The US, its arch rival Russia, and the European nations are fighting for influence in world affairs. The US and Europe stand to gain if other nations can be made to discard their nationalist moorings and permit them to divide the ‘shared’ sovereignty between them. ‘Sharing’, of course, only means that ‘I keep all of what is mine, let me share yours’. Of course, the structuring and articulation of this predatory foreign policy is not explicit, but is unambiguously implied. Nationalism and national sovereignty in the American/Bush foreign policy doctrine is taboo for nations of specific interest to America, which means just about every part of the globe where the US and Europe have converging/competing interests. Lending an added edge to US foreign policy (always aggressive at best and bullying at worst) is the overtly Christian agenda of the Bible-thumping incumbent President.

Even at the best of times, America has not been known to treat nationalist Heads of State kindly whenever their nationalism translated into anti-White Christian or anti-White Americanism. Nationalist leaders of Communist regimes, democracies, and leaders of countries with other forms of governance have merited close attention from the American state for their sin of being anti-American and/or anti-White Christian. Suharto, Robert Mugabe, Allende, Patrice Lumumba, Mahathir Muhammad, Indira Gandhi, Hugo Chavez and Saddam Hussein are only some examples of leaders whom America and other White Christian countries found difficult to countenance. Even a non-compliant Secretary-General of the UN like Boutros Boutros-Ghali was replaced by the more pliant Kofi Annan. The US State Department is, therefore, taking more than a keen interest in Hindu nationalist organisations and powerful Hindu nationalists. The annual report on international religious freedom issued by the US State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor is testimony to the US’ obsessive interest in Hindu political organisations and political leaders.

These reports, between 2003 and 2005, give expression to the US Government’s morbid fear of Hindu assertion and the growing power of the Hindus to re-define the nation’s face and character in keeping with the character of its majority populace. These reports are unabashedly anti-Hindu in content because these reports are about protecting Christians and the Christian religion in the world and a powerful testimony to American intentions and determination to interfere, forcibly if need be, in the country’s internal affairs to serve US interests. These reports stated unequivocally that their diplomatic mission and embassy in Chennai was working and interacting closely with state government officials to get the anticonversion law revoked. The 2003 report also laments the NDA Government’s decision to rewrite history books rejecting the Marxist-‘secularist’ perspective of the nation and its character.

Attempts by the US Government to depict the RSS and the sangha parivar as violent organisations and to speak pejoratively about Hindutva in these reports are aimed at intimidating educated Hindus into distancing themselves from the politically assertive RSS with the implied threat that the US will not tolerate them on their soil. And that is why the US State Department, in violation of its own laws, refused to give a visa to Narendra Modi as an exemplary measure against a person widely considered by politically conscious Hindus as the face of Hindu assertion. Understanding well enough that it is the RSS and its affiliated organisations which are empowering the Hindus towards assertion, there are increasingly shrill cries of ‘Hindu nationalist’, meaning an RSS Hindutvavadi, whenever Hindus organise themselves into a proactive or a protest group for a cause. The growing clout and affluence of the anti-RSS and, therefore, anti-Hindu NGOs and activists under scrutiny in this book may be attributed in large measure to the patronage extended by Western nations, specifically the Governments of the US and UK, and American and British donors of all persuasions.