Marzia Casolari is an associate professor of Asian History at the University of Turin, Italy. Her book, In the Shadow of the Swastika: The Relationships Between Indian Radical Nationalism, Italian Fascism and Nazism, keeps resurfacing in social media and messaging platforms in India in the wake of arguments over foreign influences of political parties and religions. Whenever there is talk of Islamic revivalism and its Middle Eastern roots, or of the European origins of ideologies such as Marxism, her book is brandished by political opponents of Hindu right-wing organisations to assert the influence of the destructive European fascism and Nazism on their founders.

Now, with a section of right-wing Hindutva scholars in India alleging that the Dravidian movement had its origins in Christian evangelism and therefore was an outcome of foreign influence, Casolari’s book, which provides evidence linking extreme Hindu nationalism to Italian fascists, is in the news yet again.

Benito Mussolini (1883-1945) is considered the originator of fascism. Photo credit: Britannica.com

Casolari the historian is not interested in polemics. On the other hand, she relies on documents that make her book too irresistible to be dismissed easily. In the Shadow of the Swastika has its origins in an essay she had penned in January 2000 in The Economic & Political Weekly titled “Hindutva’s foreign tie-up in the 1930s: Archival evidence”.

Casolari speaks to me about Hindu Mahasabha leaders Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, BS Moonjee, the political mentor of RSS founder Dr KB Hedgewar, Subhas Chandra Bose, the Italian project during World War II to recruit Congress leaders and other radical functionaries, their missed opportunities and certain falsehoods that are doing the rounds in India at present. Edited excerpts:

How many years have you spent in India studying the Hindutva movement?

I spent about three years in the beginning, from 1991 to 1994. And then from 1995 to 1997. Then, starting in 2000 I travelled frequently to India.

Your book published in 2020, In the Shadow of the Swastika: The Relationship Between Indian Radical Nationalism, Italian Fascism and Nazism, was not widely discussed when it came out and yet it keeps coming back to the fore amidst heated arguments. Are you glad that it is happening?

It is in the news now, not when it was published by Routledge in 2020. Well, my article published in The Economic and Political Weekly was a summary of what became this book. It was a very concise version. It was widely discussed (at the time). I would be flattered to know that it keeps coming back in the news.

What is the typical response to your book and to that article from over two decades earlier?

My work on Hindutva and fascism is often quoted very much (smiles).

One of the observations made by serious academics is that your book, deep as it is in conception and analyses, is free of polemics. Do you agree with that?

I do agree with that. Indian historians are more political than European and particularly Italian historians. In Italy, we have a particular school of history writing that lays a lot of emphasis on documents. You can let the documents speak for themselves and explain the situation. And the reader is left to make his or her impression or conclusion about history.

Who pioneered this kind of history writing in Italy?

There are several of them. One of them was Renzo De Felice who wrote in Italian. He was considered a conservative intellectual. I came across his books after my post-graduation when I was looking to get admission for a PhD course. It was in the late 1980s. I was impressed by his style of writing. I don’t always work exclusively on documents, but when you work on documents and when you prove your arguments with your evidence, it is very difficult for anyone to counter them.

I would like to ask you about the interactions between Subhas Chandra Bose and the Hindu Mahasabha as claimed by the latter (about their reported meeting on June 21, 1941). Now some writers tend to project Savarkar as a mentor of Bose or that Bose was inspired by Savarkar. Is it true?

No. It is not true. Subhas Chandra Bose was seen as a mentor by the Hindu Mahasabha. Bose was a very prominent leader at the time while Savarkar was not as visible as Bose was. Bose had a big network of relationships. He was recognised internationally and he was famous during this period even in Italy. Savarkar and the Hindu Mahasabha were looking for Netaji’s patronage. It is not clear whether such a meeting and discussion really took place or not. The hypothesis of such a meeting was very important for the Hindu Mahasabha because it would legitimise the Hindu Mahasabha.

Why did the Hindu Mahasabha make the statement that Savarkar was an advisor of sorts to Bose?

Because they wanted to look important. They wanted to be seen as the initiators of Indian radical nationalism and European radical political ideas. Savarkar was a revolutionary in the beginning and even in the end. I think that Savarkar never gave up his revolutionary spirit. So, it was very important for Savarkar to enjoy that perception.

You state that Savarkar always had a revolutionary spirit. Was it true of the time after he was freed from jail (in the Andamans) in 1924 (when it is believed that he had his politically fallow years until the country became free from British rule in 1947)?

When he came out of jail, he became the president of the Hindu Mahasabha. I have said in my book that he gave public speeches in which he talked about Nazi Germany as an example to solve the ‘Muslim problem’ in India. So, he was very much active even after his jail term.

What are your views on the charges that Savarkar was a stooge of the British empire after he was freed from the Cellular Jail and that he worked at the behest of the British to undermine Gandhi’s nationalist movement?

Savarkar belonged to the tradition of responsive cooperation initiated by Bal Gangadhar Tilak and other members of the Hindu right-wing. He was ready to cooperate with the viceroy when he started the war cabinet in India. He was keen to be part of it while Gandhi and Nehru were not. Anyhow, the Congress led by Gandhi could not be undermined by the RSS or the Mahasabha because the Congress was extremely popular and powerful at that time. The RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha were dangerous and threatening for the Muslims. This is where I think Jinnah was right that the Muslims in free India were in danger. Jinnah was a very sharp politician. Very intelligent as well, perhaps more intelligent than Nehru. He was closer to Gandhi than we normally tend to think. The two men were in touch even after Partition and the duo were planning a meeting in February 1948, but unfortunately, Gandhi was killed earlier than that. I have written about it in a book published in late 2021 titled Gandhi After Gandhi: The Relevance of the Mahatma’s Legacy in Today’s World (Routledge). I wrote a chapter in that book following a conference organised in Turin – my chapter was on Gandhi’s views regarding Palestine and how they affected his views of the Partition of India.

Gandhi was not a great admirer of how Israel was created although he is a much-revered figure among the Zionists.

He was against it. Mind you, he was not one bit anti-Semitic. He was against the idea of Israel being founded through violence.

Why did Mussolini’s Italian foreign office in British India (during WWII) decide to chase the Congress party for hires although radicalised Hindutva men were better recruits in terms of ideological compatibility?

Italian diplomats of the time did not know the Indian political environment very well. The country was very large. The Italian team was very small. The Congress was the official side of Indian politics and so the Italians were eager to have an official link with the Congress, but neither Nehru nor Gandhi wanted to do anything with dictatorships. It was the political strength of the Congress of the time that attracted them.

The RSS claims that it drew more inspiration from the Akhada (a centre for martial-arts training) and other traditional Indian militant entities while setting up the shakhas (their basic units), and not from Italian fascists or the Nazis. But you insist that the RSS was modelled on Mussolini’s Blackshirts. Why so?

After visiting Mussolini in Italy (in March 1931), BS Moonje wrote that he would organise (remould) the RSS along the lines of Italian fascist organisations. What came out of his proposal was very similar to fascist organisations in Italy. Why should I then doubt (that the RSS’s organisational structure was fashioned after the Italian fascists)? Maybe the RSS leaders of today are not aware of that legacy.

Now, coming back to Bose, do you think he had a pro-Hindu nationalist approach?

No. I don’t think so. I have no evidence to suggest that.

Was he even close to these organisations?

From my studies, I didn’t find any evidence of any close ties between Bose and such organisations. He is considered one of Gandhi’s pupils who later became vastly different from Gandhi, unlike Nehru. Nehru, too, was different from Gandhi but he inherited a lot from Gandhi. So did Bose but he took the violent path. He founded an army. I actually didn’t find any record from my research of any political meeting between Netaji and Savarkar or the others of the Hindutva brigade of the time. That claim was made in a book. In fact, Bose was much closer to the Muslim radicals of his time. Many members of the Indian National Army (INA) were Muslims.  

We may be able to find some details from Bose’s family papers. When I was doing research in India, the family did not allow me to see them. Those documents may reveal something more interesting about Bose.

How do you assess the international outlook of Bose and Nehru? While the former thought a synthesis of socialism and fascism would do India well, the latter foresaw that the world was faced with a choice between socialism and fascism. Does it show that Nehru was politically sharper than many of his contemporaries, including Gandhi who had met Mussolini, as regards global trends?

When you mention Gandhi’s meeting with Mussolini (in December 1931), you must contrast the outcome of that meeting with that of Moonje. After his meeting with Mussolini, Moonje was ecstatic. He also wrote about how he would organise the RSS like a fascist organisation of Mussolini. He found Mussolini as a model. Gandhi, on the other hand, was disappointed with Mussolini’s politics.

Bose was looking for a synthesis between communism and fascism. We wouldn’t know the opinions of Bose after the end of the war, after the defeat of the fascists.

But what I can say is that Bose was more concerned about the freedom of India. He was keener to fight the British by any possible means. He was in favour of an armed revolution. He was a revolutionary, and he may have been part of some secret societies of the time in Bengal. Bose was exploring both communism and fascism to defeat the British and he was helped more by fascists and Nazis than the communists. If I am not wrong, the Soviets had a role in helping Bose escape from India to Afghanistan.

You say that the Italian fascists were more interested in the Congress party than the Hindutva nationalists of the time. But Hindutva parties took great pride in what fascists and Nazis were doing, as their literature suggests. Now, what do you think are the long-term effects of Nazism and Mussolini’s fascism on Indian politics?

It was a case of missed opportunity for the Italians that they didn’t bother to woo the Hindu right wing. Certainly, fascism influenced Indian Hindu right-wing organisations. I wrote in my book that it was a lost opportunity for the Italians to develop some cooperation.  They weren’t very much aware that a part of the Indian political system wanted to collaborate with Italy. The Hindu right-wing organisations were not seen back then as purely anti-British, whereas the Italian diplomats were looking to collaborate with anti-British organisations. The Italian agents developed strong ties with the Muslim radical organisations, not the Muslim League, but the others, including the Gadar party which was strongly anti-British.

I don’t think there is a direct correlation between Mussolini’s ideologies and contemporary Indian politics. But their approaches are similar when it comes to Muslims. Golwalkar had said that India must follow the Nazi example to settle the Muslim question in India – meaning Muslims in the country must be treated like how the Nazis treated the Jews in Germany in the 1930s and the 1940s. Moonje was in favour of a strong man to strengthen the Hindu masses from a military point of view. There is a continuity in that approach that is inescapable.

Why is your book, which most Indians should have read, priced so high? Even the Kindle version of your 134-page work, stunning as it is, costs Rs 2700.

Well, it is not my fault (laughs). It is my publisher Routledge’s policy to sell books at a high price. But I must also state here that the publisher treats the authors well and offers them all the services. They are very helpful. Some publishers put a lot of burden on the author. Of course, I would personally like to sell my book at a cheaper price.