Let us assume that God did not choose to send Gandhi to India and sour the Hindutva dream. Let us assume that a strong Hindu leader took charge and rekindled the dormant spirit of the Kshatriyas.

What would have happened?

Democracy was not an option, because, as per the immutable definition of the Hindutva guys, Muslims were too uncivilized and barbaric to adopt a pristine idea like democracy. The Hindutva leaders of that era, too, were not too fond of democracy, but that is a different point. The Muslims would not chosen to live under an overtly dominant Hindu government. Consequently, there would, in all probability, have been a civil war, mostly fought in Punjab, UP, Bihar, Bengal, Central Provinces, NWFP, Sind, and in parts of Bombay and Assam.

The Muslims in India then comprised 25% of the population, and the civil war would have been horrendously murderous.

India then had 11 provinces. They were Bengal, Bombay, Madras, United Provinces, Punjab, Bihar, Assam, Central Provinces and Berar, Orissa, NWFP, and Sind.

Let us assume that the Hindutva leadership had managed to either evict or subdue the Muslims where they were minorities. The Muslim-majority provinces would, in any case, not have been subdued. Punjab, Bengal, NWFP, and Sind would have either chosen to remain separate, or a partition of Bengal and Punjab would have happened, as it really did in 1947.

Let us not forget the princely states.

The major princely states in India then were Hyderabad, Mysore, Jammu and Kashmir, Gwalior, Indore, Travancore, Bhopal, Jaipur, Jodhpur, Baroda, Patiala, and Udaipur. None of these states would have joined the rump India, as it would not have given them any advantage. In fact, Travancore, Baroda, and Mysore were very efficiently run, and they would not have liked to join the mess. Hyderabad would certainly have remained separate. So would have Kashmir. Dravida Nadu would not have emerged, but a separate Tamil Nadu would have materialized.

There would not have been any Akhand Bharat. There would certainly have been a dozen or more Hindu and Muslim states constantly warring with each other.

Let me say this loudly and clearly.

The cementing forces of 20th-century British India were the Indian National Congress and Mahatma Gandhi. The Congress appealed to a broad spectrum of the Indian upper and middle classes, while Gandhi brought the Congress’s message to the masses. He constantly spoke to them about not only Hindu-Muslim unity but also unity among Hindus. He was unique in that he urged the Hindu upper castes to embrace basic human values—a stance that was, of course, anathema to some Hindus.

The Hindutva proponents certainly didn’t deserve him, but India most certainly did.

Hindutva fanatics like Mr. Sai Deepak never tire of repeating that Gandhi blunted the ‘Kshatriya’ spirit of the Hindus. His logic seems to be that if Gandhi had not been around, India would have won its independence through revolution. He also regrets the fact that India – that is, the Hindus – did not spill enough blood.

What does history say?

In the 19th century, the biggest uprising against the British took place in 1857. Mr. Sai Deepak dismisses it as a failed attempt to restore Muslim rule. But who fought side by side with the British to defeat Bahadur Shah and the sepoys? The Rajputs! Notably, prominent Rajput states like Jaipur, Udaipur, Jodhpur, and Bikaner provided assistance to the British in the form of troops, supplies, and logistical support during the war. The Maratha states like the Scindias of Gwalior and the Holkars of Indore also largely remained loyal to the British, as they had been beneficiaries of British support and preferred to maintain their privileges.

I am not even talking about the Sikhs, who had fought a fierce war against the British just eight years earlier, but still chose to side with them in 1857.

What were the other revolutionary movements against the British in the 19th century?
The Southern Rebellion in the early years of the century, the Santhal Rebellion, the Kuka Rebellion, Uyyalawada Narasimha Reddy’s rebellion, and the Bhumiji Revolt were all minor affairs that didn’t even scratch the surface of imperialism.

In the 20th century, the Jugantar and Anushilan Samiti engaged in bombings, assassinations, and armed robberies, particularly after the 1905 partition of Bengal. In the south, Vanchinathan assassinated Ashe. Then there was the Ghaddar Movement.

All these activities took place before Gandhi’s emergence as a central figure. The revolutionary activities that occurred after Gandhi took the lead were spearheaded by the Hindustan Socialist Republican Association, led by Bhagat Singh, and the Chittagong Armoury Raid by Surya Sen. Neither of these had any connection to Hindutva politics, and both had a strong communist overtone.

This leaves the Indian National Army.

Hindutva fanatics conveniently forget that Subhas Chandra Bose was the first to call Gandhi the Father of the Nation, and his “Delhi Chalo” call was dedicated to him. Bose most certainly did not want to establish a Hindu Raj. Forty percent of his army comprised Muslims.

Now, how many soldiers fought in the Indian National Army in the Imphal and Kohima campaigns led by the Japanese imperial forces? Around 20,000. On the other hand, the Indian Army during the Second World War had 2.5 million soldiers. About 1.5 million of them were Hindus, a majority belonging to the so-called ‘Kshatriya’ (martial) races of the Hindus. More than 85000 soldiers shed blood for the British rather than freedom. At least 40000 of them must be Kshatriyas. Add to this about 75000 soldiers died in the First World War, the picture is complete.

This is the story of the revolutionary activities of India. It is pure canard to claim that Gandhi blunted them. In fact, the ‘Kshatriya’ classes blunted the revolution by joining the British.

Here’s a delicious irony.

Two Tamil Brahmins were closely associated with Savarkar during his India House days in London. One was V.V.S. Iyer. The other was an Iyengar, T.S.S. Rajan. Both became ardent Gandhians when Gandhi offered an alternative model! I am sure Sai Deepak has heard their names.

If one really wants to understand how a revolutionary movement evolves, one has to read the modern history of China.

When the Communists were massacred in Shanghai by Chiang Kai-shek’s forces in 1927, the Chinese Communist Party had around 60,000 members. More than 10,000 were killed. Mao Zedong abandoned the urban centers and retreated to rural strongholds. Initially, he had fewer than 1,000 followers. After years of solid work and the establishment of the Jiangxi Soviet, his Red Army grew to about 100,000 soldiers.

It was decimated by Chiang’s extermination campaigns, and at the end of the Long March, Mao had only around 10,000 followers left. In 1937, his Eighth Route Army was formed to counter Japanese aggression. It had about 30,000 troops. By 1945, when the Japanese were defeated, it had become a hardened force of 600,000 soldiers. This was the army that defeated the Kuomintang forces during the Chinese Civil War.

To cut a long story short, armed revolution succeeded in China because its people wanted it. A Gandhian revolution happened in India because Indians wanted it. The ‘Kshatriyas’ were largely with the British. And yes, the forefathers of the Hindutva fanatics were with them too.