A lot of discourse in today's India revolves around creating false equivalences between ideologies in order to credit/discredit them. One very common comparison made is that of Hindutva ideology to Fascism. Often, selective appeals to concepts like regressive conservatism, populistic rhetoric and authoritarian streaks are used to make this tenous connection. Ignoring the fact that these things have all been observed in non-fascist (even communist or socialist) rhetoric forever, there is one pretty simple reason why Hindutva can't be compared to Fascism:

THE MATERIAL CONDITIONS NECESSARY FOR FASCISM TO ARISE IN ANY SOCIETY ARE IMPOSSIBLE TO REPRODUCE IN INDIA.

1. Racialism. If you apply western standards of racism to India, you'll probably find that your average Indian -is- racist. However, India has never at any point of time ever viewed society through the lens of race. Being a multi-racial country, it's difficult to conceptualise such a thing happening. Most Indians identify with caste, ethnicity, language, tribe or religion before considering race. Racism in India mostly manifests itself as a tool for selling skin creams, ogling tourists or harassing foreign students, not a sociopolitical touchstone. Fascism relies on it's subjects to have been brainwashed into a racialistic worldview.

2. Class-conscious Populism. If you examine the two opposing fringe ideologies to spread in the 20th century: communism and facism, you'll find that both have in common a shared relationship with anti-capitalist, class-focused populism. Both Marxists and Fascists seek legitimacy by appealling to the grievances of the working class by rejecting capitalism and globalism. Communists view the issue through the lens of class struggle, while fascists view the same issue through the lens of class collaboration. However, such class theories rely on a fully industrialised working class in order to manifest themselves in any viable political platform. Communists were to some extent able to adapt to non-industrial societies, but Fascism never has. For starters, nearly 50% of India's workforce is still agrarian. Of the rest, a far smaller percentage are in the industrialised sector than are needed for a Fascist society to be viable. Till date, every country to have experienced fascism (Germany, Italy, Japan, Spain, Portugal, Hungary, Croatia, Romania and Chile) has been industrialised. Concepts like "the 99% vs the 1%" or rhetoric about the "globalist elite" holding wealth hostage simply cannot resonate with Indians because our collective manifestation of class-consciousness (the caste system) evolved into something completely different and incompatible to the populist ideals of class that Fascism rely on. In contrast, there isn't a single Hindutva-aligned entity which has ever used or even acknowledged any element of class in its rhetoric. In an Indian context, where class is frequently equated with caste, organisations like the RSS have consistently fought casteism. India's class dynamic and economic dynamic are too rigid to allow conditions befitting Fascism to thrive.

3. Isolationism. Wherever political rhetoric has incorporated fascist undertones, there has always been one common factor: a nurtured sentiment of "Us vs Them" which has stemmed from some combination of global ostracization, national humiliation or general disenfranchisement or exploitation. Whether it's Germany ruined by the humiliating Treaty of Versailles, or Donald Trump evoking American blue and white-collar jobs lost to China and other 3rd world nations, Fascism cannot thrive without cultivating an external, existential threat. In contrast, Hindutva (and Indian society in general) is deeply inward-looking, and while Hindutva ideology itself doesn't specifically name targets, it's agents and ideologues mostly refer to internal enemies, like religious or political minorities. The strong principles of third-worldism championed by Nehru's NAM and continued by the Modi Doctrine have largely been effective in cementing India's place in the world stage, preventing most Indians from feeling the ill-effects of most geopolitical events. As a result, it would be fairly difficult for any Fascist force to use fear, alienation, xenophobia or hostility as tools to rally against outsiders to bring Indians together in support of them.

4. Statism. At it's most binary, the left-right spectrum can be simplified down to those who are constantly seeking to overhaul, replace or reform the system (i.e. Radicals) and those who react to these perceived changes in a means to preserve the status quo or return to a previous status quo (i.e. Reactionaries). One of the most important pillars of Fascism is the creation of an equivalence between the Nation and the State. In many, if not most cases, the rise of Fascism was a reaction to the public lack of faith, distrust and perceived weakness or collapse of the State and it's institutions, brought about either by Radicals, internal instability or external factors. Generally speaking, Indians are highly statist. Life without the State is unimaginable to most Indians (no matter how much we make fun of sarkaari culture), and we are centuries away from libertarian/anarchist thought gaining any traction in India. As a result of the average Indian's faith in the State's institutions (even if completely lacking faith in those who govern it), India's political atmosphere will never be conducive to the rise of Fascism in any meaningful manner. India is too diverse and large for anybody to effectively enforce Nazi or even China-style police-state authoritarianism.

tldr go read the italicised text at the end of each point