The duo's reaction to the attacks on Christians since 1998, to the
Staines' murder, and to the Gujarat pogrom revealed them in their
true colours. Their recent statements on Savarkar and Hindutva dispel
all doubt.

The contrasting styles explain why people were deceived for so long.
Advani was forthright but adroit. Vajpayee was cleverly ambiguous.
The message was identical - they are Savarkar's Hindutvaites.

Vajpayee praised Savarkar while releasing a book on Bhagat Singh who
broke with his mentor, Lala Lajpat Rai, on Hindu communalism. On
March 27, he said that "when Swami Vivekananda speaks of Hindutva,
nobody can call him a communalist". But some "defined Hindutva in
such a manner that it is better to keep a distance from it".

The truth, of course, is that Swami Vivekananda did not speak of
Hindutva but of the profundities of Hinduism. It was V.D. Savarkar
who coined the word Hindutva in 1923 to propagate a cult of hate.
Hinduism is noble and ancient. It teaches man the very technique of
Self-Realisation. Hindutva is modern and ignoble. It debases man by
arousing his worst emotions, hatred and fear.

Vajpayee tried once again to square the circle on May 6 saying, "I
accept the Hindutva of Swami Vivekananda. But the kind of Hindutva
being propagated now is wrong and one should be wary of it." This
style is typical of the man. Vajpayee knows that Vivekananda never
spoke of Hindutva. He distances himself from Hindutva without
repudiating it and falsely attributes the ideology to Vivekananda.

Advani bared his outlook and style at Port Blair on May 4. "There is
no reason to feel shy of Hindutva, propounded at great length by Veer
Savarkar. It's an all-encompassing ideology with its roots in the
country's heritage." Not for him the gloss of Vivekananda. "We must
remember that the pioneers of Hindutva like Veer Savarkar and RSS
founder Hedgewar kindled fierce, nationalistic spirit that
contributed to India's liberation." In a dig at Vajpayee he asserted:
"There is no need to redefine Hindutva." Its propagation in Gujarat
did not create an atmosphere of mistrust which led to the carnage.
"Our views on Hindutva are held against us as if we have done
something terrible."

That, the BJP has. It is set to do much worse. It is re-writing
history to depict the RSS, a rabidly communal force which opposed the
freedom movement and supported the British during the Quit India
movement, as nationalists. It is determined to use State power to
change the moral and intellectual climate of India.

As Dr B.R. Purohit's work Hindu Revivalism and Indian Nationalism
ably points out, "With the growth of Mahasabha and RSS ideologies, a
new current of nationalism - the Hindu Nationalism - grew powerful in
the country. Hindu nationalism, instead of supplementing the forces
of Indian nationalism, tried even to supplant it. The opposition of
Indian nationalism by 'Hindu Rashtravad' was detrimental to the
steady growth of the formerŠ The two nationalisms, as Dr Beni Prasad
puts it - the Hindu and the Indian - were fundamentally in opposition
to each other with respect to their ideals."

In his pamphlet Hindutva: Who is a Hindu? published in 1923, Savarkar
emphasised that "Hindutva is not identical with what is vaguely
indicated by the term Hinduism". There is "a clear line of
demarcation between the two Š Hindutva is not identical with Hindu
Dharma; nor is Hindu Dharma identical with Hinduism."

Its publishers, S.S. Savarkar wrote in the preface: "Veer Savarkar
had to coin some new words such as 'Hindutva'Š" Vajpayee has said
that RSS supremo M.S. Golwalkar's We Or Our Nationhood Defined (1938)
was "withdrawn". Golwalkar acknowledged that Savarkar's book Rashtra
Meemansa was "one of my chief sources of inspiration". An application
by the RSS to the district judge, Nagpur, signed by Rajendra Singh
and Bhaurao Deoras in 1978, criticised Gandhi and the Congress and
swore by the book We (Para 10) as well as Golwalkar's Bunch of
Thoughts (Para 7). The latter rejects "Territorial Nationalism"
(Chapter X), espouses "Cultural Nationalism" and brands (Ch. XII)
Muslims, Christians and communists as "Internal Threats".

The BJP's founder, S.P. Mookerjee, was finance minister in the League
ministry headed by Fazlul Haq ("loyalty to my leader"). His party was
also in coalition with the League in Sind. Mookerjee advised the
governor "how to combat this 'Quit India' movement in Bengal".
Savarkar himself wrote abject apologies and assurances to the British.

Morarji Desai was no devotee of the Nehru family. In February 1979,
he declared the jail complex in Port Blair a national memorial but
studiously ignored Savarkar. Why?

He had, as home minister of Bombay, assigned his police and his
advocate-general, the celebrated C.K. Daphtary, to the prosecution
inter alia of Savarkar in the Gandhi murder conspiracy case. Asked by
Savarkar's lawyer, L.B. Bhopatkar, on August 24, 1948: "Did you have
any other information about Savarkar besides Prof. Jain's statement
for directing steps to be taken as regards him?", Desai replied:
"Shall I give the full facts?" The question was swiftly withdrawn.

Savarkar was acquitted only because the approver, Digmber Badge's
evidence, which damned him, did not have independent corroboration as
the law requires. But Judge Atma Charan accepted Badge as a truthful
witness. "He gave his version of the facts in a direct and
straight-forward manner. He did not evade cross-examination or
attempt to evade or fence with any question." His version was that on
January 17, he went with Godse and accomplice Narayan Apte to
Savarkar's home and that he heard Savarkar, while bidding them
farewell, declaim "Yashasvi houn ya (be successful and come)". On the
way back, Apte told Badge that Savarkar had predicted that
"Gandhiji's 100 years were over - there was no doubt that that work
would be successfully finishedŠ"

If a person charged with conspiracy to murder one's friend is
acquitted on a similar ground, would one shake hands with him? Gandhi
was no ordinary mortal. Godse hailed Savarkar in the court as the
"most faithful advocate of the Hindu cause". The BJP's election
manifestoes of 1996 and 1998 extolled Hindutva and Vajpayee and
Advani have high praise for its author, Savarkar. Vivekananda would
have despised him and his Hindutva.

In a perceptive essay entitled Swami Vivekananda's Construction of
Hinduism, Prof Tapan Raychaudhuri, Emeritus Professorial Fellow, St.
Antony's College, Oxford, recalled that "he was among the earliest
nationalist thinkers to claim the Indo-Islamic past as part of the
Indian heritage". He noted with disgust that "the VHP has the
audacity to claim him as their own". The scholar remarked, "It is
difficult to imagine him as the ideological ancestor of people who
incite the ignorant to destroy other people's places of worship in a
revanchist spirit."