There comes a moment in some lives when a sudden, unexpected event makes you look at the world with greater clarity than before. It could be a happy moment: a childhood friend proposes to you, or you stumble into parenthood. It could be a sad one: you are diagnosed with cancer and told you have six months to live. It makes you look at the world differently, and some things seem so clear that you wonder why you did not notice them before.In the life of our nation, the rise of Yogi Adityanath to the chief ministership of Uttar Pradesh might well be one such unexpected yet clarifying moment. I was stunned when it was announced; and yet, it makes so much sense that any counterfactual now seems absurd. It was, I have come to believe, a decisive and inevitable event in a conflict that has been simmering in India for at least a century.The great battle that took place on our peninsula was not between the natives and our colonial overlords, but between a new way of thinking and an old way of existing. While the Enlightenment swept its way across Europe and the US in the 18th century, its influence was felt in India only in the 19th. Liberalism, however one tries to spin it, was an import from the West, and it is ironic that many of our finest freedom fighters were influenced by British thinkers. The great early figures of our resistance — heroes of mine such as Naoroji, Ranade, Agarkar and Gokhale — were essentially British liberals.Until Mahatma Gandhi, the freedom struggle was a battle between the British empire on one hand, and Indian elites inspired by Western ideas on the other. Gandhi did catalyse it into a mass movement, but his intellectual influences weren't Indian either. He was more influenced by John Ruskin and Tolstoy than any Indian thinker, and V S Naipaul once called him "the least Indian of Indian leaders." By the time the British finally quit India, the liberalism of the Gokhale years had been replaced by the soft socialism that was then in vogue. Do note that both these strains, the early classical liberalism and the socialism that is so antithetical to it, were Western imports.The Constitution, intended as an operating manual for this new nation, reflected this. The commentator Nitin Pai, in an essay in Pragati, a magazine I edit, wrote: "On 26th January 1950, the Enlightenment... was injected into the veins of Indian society in the form of a written statute. We are still dealing with the shock of that moment."'Into the veins of Indian society.' It is worth reflecting here that the state and society are two different beasts. This difference is a cornerstone of conservatism, which the Encyclopaedia Britannica defines as a "political doctrine that emphasises the value of traditional institutions and practices." Who were the Indian conservatives who would lead the fightback of society against the state?The biggest manifestation of conservatism in India is what we call the Hindutva right. I used to be sceptical of it, as I consider 'Hindutva' to be an artificial construct, an insulting caricature of a great inclusive religion. But even if that is so, Hindutva is authentically conservative because it arises out of a nativism that is inherent in human nature — and consequently, rooted in our culture. (Culture can both mitigate and reinforce human nature, which is the whole struggle right there.)Early Indian conservatives were more interested in social rather than political battles, which is why they didn't play much of a role in the freedom movement. After Independence, the Nehruvian big state seemed to have subdued the Hindutva social project — but this was temporary. Journalist Rishi Majumder, who is writing a biography of the conservative leader Syama Prasad Mookerjee, describes in a forthcoming essay how "the RSS, as well as other right-wing groups, organisations and movements, have thrived and grown through many years when the BJP was not in power."Much modern politics is the battle between these competing visions of the state. Should the state be a superstructure that imposes certain values, decided upon by elites, upon society? Or should it be a servant to society, protecting its traditions without judging them from the prism of other value systems?Narendra Modi's rise to power was fascinating because he embodied the hopes of people on both sides of that spectrum. Some classical liberals dismayed by Nehruvian socialism backed him because they saw the damage Nehru's ideas had done to India, and wanted their values imposed from above. And the whole Hindutva movement, obviously, fell in behind Modi because his ascent was the culmination of their century-long struggle.These two strands are incompatible. And now, with the rise of Yogi Adityanath, there is no more ambiguity.