The sweeping victory of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in the 2014 general elections brought the Indian polity's contentious relationship with Hindutva or Hindu nationalism to the foreground. Although winning only 31 percent of the popular vote, India's “first past the post” system gave the new prime minister, Narendra Modi, considerable political power as his party controlled a majority of seats in the Lok Sabha. Modi—with his alleged implication in anti-Muslim violence in Gujarat and his fervent advocacy of Hindu nationalism—sparked social anxiety regarding the possibility of Indian democracy being damaged by government-sanctioned communal violence. Given this contemporary anxiety, Amrita Basu's new book Violent Conjunctures in Democratic India provides a welcome and timely analysis of the complicated dynamics shaping Hindu nationalist ideology and violence. Her careful and nuanced study of the several diverse factors that need to converge to transform intolerant political rhetoric into anti-minority violence provides some reassurance that the presence of Modi and the BJP at the national level does not necessarily signify a wave of sectarian violence across India. To put it succinctly, according to Basu, a BJP government does not necessarily pursue “fascism” nor does the centripetal pull of democratic politics force it to become centrist and forsake militant Hindutva.

Rather, anti-minority violence requires a particular confluence of factors, which include the presence of a strong and unified BJP—with close ties to the social organizations Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and Viswa Hindu Parishad—in the state legislative assembly as well as a national government that does not actively oppose the BJP's actions. Further, the potential for violence is also linked to the strength and shape of the opposition to the BJP. “Hindu nationalist forces are apt to be most aligned and most militant in regions where the upper castes and classes are strong and fully support the BJP and lower-caste parties and movements are weak,” Basu writes. “Conversely, Hindu nationalism is likely to be weaker and less militant where the upper castes are politically divided, lower castes are unified and organized, and class identities are stronger than caste identities” (pp. 3–4).

Although Basu builds on the work of Atul Kohli, Steven Wilkinson, Ashutosh Varshney, and Pradeep Chhibber, her analysis has distinctive facets.Footnote ¹ Her focus on the reciprocal relationships between social movements and political parties that mediate state society relations as well as her contention that a strong and unified BJP, given certain other contextual factors, does not inhibit but rather facilitates violence distinguish her analysis from the previous studies mentioned above. Her method is comparative. She studies the incidence of violence in four states: Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, and Rajasthan. The variance of the incidence of violence as well as the rich diversity of movements, parties, political coalitions, and movement-party relations in these states allow for the comparative analysis to be effective in testing her hypothesis. Gujarat experienced the most violence in the two decades following the destruction of the babri masjid in 1992 and Himachal Pradesh the least. The choice to study the years following the Ayodhaya violence is astute, as this political event marked the emphatic ascendance of militant Hindu nationalism in India, and consequently the ensuing years are crucial in studying this phenomenon. Basu's comparative analysis draws on archival work and interviews.

Violent Conjunctures in Democratic India provides a fine-grained and persuasive argument about the complexities shaping the incidence of anti-minority violence in India. I particularly appreciate Basu's moderately cautious approach to the political location of the BJP and its apparent power to destroy the secular fabric of democratic India. Although she is by no means dismissive of the negative consequences of Hindu nationalist militancy, her careful unpacking of the confluence of factors required to spark violence speaks to the robust strength of India's democracy. Specifically, arguments that meaningful opposition to Hindu nationalism posed by parties such as the Samajwadi and Bahujan Samaj parties as well as determined local administrators can derail the BJP's militant tactics provide some evidence that democratic processes are, to use Kohli's phrase, “strained but functioning” in India. Further, her theorizing about social movements and their fluid relations with political parties provides an important contribution to the social movement literature, as this scholarship has tended to focus on urban, European movements, neglecting struggles in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East.

With the Modi government, India stands at a political crossroads in a context shaped by neoliberal economics. While past events and elections have shown that predicting the fate of BJP and Hindu nationalism in India is difficult, this study provides incisive insights into its political strategies that will be useful in thinking about this party's success. Basu's work will further our understanding of the complex confluence of political factors at the national, state, and municipal levels that transformed the BJP's weak presence as a niche party in the 1984 general elections to a sweeping majority thirty years later.

Given its clarity of language and its complex yet well-structured arguments, I would recommend this book for senior undergraduate seminars and graduate courses.