This dictum of Hindutva is, however, ahistorical. It goes against Indian history, tradition and culture. Indian culture does not represent one single culture. Instead, it is syncretic in nature. It is a synthesis of such cultural strands as Persian, Greek, Parthian, Scythian, Hinduism, Islam, Christianity and Zoroastrianism. All the masterpieces in Indian art and architecture reflect this syncretism. In Gandhara Art we find strong Greek influence. The architectural creations in the Sultanate and Mughal periods - including the Taj Mahal - are the products of Indo-Islamic architectural style which is essentially a combination of Turko-Iranian and traditional Hindu forms. Indian classical music was itself enriched by the contact with the Islamic world. The Bhakti movement at the all-India plain and the Baul tradition in Bengal are powerful representations of Hindu-Muslim fraternity. Still now in different parts of the country Hindu and Muslim peasants worship the same gods and goddesses either for good harvest or to escape from natural calamities. Muslim artisans used to build the wheels of chariots for Lord Jagannath in Puri; the Satima Mela in Nadia still reflects the syncretic tradition of Indian culture at the popular level. In fact, by incorporating many non-Islamic local rituals and customs Islam in India has acquired a character which is quite different from Islam in other parts of the world. Contact between the East and West during the British rule was also crucial in shaping the face of the modern India. By spreading the message of Hindutva the Sangh Parivar is trying to develop cracks in the eclectic tradition of Indian culture and prepare the ground for the operation of Hindu fascist forces. We need to confront this move politically and ideologically and save the integrity of the nation and the secular credentials of our polity.

The theory of Hindutva is also wrong in presenting a homogenous face of Hindu religion. In Hinduism have been incorporated diverse practices, rituals and cults. Even the goddess Durga is not worshipped in the same manner in all parts of the country. Hinduism does not have a rigid structure. It has neither an organized church nor a single text. What is presented as Hindutva is essentially a particular Brahminical version of Hinduism which is not always practiced either by the lower social order or even in the same manner all over India.

Besides, the ideology of Hindutva falls back on the colonial stereotype of visualising the Indian society not as a single society, but as a society of societies. In such an understanding religion is considered as the primary reference point of identity. History, however, shows that although the call of religion could be a temporary mobilising force but in the long run class interests determine the course of history. After all, can the interests of Hindu peasants and Muslim peasants or of Hindu workers and Muslim workers be fundamentally different? Is'nt it true that a Hindu landlord exploits Hindu tenants with the same cruelty as a Muslim landlord represses the Muslim tenants? Similarly, a Hindu capitalist would not hesitate to exploit Hindu labourers in the same manner, as a Muslim industrialist would have an exploitative relationship with the Muslim working class. By emphasising religion as the major determinant of social identity, the notion of Hindutva thus presents a fragmented picture of Indian society and seeks to prepared the ground for the operation of fascist Hindu revivalist politics.