On October 3, 2022, the News Minute reported that 200 people belonging to different faiths marched in Udupi in Karnataka to mark the birth anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi. A much bigger rally of around 10,000 people came in response, brandishing swords and chanting slogans in support of the Hindu rashtra. Swords are out on various such occasions. Swords are out as there are actual wars to fight outside. All over India, festivals such as Dussehra and Ram Navami are turning into sword rallies. From Ranchi and Hazaribagh in Jharkhand to Gulbarga in Karnataka, from Haldia in West Bengal to Nalanda in Bihar, people are marching with swords. The sword is turning into an object of worship. A sacrificial object and a celebratory artefact. Having swords is a matter of pride. More than anything else, the sword is about social status. It is about being a Kshatriya. It is about claiming the Kshatriya impunity. Of course, Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh are the laboratories of Hindutva, where its activists openly distribute swords. Their swords come out for any occasion. Just as some ride a bulldozer in their wedding procession, others cut a birthday cake with a sword. The weapons are also used for various other occasions. To celebrate birthdays, at weddings, in death and to take oaths and to welcome guests. Reports say that as the cities were preparing for Ram Navami celebrations, the devotees were busy buying swords. The sword has become an object of worship and an artefact that one should own as proof of divine citizenship.But why swords, I wonder. Why do Hindutva followers have to display swords when they can display shotguns? They could have exhibited an AK-47 or an INSAS in marches and processions. The weapons could have better matched their sense of superiority. One expected that Hindutva would brandish some automatic guns – if not the real, then replicas, maybe toy guns or air pistols. The arms could have matched the modern age, instead of the medieval age. They should not have any problem exhibiting them, as they have access to power and impunity. They have the right to display anything they like: muscles, weapons, hatred and fear. Why do their heroes still ride horses when they could have warplanes, the Rafale jets?But why a sword, a horse, a turban, a moustache? What do these symbols relate to? The associations prompt me to ask a plain question: Does a cultural artefact have a caste?The sword has no place in modern warfare. Writes Damon Young in “Why Are Swords Still a Thing?”: “We live in an age of anti-aircraft lasers, electromagnetic railguns, and rifle sights with ballistic computers. American drone pilots in New Mexico kill children more than 11,000 kilometres away, in Afghanistan. Swords have almost no place on the modern battlefield – even bayonets are becoming rare.” Swords have gone obsolete in combat. But they keep appearing. Leaders who travel by high-tech planes and use cutting-edge technology in their everyday lives wield swords at public rallies. Men who run big tech companies in Silicon Valley carry swords at their weddings. Is the idea of swords in the time of shotguns an anachronism? What significance do the archaic medieval objects hold in our present, in a specific sociocultural context? And in relation to Hindutva?There has been a massive resurgence of swords in recent years. They are appearing more and more. What are they doing there in the public sphere? What is the appeal of the sword in a caste society?If the upper castes are buying swords to celebrate their heritage and past, the so-called lower castes also show a desire to display them to claim their participation in the present. It shows that a sword is about power and possession. It is about succession, about domination. One who could not buy a sword uses a stick and wields it like a sword to look and feel like a Kshatriya. Swords are making a comeback because of their heritage quality. It is about past glory and prestige. Also, in contrast, the resurgence of the weapon is less about the past and more about the present. Nayanjot Lahiri points out: “The history of the use of metals in the Indian archaeological record is much more than a catalogue of artefact types and their technological make-up: it also denotes a cultural situation which seems to be very specifically Indian.”What does a sword symbolise in our present time? Why does Hindutva want to bring it back? The relationship of the sword and Hindutva is reciprocal. Hence, we should ask what Hindutva does with the archaic object and value, and what swords give to Hindutva in return. Swords have always been around, but their overwhelming presence is new; the symbolism existed, but the context is new. It is out in exhibitions and processions, in marches and war cries. It is part of the glorious past that Hindutva wants to invoke, but it also exists in performative utterances, like Hindu khatre mein hai (Hindus are in danger). When the tongue comes as a two-edged sword: “If I were born during the Tipu regime, […] I would be known as someone who raised his sword against a communal person,” said CT Ravi, a BJP leader. The narrative accompanying swords has always come with exaggeration. Maharana Pratap’s sword was supposed to weigh more than 200 kg and be bigger than his kingdom. The media are producing weaponised talk, where the reference to a sword is rhetorical. But we have also seen how anchors are appearing with swords and war costumes in the newsroom. The distinction between the rhetorical and the real and the word and the body disappears. The sharp-edged weapon not only denotes power through its physicality, but it also projects sharp hatred with its edge. It is a somatic weapon; it is psychological. It is historical and archaeological; it is also a social weapon. If the sword of the past had a clear varna-caste intent with its Kshatriya values and Dalits and Shudras as its target, a sword in our time has a clear anti-Muslim intent.A sword is a weapon that is more than a weapon. Call it a pure weapon or an artefact, an emblem of power or an object of pride, its presence has been massively felt with the rise of Hindutva. Though one can see it as a mere coincidence, the association of Hindutva and the sword does not seem to be a chance one. It is not surprising that we are seeing more swords than we have ever seen in the near past. Its presence is overpowering, from weddings to festivals, from rallies to ceremonies, in epics, metaphors, memorials and processions. We are witnessing an overriding presence of the sword. It already has its residual presence in a caste–feudal society. Grooms still walk with swords as if they are not going to a wedding but a battle, not to marry but to murder the bride. It is not surprising that the sword has been a highly visible part of the jhankis (tableaux) and shaadis (weddings). It decorates the memorials of heroes, leaders and martyrs. It commemorates the histories and genealogies of privileged communities in galleries. It appears proudly in museums, in epic dramas on screen and in public displays off screen. It walks naked in the democratic public sphere, diving deep into the digital world. It marches in rallies, in crowds in the hands of lynching mobs. It dances naked, robed in power, and threatening democracy. It has come with a new function and a new fascination. It is a new fetish. It’s the new fashion. Hey, let’s walk with swords.Taking a leaf from Ambedkar, we can read the resurgence of swords as the coming of Kshatriya values. It is a weapon of counter-revolution. This is not only a counter-revolution against the rise of the oppressed but also to make a new cut. If Hindutva is getting subalternised, as some scholars would argue, why not bring more subaltern symbols, such as plough, sickle or spade (if it is just a matter of cutting). Strong Kshatriya ideals have been the core discussion of Hindutva ideologues. They want to rescue the Kshatriyas from their medieval humiliations and reignite their power. They have to rescue Kshatriyas from the baggage of the medieval age to carry on the Hindutva agenda. But why a sword? The sword is about symbolic power. What else? It is about a tacit and unconscious mode of cultural domination. It is not so much about its value as a cutting weapon; it is about its cult value – how much fetish it can create. It is a cult weapon. Its power lies in its aura and oration. A sword is more than what it cuts. The question is not to ask what one can do with a sword but what a sword can do to one who holds it – to the bearers. And to the groups. To the people who associate themselves with the sword. It functions as a symbolic power that has the power to make a group.Excerpted with permission from Spectacle State: How Hindutva Shapes Feeling and Culture, Brahma Prakash, HarperCollins India.