism in this manner.
Savarkar portrayed Muslims and Christians as un-Indian and foreign, arguing that their reverence for Mecca and Jerusalem alienated them from India’s national identity. He extended this exclusion to Parsis and Communists as well.
In his early years, Savarkar (1883–1966) advocated Hindu-Muslim unity and was a freedom fighter. He wrote The First War of Indian Independence in 1909, a significant work on the 1857 uprising.22 However, Savarkar later aligned himself with British imperialism, a fact often overlooked. During his imprisonment in the Andamans in 1910, Savarkar submitted mercy petitions to the British government in 1911 and 1913. In a letter to Sir Reginald Craddock on November 14, 1913, Savarkar wrote:
“If the British government, in its mercy, pardons me and releases me, I will serve as a faithful servant of the English Government… Moreover, my conversion to legal profession may be an incentive to the conversion of many misguided people who consider me a leader. Only the strong can show mercy; Therefore, this wayward son should be allowed to enter the government’s door of righteousness.” 23
In August 1938, Savarkar addressed an audience of about 20,000 in Pune, declaring that Germany had the right to implement Nazism and Italy had the right to adopt Fascism.24 In October 1939, Savarkar met with Lord Linlithgow, affirming that the Hindu Mahasabha’s sole objective was to secure India’s status as a dominion under Britain, pledging full cooperation with the British. As a practical measure, Savarkar opposed the Quit India movement in 1942, urging Hindus in government positions to abandon the struggle and fulfil their official duties.25
Savarkar argued that Muslims who revered Mecca as a holy land could not be loyal to India,26 and maintained that only those who considered India as both their “fatherland” and “holy land” could be regarded as Hindus.27 He openly supported the two-nation theory, insisting that Hindus and Muslims were two distinct nations due to historical factors.28
Mahatma Gandhi, aware of Savarkar’s shift toward British loyalty, remarked in Young India:
“The Savarkar brothers have unequivocally declared that they do not want to declare independence from the British; instead, they believe that India’s fate can be decided in conjunction with Britain.” 29
While imprisoned in the Andamans, Savarkar actively supported the “purification” of those who had converted to other religions, urging their reconversion to Hinduism.30
In 1923, while in Ratnagiri, Savarkar wrote his seminal work Hindutva. Emphasizing social unity and Hindu patriotism, he incorporated Jainism, Sikhism, and Buddhism within the Hindu identity due to their Indian origins. “The Aryans who have taken root in India since the beginning of history have today become Hindus,” Savarkar claimed.31
After reading Hindutva, RSS founder K.B. Hedgewar collaborated with Savarkar and founded the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) in 1925. The RSS’s emphasis on cultural nationalism upheld upper-caste Hindu values, aligning with Brahminical ideals.
In a statement issued on December 19, 1947, Savarkar expressed his support for the creation of a Jewish state and asserted that the Zionist goal would be complete only when all of Palestine belonged to the Jews. He criticized India’s vote against the formation of Israel, calling it an act of “Muslim appeasement.”32
Those who see contradiction in Savarkar’s view, who expressed his affinity for Nazism and Zionism alike, do not really understand the nature of racism. Zionists are those who supported Hitler’s extermination of the Jews to make Israel the sole refuge of the Jews. Hindutva has never hesitated to create communal conflict by sacrificing Dalit and backward people. Nazis and Hindutva do not sincerely love or serve Jews or Hindus.
As early as 1908, the idea of Israel as the birthplace of the Jews had taken root in Savarkar.33 As this idea strengthened in his mind, the alienation of Muslims also began. In his work Hindutva, Savarkar wrote: “If the Zionist dream is realized, Palestine will become a Jewish state; that will make us as happy as our Jewish friends.”34
When Israel was formed in 1948, Savarkar said: “I am happy that most of the four countries have given the Jewish people the right to establish a Jewish state of their own in Palestine and have provided them with arms for that.”35
Criticizing Nehru in harsh language for not cooperating with Israel, Savarkar warned: “If there is an India-Pakistan war, almost all Muslims will side with Pakistan against us; their enemy, Israel, will be our only friend then.”36
Strongly extolling the Zionist narrative, Savarkar reminded: “Palestine was the Jewish homeland at least two millennia before the birth of the Muslim prophet.”37
The Truth of Historical Narrative
Even if Palestine is the land that Savarkar bequeathed to the descendants of Abraham, the European Jews, who constitute the majority of the Jews living in Israel today, cannot claim it. The origin of European Jews was Khazaria, which was spread over Ukraine and Russia; they converted to Judaism in the 8th century. Zionism has a racist view that the indigenous Palestinians who have lived there for centuries have no history, ignoring all evidence. However, many Israeli historians and archaeologists have published studies that prove that ancient Israel is a myth.38
By hiding the history and culture of the Palestinians, Zionism portrays them as backward, irrational, fanatical, violent, and untrustworthy.
While numerous courses are offered in the United States, Israel, and Europe that justify the expansion of ancient history in the Judeo-Christian fundamentalist view of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), there are few courses on the idea of ancient Israel in a secular context under the subject of history. By giving biblical names to archaeological sites, the centuries-old reality of Palestine is being uprooted.
Similar historical distortions are the trump card of Hindutva. Following the first freedom struggle of 1857, Muslims were banned from the army and the upper caste Hindus were appeased by the British as part of a plan to wipe out the forces of the Mughal tradition.
Moreover, as part of the policy of divide and rule through historical narrative, the British imperialist government laid the foundation for the two-nation theory by cultivating Hindu-Muslim communal nationalists and deliberately tried to force the partition of India.
The basic aim of Hindutva historiography is to link the actions of Muslim kings and sultans with Islam and to hold Muslims accountable, thereby fostering a thirst for revenge against them. This is also the methodology adopted by Orientalist historians. This proves that Hindutva is a reinterpretation of the colonial-oriental historical perception. The neo-colonial forces that have adopted the political goals of the colonial rulers are behind Hindutva.
In 1983, British historian James Mill divided history into Hindu phases, Muslim phases, and British phases. This is the perspective from which Hindutva ideologues view history. History should actually be divided into ancient, medieval, and modern periods. The division of Indian history into the glorious Hindu past, the brutal Muslim period, and the British period in order to divide and rule provides strong evidence of Hindutva’s imperialist servitude.
There are no monolithic Muslims or Hindus in India. The majority of Muslims are Hindu converts. In addition to Hindus, Muslim heritage includes Arabs, Turks, Afghans, and Mongols.
Savarkar must have known that it was impossible to classify Vedic-Buddhist-Jain-Shakta-Tantrika-Lingayat sects together as Hindus. Savarkar had British support to inflame religious Hindu-Muslim nationalism.
Buddhism was dominant in India from the 6th century BCE to the 10th century CE. A strong Brahmin revival can be seen from the 8th to the 10th century. As a result, Buddhist-Jain genocide also spread in India. The argument that Buddhism is a part of Hinduism is historically meaningless.
Hindutva and colonialists have constructed ancient India by making the presence of Dalits and backward people invisible. Muslims are portrayed as villains who destroyed the great ancient Indian culture.
The Vedic interpretation of the Indus Valley civilization is also in the interest of the Hindutva ideological project. Even Gujarati Hindus have the heritage of the Gurjars of Central Asia who came under the wing of the Huns. Most Rajputs are descended from the Huns who invaded the Gupta Empire in the 4th century.
The Vedic people were invaders from Khwarizmi about three and a half millennia ago. Those who give the Vedic seal to some other groups ignore this.
The Helmand River in Afghanistan is known as Harkavat in ancient Persian records and as the Saraswati River in Indian myths. This also suggests the foreignness of the ancient priests. It also raises the interesting possibility that Mullah Omar and Praveen Togadia may have descended from a single ancestor.
For Hindus, anything ancient and great is Hindu; anything corrupts and undesirable is foreign. The ‘Karsevak archaeology’ that developed in connection with the Ram temple and the Zionist investigation of the temple of Solomon are advancing with the aim of turning other peoples into aliens and enemies. Social engineering to suppress the marginalized masses using state power motivates Hindutva and Zionism alike.
Advani’s Rath Yatra shed a river of blood in 1991, while Sharon caused bloodshed in September 2000 by announcing his plan to convert the Al-Aqsa Mosque into a Jewish temple. Both groups are extremists and terrorists who believe in racial supremacy. The Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld warlords’ plan, dubbed the War on Terror, has strengthened the unity of both racists. Both groups uphold Huntington’s theory of the clash of cultures.
Hindutva is eager to prove that the Aryans and their language are indigenous to India. They even went so far as to distort the Harappan seals on computers. This was to prove that the Aryans had a horse-riding civilization.
The founder of the Arya Samaj, Swami Dayananda Saraswati (1824-1883), argued that the Aryans originated in Tibet. Meanwhile, the Hindu nationalist Bal Gangadhar Tilak (1856-1920) saw the Aryans as originating in the Arctic. Golwalkar made a shameful attempt to reconcile the Arctic with the continental drift theory, which claimed that the Arctic was part of the Indian subcontinent and that the Arctic retreated after the Aryans arrived.
When the Turkish-Afghan invaders entered India during the Middle Ages, there were no powerful Hindu dynasties capable of mounting a unified resistance; those that existed were fragmented and embroiled in internal conflicts. For instance, Jaichand of Kannauj formed a military alliance with Muhammad Ghori against his own relative, Prithviraj Chauhan.
Hindutva ideologues, much like Zionists, are known for selectively appropriating historical narratives to serve their ideological interests. Just as Zionists claim that Jehovah granted the Holy Land of Palestine to the Jewish people, Hindutva asserts that the entire Indian subcontinent rightfully belongs exclusively to Hindus. This historical distortion aims to exclude the rich multicultural heritage of India by marginalizing the contributions of other religious and ethnic groups.
The argument for demolishing the Al-Aqsa Mosque to rebuild Solomon’s Temple mirrors the communal rhetoric employed by Hindutva forces claiming that Ayodhya was once ruled by Rama thousands of years ago. It is notable that Israeli historian Ilan Pappé has observed how both Hindutva and Zionist ideologues have reconstructed centuries-old histories to bolster contemporary nationalist narratives. (39)
While Zionism seeks to erase Palestinian history through an exaggerated focus on ancient Israel, Hindutva’s ideological project similarly seeks to erase or minimize the contributions of other socio-cultural groups by depicting ancient Hindu India as exclusively Vedic in character.
Defending Historical Narratives against Racial Interpretations
The Indian people must actively resist the attempt to normalize Zionist appeasement under the guise of patriotism. Both Hindutva and Zionism are not rooted in genuine religious devotion or national pride; rather, they function as instruments of imperialism, exploiting communalism for political power. These movements manipulate historical narratives to misrepresent the present, future, and even the past according to their ideological agenda. The Indian public must recognize that Sangh publications, which thrive on blasphemy and contempt, are actively promoting communal polarization.
The Quran warns against such divisive tactics, drawing a parallel with Pharaoh’s strategy of exploiting divisions among his subjects: “Indeed, Pharaoh exalted himself in the land and divided its people into factions, oppressing a sector among them…” (Quran 28:4). This verse underscores the dangers of fascist ideologies that thrive on humiliating and dehumanizing targeted groups.
The tragic attack carried out by Anders Behring Breivik, a 32-year-old Norwegian extremist, illustrates the global resonance of such ideologies. Breivik, like Savarkar, combined elements of neo-Nazism, Zionism, and Hindutva to justify his Islamophobic worldview. On July 22, 2011, Breivik murdered 90 innocent people in a chilling act of terror, reinforcing the dangers posed by ideologies rooted in racial supremacy and communal hatred.
The true spirit of Indian civilization lies in embracing the ideals of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam (the world is one family) and Lokame Tharavaad (the world as one’s home). Indians must reject the politics of hatred and division, and instead uphold a vision of inclusiveness, compassion, and justice that transcends communal boundaries.
Bibliography
1. Aijaz Ahmed, Israel’s Killing Fields, Frontline, Vol. 17, Issue 23, November 11, 2000
2. Nanaji Deshmukh, Victim of Slander, Vision Books: New Delhi, 1979, p. 70
3. M. S. Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts, Sahitya Sindhu: Bangalore, 1996, p. 18
4. Jawaharlal Nehru, Recent Essays and Writings, Kitabistan: Allahabad, 1934, p. 46
5. Marzia Casolari, Hindutva’s Foreign Tie-up in the 1930s – Archival Evidences, Economic and Political Weekly, January 22, 2000
6. M. S. Golwalkar, We or Our Nationhood Defined, Bharat Prakashan: Nagpur, 1938, p. 52
7. Ibid, p. 37
8. David Ben-Gurion, Israel: A Personal History, New English Library: London, 1971, p. 728
9. Yehuda Bauer, American Jewry and the Holocaust, Wayne State University Press: Detroit, 1981
10. Zeev Maoz, Defending the Holy Land, University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor, 2006, p. 257
11. Desi Mossad Getting Ready at Bajrang Dal’s Ayodhya Camp, The Indian Express, June 30, 2000
12. M. S. Golwalkar, Op. cit., p. 111
13. http://www.Freeman.org
14. Vijay Prashad, Namaste Sharon, LeftWord Books: New York, 2003, p. 12
15. Ibid, p. 18
16. Ibid, p. 63
17. Ibid, p. 72
18. Ibid, p. 25-26
19. Ninan Koshy, Under the Empire: India’s New Foreign Policy, LeftWord Books: New York, 2006, p. 155
20. Vijay Prashad, Op. cit., p. 10
21. Pramod Kumar, Towards Understanding Communalism, Centre for Research in Rural and Industrial Development: Chandigarh, 1992, p. 348
22. V. D. Savarkar, The War of Independence, Phoenix Publishers: Bombay (1909), 1947
23. R. C. Majumdar, Penal Settlement in Andamans, Publications Division: New Delhi, 1975, p. 211-214
24. Kitty Kurti, Subhas Chandra Bose as I Knew Him, Firma K. L. Mukhopadhyay: Calcutta, 1996, p. 11
25. A. G. Noorani, The Collaborators, Frontline, December 1, 1995
26. V. D. Savarkar, Hindutva, Bharat Mudranalaya: Nagpur (1923), 1949, p. 108
27. Ibid, p. 116
28. Ibid, p. 140
29. Mahatma Gandhi, The Collected Works of M. K. Gandhi, Vol. 17, Navjivan: Ahmedabad, 1944, p. 462
30. Chitra Gupta, Life of Barrister Savarkar, Hindu Mission Pustak Bhandar: New Delhi, 1939, p. 277
31. V. D. Savarkar, Ibid, p. 108
32. V. D. Savarkar, Historic Statements, G. P. Parchure: Bombay, 1967
33. Dhananjay Keer, Veer Savarkar, Popular Prakashan: Mumbai (1950), 1988, p. 467
34. V. D. Savarkar, Op. cit., p. 449
35. Koenraad Elst, The Saffron Swastika, Voice of India: New Delhi, 2001, p. 381
36. Dhananjay Keer, Op. cit., p. 499
37. Koenraad Elst, Op. cit., p. 381-382
38. Israel Finkelstein, Neil Asher Silberman, The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts, Free Press: New York, 2001
39. Ilan Pappe, The Square Circle: The Struggle for Survival of Traditional Zionism, in Nimni E (ed.), The Challenge of Post-Zionism, Zed Books: London, 2003, p. 55
V.A. Mohamad Ashrof is an independent Indian scholar specializing in Islamic humanism.
15 March 2025
Source: countercurrents.org
