The last decade has been witness to the seemingly meteoric rise and consolidation of a wide range of majoritarian and authoritarian political regimes across South Asia. This series of essays seeks to understand not only the situated emergence of such regimes but also how they stick, that is, how they acquire legitimacy and longevity through attaching themselves to the quotidian desires, aspirations, fears, and resentments of ordinary people in the region. Instead of treating majoritarianism or authoritarianism as self-evident categories, this collection breaks down these conceptual abstractions to explore how such politics comes to be meaningful and, perhaps more importantly, desirable across time and space. Drawing on ethnographic fieldwork in and across South Asia, our authors illuminate how right-wing politics gathers affective force by crafting a web of surprisingly heterogeneous, contingent, and often conflicting alliances and affiliations. These essays demonstrate how right-wing politics knit together a diverse range of locally situated struggles and ambitions even as it seeks to draw them into a transcendental community of those who have been injured or violated by an Other. Across South Asia, right-wing discourses of “historical injury” aspire to align differences of caste, ethnicity, religion, language, and region into a stable and rigid hierarchy. They do so through the invocation of painful histories of “invasion,” colonialism, partitions, wars of independence, and civilizational conflict rendered in terms of insurmountable and primordial religious differences that defines collective interest and territorial belonging. This ideology of injury and violation, we argue, is remarkably creative and malleable in the ways it can be invoked to address the specificity of local grievances while, at the same time, operating as a meta-narrative that arouses and electrifies the sentiments of the body politic.