Talk:Hindutva/Archive 2

Formatting : Excessive hyperlinking

This page has excessive hyperlinking. For eg the words like India Hindu Savarkar are made a link on every line. This makes the whole page blue.I tried to remove the redundant links. Nobleeagle is not allowing me to.Please refrain from this over zealous reverting spree.I am not trying to decrease the accessibility of any content but only making the page look more professional. It is not required to hyperlink the word religion on every line.Any fairly educated person would know the meaning of most words and it is enough if a link is provided once in a page.Please note : Nobleeagle :hyperlink is not for emphasis or to stress a point!!!!. I had also corrected spelling mistakes like 'queston' but User:Nobleeagle has foolishly reverted it.

Sorry, my bad, you can get rid of the links, but why are you getting rid of the ISBN numbers? This is why I reverted you and I thought that since the rest of your edits weren't particularly essential, I might as well rv. — Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 07:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hsriniva, you have to be careful when you do this - you have deleted yet more ISBNs. It is better to have too many wikilinks than not enough - this is an encyclopedia, and you have to assume readers might not know all the definitions you do. BobFromBrockley 11:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Who is a Hindutva?

The word Hindutva in common usage refers to one who is a Hindu extremist, fanatic or nationalist. This may not be the definition that one who calls themselves a Hindutva may agree on, but it the definition that the world understands from it's most common usage.

Interestingly the term Hindutva is also very commonly used in a simaler way that Communist was used during the McCarthy era in the United States. There is a witch hunt towards any person who has anything remotely nice to say about Hinduism as being a member of Hindutva; for example saying "I did some yoga today and it felt good" immediatly puts the subject under suspician. This is especially true if the subject is of South Asian decent (the term South Asian being the proper term, as Indian may be considered a racist term as it sounds very simaler to the derogatory appelation 'hindoo' or "Hindu" which so offends the many communities of that sub-continent).

-utter nonsense. Considering that most Hindutva advocates label anyone who disagrees with their view that India should be a Hindu state as "Communists / Socialists". Hinduism is just a belief system, Hindutva is a "way of life" as they put it. Hindutva is the corruption of the hindu religion by extremist bigots.

Other ways of being labled Hindutva is by signing petitions against the harmless fun poked by California class textbooks that say "Have you seen any monkeys around you" in reference to the monkey (non-capitalised for text book accuracy)'god,' Hanuman. Even YOU can be considered an Hindutva for unwittingly using the appelation "guru" when referring to a computer specialist that you respect. Hindutva is a widely used term that you can use quickly to deflate any argument that you wish, the possibilities are endless.

Views on Hindutva

Hindu Nationalism is much scarier than the Nazi's, KKK, Khmer Rouge, Muslim Fundamentalist Terrorist groups and have killed more people than any of the above combined and so any article on WIKI that is connected to hinduism must feature a link on here. Dark skinned people should never have a reason to be proud, those savages!

Agreed that hindu nationalism is scary, but no way have they killed the equivalent of 6 million jews in forced labour camps. Do your history a bit before coming out with this nonsense.

Who has written this rubbish, this utterly racist blabber? Hindutva itself is definitely bad and horrible, but caling it scarier than Naziasm, KK, and even Muslim terrorists is the work of an egghead. How has Hindutva killed more people than the above combined, except in the anonymous's dream or figment of imagination (or cooked up proofs)?Cygnus_hansa 08:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

What if every article on Arabs links to terrorism or every article on Christianity links to KKK how would you feel? I checked the Zionism article out here and it seemed quite fair and I can learn about Judaism without any reference to the palestinian conflict quite well on this wikipedia. If a slave in the south before the Civil War raises his voice, must he be now considered an African American extremist?

There is something very suspicious going on here. Ok, call me an extremist, frame me for doing something I never did. Most Hindus won't even kill animals. But if you see words of protests on these boards, try to understand where they are coming from.

FWIW, some views on Hindutva are bit complex. IMO and AFAIK, there are 2 kinds of people: 1. Hindutva people who claim themselves as *true* Hindus/Hinduism followers, 2. Hindu people who don't accept Hindutva people (some people may even believe that Hindutva people are corrupting Hinduism and their philosophy. But, this view is bit less). Probably mentioning these two ideas may be worthful for this article. --Rrjanbiah 04:59, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't know where your 'this view is bit less' comes from. Hindutva is not religion, it is communalism. The brand of Hindutva preached is clearly not Hindu religion since it bases itself around creating Indian identities based not only Hinduism but Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism and race consciousness. Why is it so difficult a concept to comprehend that no one calls the Christian right movement in America, for instance, a religion, but a group of extreme political views based on Christian communalism. The KKK, for example, is not a branch of Christianity but a group of extreme Christians. Hindutva is not a branch of Hinduism but a group of extreme Hindus. Both have their philosophies, and both claim to draw inspiration from religious philosophies and texts that are part of their respective religions. No one's arguing about their religion, but about whether their brand of social politics is religion or communalism. It is disappointing that similar communities in the West and the East are held to completely different standards. That is just bias.--LordSuryaofShropshire 13:20, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that you belong to the second category I mentioned. --Rrjanbiah 13:40, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

THanks for your acknowledgement. But I'm not trying to convince you of my view. Rather, I'm making a statement that in the general community of journalists, academics, in social science and in the minds of Hindus in general, while no one argues that Hindutvadis aren't Hindu, the movement of Hindutva is never identified as part of the Hindu religion but as a political extremist communal movement of Hindus. --LordSuryaofShropshire 13:57, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

Hindu Nationalism or Hindu Communalism?

Many people percieve prognosis and dialectics of hinduvta movement as nothing less but Communalism which was marginalizing the progressive Hindus of the sub-continent to rear benches.So it is absolutely incorrect to call them Hindu Nationalists instead of Hindu Communalists.Al-minar 16:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Debate: Hindutva... nationalist ideology a la KKK or branch of Hinduism a la Vedanta

Alright, everyone's making these bogus claims about identifying Hinduism with Hindutva. Let's hear it from biased, unbiased sources alike, and straight from the horse's mouth. What is Hindutva? Is it a religious stream? Or is it a communalist, political movement?

1. "Hindutva or Cultural Nationalism presents the BJP's conception of Indian nationhood, as explained in the following set of articles. It must be noted that Hindutva is a nationalist, and not a religious or theocratic, concept." --- SOURCE: BJP PHilosophy Statement, BJP Homepage
2. Angana Chatterji is a professor of Social and Cultural Anthropology at the California Institute of Integral Studies in San Francisco calls Hindutva "nationalist ideology" and never idenitifies as Hindu religious philosophy because it is clearly a communal movement SOURCE: [3]
3. "Last but not the least is the issue of Hindutva, the BJP ideology that the party swears by. Hindutva is a matter of grave concern not only for the Indian Muslims. The majority of Indian Hindus being temperamentally secular themselves have not accepted the ideology of Hindutva that believes in the supremacy of Hindu faith over other faiths. If the majority of Hindus would have voted for Hindutva, the BJP would have been in power without the crutches of the NDA. Ironically, Vajpayee had no word to spare about the rights and wrongs of his party ideology that clearly militates against the basic character of Indian constitution and Hindu cosmopolitan ethos." - Zafar Agha of the Indian Muslim Council
4. "The BJP is imbued with a far-right ideology that has its roots in the fascism of the 1930s. Trumpeting the slogan "one nation, one people, one culture," the party promotes Hindutva or "Hindu identity," a concept based on Hindu racial purity." Daphnee Dion-Viens (http://www.alternatives.ca/article231.html)
5. "The definition of a Hindu as given by Savarkar was that India had to be his pitribhumi (ancestral land) and his punyabhumi (the land of his religion). A Hindu therefore could not be descended from alien invaders. Since H indus sought a lineal descent from the Aryans, and a cultural heritage, the Aryans had to be indigenous. This definition of the Hindu excluded Muslims and Christians from being indigenous since their religion did not originate in India." [ed. Clearly this is NOT Hinduism but a completely new definition of Hindu identity based on Indian nationalism. How then can one reasonably say Hindutva is a part of Hinduism? It is a political movement based on it, but does not represent Hindu religion] "The Hindutva obsession with identity is not a problem related to the early history of India but arises out of an attempt to manipulate identities in contemporary politics." - Romila Thapar, Kluge chair holder in US Library of Congress (http://www.flonnet.com/fl1720/17200150.htm) [ed.We see that Thapar herself clearly views Hindutva as a religion-race-motivated political wing, not religion itself ].
6. Among others, an anti-war site (www.why-war.com), Chetan Bhatt, Senior Lecturer in Sociology, Goldsmiths College, University of London, see Hindutva as nationalist ideology, not religion itself.
7. An article on Hindutva vs. Hinduism: Semitizing Hinduism by Hindutva

Thus far, people from multiple ideological backgrounds all see Hindutva as political, nationalist ideology with racial and socialist, even fascist ideologies, using contorted and marginal interpretations Hindu culture and Aryan race theories to bolster themselves. The only people who see Hindutva as Hindu religion itself are a couple of Hindutvadis, and even they are split. Savarkar, who coined Hindutva, justified killing, even massacres, if done for revenge. You cannot find me one Hindu text or movement, especially Kshatriya creeds in the Bhagavad Gita, Ramayana etc. which accepts this. These kind of ideas are completely against the Hindu-Vedic creeds. How can you reconcile this, and current scholarship regarding Hindutva politics? Note: I am not arguing that Hindutvadis are not Hindus; they clearly are. But I am arguing that the majority of views see Hindutva as separate from Hinduism. Also, I am not just blustering an opinion, nor am I just putting up a wall of dogmatism. I am supporting my argument. I would like to see Graft, Sam Spade or Rjanbiah, proffer some credible political theorists, social scientists, or contemporary historians who identify Hindutva as a religious movement and not a political movement based on religious identity. --LordSuryaofShropshire 14:41, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

Anyone interested in this debate on Hindus' opinions and Hindutva see this Outlook India poll: Hindutva, Hindus Pool --LordSuryaofShropshire 19:00, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

These are poll highlights (link above) that came from interviews conducted in major cities all around India (Delhi, Chennai, Mumbai, Kolkata, Bangalore, Ahmedabad) with a breakdown of people as follows: "A total of 738 Hindus were interviewed of which upper-caste respondents were 42 percent, backwards 35 percent and Dalits constituted 23 percent."

I believe that they prove that Hindutva policies and ideas about Hinduism and Indian national identity, including their actions in places like Gujurat, are not favored, and Hindus in Indian overwhelmingly separate nationalist Hindutva from the Hindu religion - POLL HIGHLIGHTS:

1. 68% feel that the most good for Hinduism has been done by people like Mahatma Gandhi and Swami Vivekananda.
2. 76% of Hindus favor a 'secular democracy' over a Hindu state.
3. 78% feel the Gujurat massacre was unjustified.
4. 66% feel comfortable with the idea of Muslim neighbors.
5. 79% feel Hindutva has given Hinduism a bad name.

These ideas, held by a majority of multi-class Hindus around India, show that Hindutva is clearly not in line with the majority of views of followers of Hindu religion. --LordSuryaofShropshire 19:33, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

Be that as it may, the argument is, at least as far as I am concerned, not whether Hindutva is a religion, but whether Hindutva philosophy can be said to be built upon Hinduism. I appreciate your Naziism analogy, but I do think it's overdrawn. Christianity had a relatively minor role in Nazi philosophy and rhetoric, whereas Hinduism is absolutely central to Hindutva.

Now, I've made the argument above that Hindutva can find adequate basis for a lot of its positions in Hindu canon, but I don't think this means (as I've hinted) that as a political philosophy Hindutva is -derived from- Hinduism. I think it's a particular outgrowth of other philosophies that draws heavily upon Hindu ideas to cloak those other ideologies. I've been reading through my "Bunch of Thoughts", which unfortunately is not very revealing - it's an exegesis of a fully-formed philosophy, but it doesn't shed light on the origins of the philosophy.

Ultimately Hindutva is a nationalist philosophy; the job of RSS is to stoke that national character and build national pride. This is not a Hindu concept, since desh-prem is not possible without a desh, which really did not exist in any sense before the British showed up (in the same way that the feudal kingdoms of Europe were not Nations).

But, as my reading of Golwalkar has demonstrated to me, Hindutva incessantly seeks justification from a single source - Golwalkar continually examines outside philosophies, but the only authority he will admit is Hindu saints (e.g. Ramakrishna Paramhansa is frequently quoted) and scripture. This is the essential point I want to get across - Hindutva is not Hinduism, but it does draw from that stream.

An apt analogy can be drawn to many American conservatives (of the Rush Limbaugh variety), who eulogize the "founding fathers", the framers of the Constitution, but are frequently at odds with the positions of those "fathers". However, this would NEVER cause them to repudiate their reverence for those figures, since they form the central basis of a coherent mythology and are critical to the movement. Graft 02:27, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

An apt analogy is the KKK:Christianity as Hindutva:Hinduism.--LordSuryaofShropshire 03:01, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)

Are Hindutva really as bad as the KKK? Anyway, yes, the KKK is a Christian organization, and Hindutva is a Hindu organization, even though KKK =/= Christianity and Hindutva =/= Hinduism. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 04:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Why Hindutva ?

People here have vented their misplaced concern about RSS and its ideology of Hindutva and try to white-wash it as a communal and racist organisation like KKK, Nazi and Muslim terrorist organisation that we see today in the middle-east. It’s true that Hindus are secular by nature and they don’t believe in forcible conversion that is been followed by other religions during past. From time immemorial this religion had no name since it was the first of all religion and mother most of the major religion like Buddhism, Sikhism and Jainism. In spite of constant pillaging and plunder by foreign rulers and country, this country stood test of time and still grows strong. This strength is derived for the individual factor called Hindutva or “Culture Nationalism of Hindus” as quoted by Deen Dayal Upadyaya the modern Hindu thinker and the founding father of BJP.

In his famous work, 'Glimpses of World History', Jawaharlal Nehru wrote to the same effect by attributing India's integrity to some 'invisible silken bond' that from time immemorial has united the people of India from Kanyakumari to the Himalayas. There is no such thing as an invisible silken bond that unites India. Such vague reasons, especially from a self-proclaimed agnostic like Nehru, hide the real fact that the integrity of India really springs from the sole reason of India being the sacred land of tolerant Hindus who, despite the language, caste and other differences among them, take pride in being, first and foremost, devout followers of ancient Hindu religion.

It is the de facto 'Hindutva' among Indians, from north to south and east to west, which lies at the root of the Indian integrity. But for the tolerant Hindu majority, India would have disintegrated long back. It is for this realistic reason that BJP has been striving hard to put 'Hindutva' above the foreign concept of secularism that can only damage Indian integrity in the long run. 'Hindutva' embraces Indians of all faiths and excludes none. It also stands for eradication of the scourge of untouchability that is an embarrassment to Hindu religion.

All attempts in the past to break up India on the grounds of race or religion died a natural death. For instance, the formation of DK and DMK was originally intended to pursue the goal of an independent Dravida Nadu which floundered at the very start since there were no takers for the same in Andhra, Karnataka and Kerala. The so called 'Khalistan' movement engineered by Pakistan met with the same fate. The insurgency by the rebels in Nagaland and Mizoram that was fuelled by the mischievous foreign missionaries in India has had little success. In all such cases, it is the 'Hindutva' spirit that won the battle against separatist tendencies.

'Hindutva' is not anti-muslim or anti-christian. If there is one religion in the world that abhors proselytization and is based on tolerance and respect for other faiths, it is Hinduism. The term Hindu fundamentalism is therefore a misnomer and a contradiction in terms. There were no non-Hindu minorities in India prior to the muslim invasion of India from the north west and the start of British colonialism which alone are responsible for creating the muslim and christian minority in India through conversion of Hindus by force and enticement. Despite the above fact, 'Hindutva' does not consider Indian muslims as some aliens from Saudi Arabia or other muslim countries in the Middle East. It recognizes that India is as much the home of the Indian muslims as it is for the majority Hindus.

The sole concern of 'Hindutva' is that Islamic militancy and fundamentalism that is worrying the entire world should not sow seeds of separatism among Indian muslims who have shared a common cultural bondage and lived amicably with the majority Hindus for centuries. There is a real threat of militant Islam in Pakistan in the west and Bangladesh in the east posing a danger to India's integrity. Under the circumstances, the concept of 'Hindutva' championed by the BJP is timely and appropriate for safeguarding Indian integrity. BJP should be hailed and not condemned for its 'Hindutva' approach to restore the age-old national unity and integrity. --Kautilyaa Speaking 12:33, Feb 18, 2004 (GMT)

Dear User I only disagree with the last paragraph regarding the sole concern of 'Hindutva'. Could you offer/cite how you came about this. Other than that i agree with the issues in the last paraagraph but feel you wish to label current national security issues as 'Hindutva' in this paragraph. Is this accurate? I don't know.

As for the previous well-written paragraphs it seems you wish to label the 'common cultural heritage of India' as 'Hindutva'. I feel it is not entirely accurate. Perhaps you wish to say 'Hindutva' concerns itself with representing 'the heritage' and addressing the 'security issues' but does not encompass both as there are cultural heritage and security issues that it has no interest in. (Also if it is your POV that it does, than to balance your argument:) That there many(or a certain number) who do not believe it represents their cultural heritage and address their current-day security issues. thank you

Runehawk 16:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

the above comment ("Kautilyaa Speaking") is a stale rant from back in 2004 and should long have been archived. --dab (𒁳) 18:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hindutva is a legitimate expression of the concerns of Hindus

I agree strongly with this statement, and find much of the "debate" on this page to be rude and offensively anti-Hindu. Sam [Spade] 21:54, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The article linked to here, possibly offers some more insight to anyone else following this debate: The invention of the Hindu - Pankaj Mishra --Phil R 03:33, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I just read the article. It is an interesting view, but there are several points that are misleading. Off the top of my head, his comments about more inter-Vishnu-Shiva worshipper tensions than Hindu-Muslim is ludicrous. In the most objective of reports thousands of Hindus were killed or forcefully converted by Muslim invaders and a jiziyah tax levied for most of Mughal rule, reinstated by Aurangzeb inspite of Akbar's influence. One major outbreak of Shaiva-Vaishnav tensions in a fight is well-known, and that to but a mote in comparison to the Muslim-Hindu dynamic. As for modernized Hinduism, Hinduism represents Vedic and Vedantic progressions with nastika orthodox schools and Mishra tends to forget the revival of purer Vedantic and Yogic Hinduism, philosophies whose rationalism exceeds (in pure philosophical terms) that of monotheist religions with their pure monist bases. Also, the use of "Hindu" as an appellation for followers of vedic/vedantic religion is to be seen as far back as in the 15th century in someone as well-known as Kabir's writings. It seems a stretch to say that Hindu is first used as a term by the British. A pretty close association between Vedic schools and non-Vedic schools was known before the Qu'ran was written.

While I have listed these objections, I would say that ideas of syncretistic religion seem to have also been ignored. While I can't say which 'Sufi' saint Mishra was referencing, saints like Sheikh Muhammad, Kabir and Shirdi Sai Baba, none of whom could be called Hindu, Muslim, Bhakti, Vedantist or Sufi definitively are well-documented (and often worshipped or revered) without hesitancy by Hindus and Muslims alike. "all paths" mentalities are common to Hindus and part of the religious outlook. I would agree that polarizing of communal groups like Muslims and Hindus has a lot to do with British and partition politics, but this has less (in my mind) to do with artificial religious tweaking by outsiders than mere communal markers. As for Sam Spade's comment, I don't know how he saw anything 'anti-Hindu' in the foregoing discussions. --LordSuryaofShropshire 04

13, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)

deletions

Why so many deletions of seemingly good content? Do you say what you deleted was false, or what? (I refer specifically to this, but also generally refer to a number of other deltions). Sam [Spade] 18:03, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, mostly because I didn't consider them to be good content. In the case of the definition, I'm not sure why it was included... do you mean to say that it's difficult to define "Hindutva"? That there's dispute over who should carry the label or that adherents disagree on what it means? I don't think this is true, any more than it's true of any label (e.g. "Fascist" or "Communist"), and thus such equivocation is unnecessary and distracting, and needlessly confuses what is a relatively unclouded thing. Graft 18:44, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I find it helpful when we have discussion like the above, where extreme insults are being hurled around. The definition provides some objectivity, IMO. Sam [Spade] 18:54, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Graft: I don't it's as cut and dried as you seem to project. Can you give me a good approximation, just be state and general socio-economic background, who are Hindutvadis? As voting suggests, it's not just "middle-class Hindus." It's not at all aligned with the religion as the preponderance see Hinduism. As for Sam Spade, I don't know where these insults you're talking about are? Earlier, you spoke of prejudice against Hinduism evident in the discussion and I'd like to know exactly to what you're referring. --LordSuryaofShropshire 20:09, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

What is offensive

Your comparisons to Nazism and KKK, etc. Perhaps these were made due to cultural ignorance, but due to your worldliness (your personal information suggests you to be well travelled) and obvious intellect I somehow doubt that. Sam [Spade] 20:27, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

See, what you said about 'perhaps cultural ignorance' is insulting. What I was doing was creating an analogue between the relationship between Hinduism and Hindutva, comparing it to that between Christianity and the KKK. It is clear that Hindutva, like the KKK, relies strongly on religious texts, figures and symbols (Ram and the Cross, Vivekananda and Jesus, Mahabharta and the Bible, etc.) and yet they project an often violent and communalist framework which excludes them from inclusion as a mere 'sect' of Hinduism or Christianity but in reality reveals them to be social groups. I think you need to read what I wrote more thoughtfully. --LordSuryaofShropshire 20:35, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

I see it for what it is, anti-hindutva, and anti-hindu. I think you need to be more thoughtful. Sam [Spade] 05:08, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sam Spade: I think you're blissfully myopic and have no clue about true discernment. You're under a horrific haze of misapprehension of you think that I am anti-Hindu. You may bask in a self-righteous crapulent idea of your moral and politically correct superiority, but my posts had more to do with distancing the pure religion and spiritual system of Hinduism from the proven racist fundamentalism of Hindutva than anything else. You may be right that I dislike Hindutva, but to say I'm anti-Hindu is a gross (and misplaced) presumption of understanding on your part. Frankly, you're pretty stupid if you can't tell what it means to compare Christianity and Hinduism, both ostensibly moralistic and innocuous faith-systems, and then project KKK and Hindutva as radical communalist movements claiming to derive some spurious base of support from those religions. Before you go spinning off at a Hindu for being anti-Hindu, I think you should go brush up on your English and comprehension skills. --LordSuryaofShropshire 14:38, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)

By the way, maybe you were too busy indulging your preconceived notions and apparently pro-Hindutva stance to read the statistics and quotations I listed above, but your ludicrous statement that Hindutva legitimately represents the views and concerns of Hindus is laughable at best, retarded at worst. There's a reason BJP was voted out and that much of the (practicing) Hindu population in India doesn't call itself Hindutva. Apparently, most Hindus disagree that Hindutva in any qualifies as legitimate Hindu philosophy, and any neutral or even genuinely biased scholar asserts that Hindutva is a political movement. It was for this reason that I mentioned the KKK, since Hindutva is as much a legitimate expression of Hinduism as the Ku Klux Klan and the Crusades were legitimate expressions of Jesus' love. --LordSuryaofShropshire 14:44, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)

Your ad hominem's and extremist POV do nothing to improve the article. I suggest you focus on neutral, encyclopedic discourse, and save the insults for the playground. It is acceptable for you to have any opinion, or any politics, but you must be polite if you are to take part in a rational dialogue. Sam [Spade] 18:20, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ouch. Sam Spade and Lord Surya, you both have now insulted each other now. There is no need to argue: Lord Surya, simply wait patiently for Sam to present evidence. Sam Spade, I'd love to see some evidence of your claims. Do you have any sources? If you did, then one could at least consider this to be contested. However, right now we have a great deal of evidence that Hindutva is not what you claim it to be, and none that it is what you claim it to be. Hyacinth 20:12, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sam Spade; once again, your misplaced indignity is ridiculous. I recall you were the first to cast the ad hominem by calling me anti-Hindu, which is not only an indictment of me as a prejudiced bigot, but is further ludicrous since I myself am a Hindu. Secondly, you need to learn polity yourself, and I thank you for your further didacticisms, which it seems you are zealous to give out. You need to learn how to read what I was writing. Not only did you insult and draw first blood, but you completely misread what I said and thereby revealed your quick urge to correct others without yourself supplying anything of use to the discussion. I do, I mean it, appreciate Hyacinth's mediation, and I think it serves as a necessary buffer. Spade, you have all to often launched nonsensical accusations at me and have never been able to textually verify them in my posts. --LordSuryaofShropshire 02:45, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)

This is far too silly for me to waste further time with. Have fun with each other, I'll keep an eye on the article. Sam [Spade] 02:50, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Have fun with each other" real mature Mr. Spade. You've really acquitted yourself quite famously. Started the misreading and end with a perfunctory quip so you have the last word. Nice. Who's silly and childish now? --LordSuryaofShropshire 03:39, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate that you welcome my mediation, though you have yet to take my advice: calm down, stop arguing. I also offer you a new analogy. May Hindutva be comparble not to the KKK but to the Christian Coalition? I do not imply that this, either, is a valid comparison, but it seems to be much closer to the truth than your analogy, and far less baiting. Hyacinth 06:40, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Is there any common ground between Mister Spade and Lord Surya? Hyacinth 06:40, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Contested excerpts

• It also may include the traditional religions of Indian tribals, although orthodox Hindus treat these as untouchables.

• In fact, the three most important enemies of Hindutva are, in order of priority, Muslims, Christians and Communists.

Any basis for these claims? Are they agreed to generally? Any Hindutva available to lend a hand? Sam Spade 01:22, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Muslims are seen as a direct because of their open warfare and bombings. Plus, there is no Uniform civil code. Xtians are seen as cultural threat because they convert the poor, starving, and uneducated. Commies are seen as a threat because they want to eliminate religion. --Dangerous-Boy

"saffronisation"

Is this a real term? ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 01:16, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fascism

Why is this under Fascism? --Dangerous-Boy

Because it is

 ---

Hindu Nationalism: Why it should not re-direct here, but to the article Hindu Nationalism

I've worked to create a bigger, grander article: Hindu Nationalism. This addresses a wider expression of Hindu nationalism that goes beyond Hindutva.

My main case, as the author and creator of the article project Hindu Nationalism's disctinction from Hindutva rests on three points:

(1) There are large numbers of Hindus in India who do not accept Hindutva as their political expression or idea of patriotism or nationalism. Yet these are Hindus, and impact the expression of Hindu society and India as a whole.

(2) Hindu nationalism is far more diverse than the just expanding the formulations of Savarkar, Syama Prasad Mookerjee and the RSS, VHP and the BJP. It is rooted in the ancient history of India, with the period of Islamic invasions and empires.

(3) Lokmanya Tilak, Mahatma Gandhi, Sardar Patel and Purushottam Das Tandon were not Hindutva adherents, but were with a different kind of Hindu pride. Why should they be crammed into Hindutva?

Please check out Hindu Nationalism and Indian Nationalism. Thank you - Nirav Maurya.

POV

{{POV check}} I was just reading throught this page and I noticed this particular paragraph. Well, apart from the misspelling (which I've corrected), um.. current colonizers?? communists??. Methinks, there needs to be some rephrasing of this para, or at least a reference given. Regards Kaushik twin 16:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The RSS worldview views India as the fount of civilisation, from where a lot of knowledge spread to the rest of the world. Such a view is only now being acknowledged by the larger scientific community. To this end one of its goals is to correct the distortions in history currently being taught in Indian universities, which was authored primarily by the Britishors, and then the communists, their former and current colonizers, respectively.

Edited once more to add. authored primarily by the Britons?, um.. since there's no reference for this, and from my personal experience, most books are authored by Indians, deletion of this part? The only reason I'm not making these changes already is that since, this page has been nominated for possible POV content, I thought, I'd see consensus opinion and then edit. Regards, Kaushik twin 16:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• I've moved the POV check from here to the section in question so that it might get some attention. POV checks in "talk space" seldom get broader attention. FWIW, I think the entire section has neutrality problems. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 21:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Why is this under facism?

Pretty much thats it. I'll remove it from category in 96hrs if no explaination is given. अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 19:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

As per the article on facism, Hindutva doesnt even come close to qualifying for it! List of fascist movements by country. It is not totalitarian, nor do they pledge alleigence to one leader. Yes they have used violence but they arent for corporatism. BJP methinks is largely democratic, though extremist envertheless. अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 19:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

No, Hindutva should not be placed in the fascist category. This category was obviously placed by someone who opposes the BJP and RSS. Hindutva is simply a belief of greater Hindu representation in the international community and particularly within India, the homeland of the Hindus. Nobleeagle (Talk) 02:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Hindutva is nationalism but not fascism. It is rubbish that BJP is compared with Hitler and Mussolini. Gizza^{Chat ©} 04:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Some users have the habit of taking the meaning of terms verbally when it suits them,if you do a simple search on fascist on Webster's dictionary, it gives the following results:

Noun 1. An adherent of fascism or other right-wing authoritarian views.

Similarly Oxford dictionary says: fascism /fashiz’m/

 *noun 1 an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government. 
 *2 extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice. 

From above it is clear that any political group that exhibits the cited traits is called fascist.

Some of the BJP supporters here have time and again removed the fascist reference to this party by saying "Fascism calls for Centralised administration but BJP has not done so,as if this was the central trait for which fascism is known..Nah..any movement that has extreme nationalistic - chaunvinsitic tendencies and has supremacist discourse particularly at the expense of other groups is called Fascist and rightly so BJP as a political party and Hindutva as a view deserve place in this list.

Lkadvani 19:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hindutva as an ideology is neither right-wing nor left-wing. It has both kinds of adherants. And hindutva ideology is also not a case of discourse at the expense of other groups. It is however true that there are fringe groups that spread violence and hatred of other groups. But this is a complaint for any ideology, not just hindutva. Every ideology has fringes that are violent. What matters when discussing about an ideology is that we look at the core ideology and not merely its proponents. Kartheeque 11:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. We cannot call all religions and nationalistic ideologies fascist because some groups take them too far. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with some of the comments above, but first even within rightwingers there are degrees of extremism . BJP- is not authoritarian and violent nor is it as extreme as the VHP or the RSS . RSS too is more ideological and does not have "storm troopers". Aspects of ABVP, VHP and Bajrang Dal as well as Shiv Sena have been more violent and likely to be closer to the fascist classification, that too is not true of all aspects. ie <Removed as per WP:BLP violation, see earlier version for statement>

But as of now Hindutva is a word coined and used by right wingers, and hence is associated with right wingers. As a concept it might not be left or right wing, but in reality it is a slogan of the right wing. It cannot escape the right wing association, just as communism as an ideal might have been equality but it is actually equated with totalitarianism and supression of freedom. Haphar 08:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Haphar, what evidence do you have that BJP or Sangh Parivar is right wing? How is RSS "ideological"? Don't you think they engage in beating up muslims too? What "ideology" is that? Looking at their paranoia towards "anti-national" forces, I'd say they are "Nationalists". What is Hindutva? It was coined by Veer Savarkar, an outspoken nationalist, but the jury is out whrther that is right wing or not as the left wing have ultra-nationalists among themselves too. ^Babub→Talk 14:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Right wing- as per the link - is conservative and religious, both of which BJP or the Sangh Parivar is. If you want citations to the same, do a google search on "right wing Hindu political parties/organisation"- Hindutva itself in the wiki article will be on top of the search. If you want to include RSS as a violent organisation that beats up Muslims, please feel free to do so, Veer Savarkar is also a person embraced more by the right wing RSS- Shiv Sena rather than "nationalists" he certainly is not spoken of in the same vein as Chandrashekhar Azad or Gangadhar Tilak. Veer Savarkar was also known to be anti muslim. There is no linking of nationalsim with right wing or left wing in my post, only that Hindutva is spoken of and defended by right wing parties and hence has right wing connotations.

Haphar 15:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

So ,you admit that u have no solid reference other than the wikipedia article showing Sangh Parivar as specifically Right wing. Ideally, a thorough study of historic right wing ideologies and Sangh "ideology" should be done. But I'm 'fraid there is no such thing. :) ^Babub→Talk 15:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Since you did not read what I have written ( else the above interpretation of yours is hard to understand) here is the BBC telling what the world already knows.[4].

According to this article BJP "seeks peace" with Right wing, so BJP is NOT right wing, as then they'd be seeking peace with themselves.Hkelkar 23:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is Time magazine [5]

Here is the BJP protesting the right wing label in India Today ( which shows there is a label)[6]

Here is another reference to the " Right wing BJP" [7]

Here is Newsweek calling the BJP right wing [8]

To repeat myself again Right wing is religious and conservative. Which the Sangh is. We are not here to reinvent the wheel , information that can be backed up by published matter from reputable sources will do instead of a thorough study. So I am afraid there is a right wing sangh. ( That "'fraid there is no such thing. :)" comment by you reminds me of one user who is silent these days.) Haphar 19:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You seem to weasel in that Right Wing is synonymous with Fascist. There are many websites that call George Bush the "Liarfuehrer" on precisely those grounds. So, is the Republican party in USA fascist? What about the Conservative (non-Labour) in England? If "right wing" means fascist, then everybody who's right wing is fascist.Hkelkar 23:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Please read ( once again) my original post and the response. The point I particularly made was that all elements in the Sangh are not as radical to paint them all with the same brush. I have said that some elements of the Sangh ( and mentioned them by name if you would pls read) are "closer to fascism" than the others.

The larger point was that Hindutva is bandied about by the right wing and hence has right wing backing and linkages. In response to which a user disputed if it is right wing, I showed links to show that the Sangh is right wing.

There is no comment or attempt to say that right wing is synonymous with fascists- If you have got that impression from my writings let me clarify that In my opinion fascism is an extremist form of the right wing. All right wingers do not ascribe to it and in my opinion ( again) even the BJP, though right wing is closer to being centrist than fascist. Haphar 08:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

What's the last comment supposed to mean? Sangh Parivar consists of RSS (which claims it is "cultural"), VHP (which claims to be "reformist Hindu") and BJP (which claims to follow Integral humanism). Which of these exactly is right wing as per your views? To go by your haphazard labelling, even the Vatican city is religious and conservative, therefore right wing. QED!^Babub→Talk 20:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not my labelling it's of the sites Also please give proof. citations ( for Vatican being right wing). Words, comments and original research are not enough. I have given you 5 very credible links that call BJP and Sangh right wing, why they are calling them that you please check with the sites/ links. Thank you for helping me Demonstrate that the Sangh are right wing. QED indeed Haphar 20:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. So now, do you disclaim your original claim of Sangh being fascist? ^Babub→Talk 20:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm so now will you please read and tell me where my original claim of Sangh being fascist is in this discusion ? would help to read before reaching conclusions. Haphar 08:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Just because it is right-wing doesn't mean its fascist! Are all conservatives fascist in your opinion? This topic is not on it's right-wingedness, it is on fascism. And nothing Haphar has presented proves that the Sangh Parivar are fascist...Far right is fascist, Ultra-leftism is communist. It seems that Haphar is labelling all right-wing organizations as fascist and all left-wing organizations as communist, leaving only centrists as decent people. It could be simply my misunderstand of what he has written, in which case I hope he clears that up for me. By the way, if you want you can go to [www.politicalcompass.org Political Compass] and find out whether you are right/left. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

My original claim was not of the Sangh being fascist . I have not even talked of any left wing organisation. I have not even passed judgement on whether right wing or left wing is good/ bad. My original post in this trail is in response to Hindutva being called neither left wing nor right wing. and I have said that it is right wing as the Sangh is right wing, and I have said ABVP, parts of VHP, Shiv Sena and Bajrang Dal are "closer to fascism" than the BJP and I stand by that. Babub has in his own response said that the "How is RSS "ideological"? Don't you think they engage in beating up muslims too? What "ideology" is that? " So I was giving RSS the benefit of the doubt but by Babub's own contention even that is closer to fascism. Request is to read the whole mail trail before jumping to conclusions. Bubba should have read the complete record , but then responding to logic or sticking to facts is not a hallmark of some editors.Haphar 08:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Sangh Parivar is right wing because it is right wing (!). Your last statement above is absolutely accurate! ^Babub→Talk 13:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The topic was "Why is this under fascism", therefore I assumed your comments were on-topic. The fact that you were trying to prove that Hindutva was right-wing was (I believed) meant to be indication that it is fascist. Maybe my misinterpretation, in any case, it was just a misunderstanding. So are we to the on-topic conclusion that Hindutva is not fascist or is there something more anyone wishes to present? Nobleeagle (Talk) 09:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hindi article on Hindutva with praise and criticism

Those of you who know Hindi, please read this Hindi article on Hindutva, written almost entirely by me hi:हिंदुत्व. It contains both praise and criticism. Please give your comments, because I am soon going to put up an english translation of praise and criticism on this article.Cygnus_hansa 08:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedias aren't for praise or criticism. Just describe it. --Krsont 18:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I find the praise and criticism lobby on all Indian Hindu-Muslim related articles,its like a machine that goes on adding factual inaccuracy templates and then adding praise and criticism..

Lkadvani 19:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Anwar's edits

While clearly POV, please avoid automatically reverting them as it seems there is some useful information there. In particular, the information on Christian adoption law and so on. Also, replacing lines like , "and then the communists, their former and current colonizers, respectively" and putting 'widesapread' in for 'some' that "It (the rss) has widespread support among Indian Hindus." is clearly POV. Please engage with the other editor. Hornplease 07:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I trust you've seen User talk:Anwar saadat and know about the negotiations that are taking place... Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I withdraw the last sentence of the above comment. Clearly much engaging is happening. However, please do engage with his edits as well! As I said, some of them are not without merit. I am not getting into editing it myself, because I dont want to enter into the negotiations already in progress. Once its sorted, please do consider incorporating some of the edits he made. Hornplease 07:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Gujarat riots

The website that the User[69.199.165.162] had given does not give the number of people killed as 2000 muslims. One reference i found is Chrisitan Science monitor-report.In this report it is "more than 1000 people , mostly muslims. Besides this , the figure government of India( present Congress -I led govt) through a statement in parliament was abt seven hundred muslims & 200 hindus totalling abt 1000. SO I am going to revert it to 1000 people. If you have any other sources, you can provide that.Bharatveer 06:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

POV?

There is this statement in the article that seems like a Point of view :- " Many feel that Hindutva speaks for the Hindu majority in India. They also often feel that secular democracy implies equality for all religions, and want a Uniform Civil Code passed for the same reason." This does not clarify who the "many" are and seems to say that the Hindu majority subscribe to this point of view. Haphar 13:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hindu Fundamentalism

Hindu Fundamentalism should not be redirecting to this page. The most common example given of hindu fundamentalism is that of an individual who considers his chosen diety superior/supreme to all others hence derides the worship of dieties other than his.

Furthermore, fundamentalism is described as

"Although the term fundamentalism in popular usage sometimes refers derogatorily to any fringe religious group, or to extremist ethnic movements with only nominally religious motivations, the term does have a more precise denotation. "Fundamentalist" describes a movement to return to what is considered the defining or founding principles of the religion. It has especially come to refer to any religious enclave that intentionally resists identification with the larger religious group in which it originally arose, on the basis that fundamental principles upon which the larger religious group is supposedly founded have become corrupt or displaced by alternative principles hostile to its identity.

This formation of a separate identity is deemed necessary on account of a perception that the religious community has surrendered its ability to define itself in religious terms. The "fundamentals" of the religion have been jettisoned by neglect, lost through compromise and inattention, so that the general religious community's explanation of itself appears to the separatist to be in terms that are completely alien and fundamentally hostile to the religion itself. Fundamentalist movements are therefore founded upon the same religious principles as the larger group, but the fundamentalists more self-consciously attempt to build an entire approach to the modern world based on strict fidelity to those principles, to preserve a distinctness both of doctrine and of life."

Another clarification

"Some argue that the religious idea of fundamentalism is limited to "Abrahamic religions", and have connected the phenomenon specifically to the notion of revealed religion. However, the answer to the question, Who is a fundamentalist? is in the eye of the beholder. It is not uncommon for detractors to apply the fundamentalist label to Wiccans or virtually anything else religious, describing an attitude rather than a self-perception or a doctrine. In the landmark series on fundamentalism, scholars led by liberal Christian scholar Martin Marty have identified fundamentalism also in Hinduism.

Followers of Hinduism generally adhere to the Vedic statement, "Truth is One, though the sages know it variously", which would seem to make relativism practically a fundamental tenet. However, a few sects within Hinduism do have a tendency to dogmatically view the Vedas as divinely inspired, superior or even flawless. Regardless, some claim that no Hindu can be found who considers his/her name of God to be that of the "only true God" or their scriptures to be the "only scriptures truly inspired by God" or their prophet to be the "final one". In fact it is normal that Hinduism is itself divided into many different sects and groups with new sects and new philosophies continuously being added; consequently, the fundamentalist enclaves identified by The Fundamentalism Project, which claim to be purer than others, are regarded as aberrant within Hinduism."

A believe a separate article needs to be created for Hindu Fundamentalism chrisJonas 15:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)ChrisJonas

Pseudosecularism

"The advocates of Hindutva often use the term pseudo-secularism to refer to the Indian Constitution's provisions for minority rights."

This sentence is completely wrong and misleading. They are not against any of the constitutional rights provided for the minorities. But they oppose the delay in the implementation of Universal Civil Code (art.44) which should have been implemented by the successive governments . This being the case, how can one say they are against the minority rights provided by the Indian constitution?/ Haphar, If you feel they are against any particular article /law of Indian constitution . pls list them here. Bharatveer 14:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

In sensitive articles such as these, I personally feel that it is best to just mention the events and leave it at that. For example, the UCC issue, I'd just say "Supreme Court said that UCC should be implemented..."; "P. V. Narasimha Rao (as a reply) observed in his Independence day speech Yadyapi shuddham loka viruddham naa aacharaneeyam naa karaneeyam - However good an ideal is, if (sections of) people are against it, it should not be pushed"; "RSS leaders said that it was another act of appeasement" etc. For sensitive articles, it is always better to cite reliable sources and stick to one-revert rule. --Gurubrahma 16:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

"The advocates of Hindutva often use the term pseudo-secularism to refer to the policies of the successive governments which they believe are very favourable towards the minorities.They point to the different standards for Hindus, Muslims and Christians."

This statement is the one used by Bharatveer to replace the Constitution one. All examples in the paragraph refer to separate "laws" and there are no "standards" or "policies" explained. Which does not bear with the examples quoted in the paragraph.

In response to Bharatveer's question asking for laws opposed, as mentioned in the text of the paragraph, the laws they are against are the laws that allow Muslims to marry 4 times. Seperate divorce laws for Christians and laws being different for different religions ( to name just a few). And if Bharatveer can mention the "standards" and "policies" that he has been reverting to it would end this conversation. This has been asked 4 times now, in response reverts are done but no explanations are given of these "standards" and/or "policies". Haphar 15:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Instances of laws asked for by bharatveer have been provided( see above), multiple mentions of laws are present in the paragraph being discussed, no standards/ policies examples are provided by bharatveer and the reverts continue, at least back the reverts with substance. Haphar 14:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

My reason for not using the word "laws" is because the "pseudosecularism" is not limited to religious laws i.e UCC but it also covers issues like government intervention in the management of Hindu temples, exclusive Use of temple funds for government's " secular " etc etc. That is why "The advocates of Hindutva often use the term pseudo-secularism to refer to the policies of the successive governments which they believe are very favourable towards the minorities.They point to the different standards for Hindus, Muslims and Christians." is better than what you suggested.Bharatveer 15:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Pls dont mark your reverts as minor edits . SEE Minor editsBharatveer 15:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Bharatveer here, advocates of Hindutva simply disagree with the fact that Muslims can live a more lenient life than Hindus...and if they don't get to live such a life there is violence inside the nation. Weren't there riots recently because a plan was organized to remove religious places along roads, many temples were removed but when it came to Muslim religious places they got to protest and eventually there was some case of violence... Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

There are statements in the paragraph that states "They point to the different standards for Hindu's Muslims and Chrisitians" This is presented as fact, and is not supported by anything written so far. There still are no "policies" or "standards" of the governement that are mentioned.So what temple funds are used for secular purposes ? Tirupati temples collections ? Sabarimala ?Or is it Vaishno Devi collections ? and is there a "law" that allows this to happen or a policy ? . NobleEagle there were riots by Muslims and NOT by the government when it came to removing mosque's for road widening, that does not make the government policies biased. All examples quoted are related to Muslims, the paragraph refers to other religions, so is Hindutva focussed on being anti muslim ? The title of the para refers to other faiths, and the focus of the para is Muslims.

Even in the paragraph all the examples quoted are of laws. All the aspects of "policies" and "standards" is totally a POV and does not yet seem to be fact based as there still are no policies or standards described but laws. So if there are instances of "standards" or "policies" ( to help let me offer an example- allowing entry to the disputed temple/mosque at Ayodhya was a policy and not a law (and one which was more pro hindu)) . So this claim on policies or standards is not yet supported by facts and has no references to these policies or standards in the passage, so request that the standards are added, and as the passage is about other faiths please try and get some "other religions" into the ambit or specify that the Hindutva grouse is mainly anti muslim. Or change the heading of the paragraph into Hindutva's views on government policies.

Haphar 08:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Standards vs law debate

If one goes to the history page of the article, there is a change put in on 25th June by NobleEagle as an example of differing standards, to quote : " They believe these standards have been in place in the united India since Partition, where Hindus living in Pakistan were forced to evacuate and Muslims living in India were not "

What Pakistan does to it's minorities does not decide laws in India. Non muslims moving out of Pakistan was not an Indian government policy.(and please note "Non Muslims" as it was not just Hindus who moved to India from Pakistan)- Attacks by "mobs" forced most non muslims out of West Pakistan. Conversely mobs in Indian Punjab forced muslims out too. Who was first to start it is conjecture, both parties were equally brutal.

This was painful to both parties and impacted largely an equal amount of people on both ends. So if it is pain caused to the other that is a moot point both sides suffered equally.

However Muslims not being forced out of India being seen by NobleEagle as a differing "standard" does point that he subscribes to the POV that Muslims should have been pushed out of India. Why ? was India pushing out Hindus that it had to be equal to both religions and push out Muslims ? This "Push out Muslims" is the "secular" vision of Hindutva. This movement has slogans like "Bharat mein rahna hoga to Vande Matram kehna hoga" (then scrap Jan Gan Man and make Vande Matram the national anthem first).

This term "psuedosecularism" is actually against equality to minorities. The paragraph "view on other faiths" seems to present only Hindutva's POV and that is the moot point in this standard vs law debate. All imagined ill's or causes for Hindutva's extreme right views are mentioned but not the lack of facts to support this POV Haphar 10:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I didn't want to cause uproar, I was simply looking for an example. No, I don't believe Muslims should be kicked out of India, how many times has Mohammed Kaif saved the Indian cricket team from embarrassment? In fact, I reckon Irfan Pathan is the next big thing in world cricket. I feel pride when I read about Sania Mirza in Western newspapers...So many Bollywood stars are Muslim...so you can get that misconception out of your head. Although this is unrelated to the actual topic, here is my POV: there should have been no partition, the Indian civilization began in the Indus Valley, the fact that the people that now live there do not call themselves Indian is saddenning. I wish a land in which so many tolerant religions were founded would be able to have a tolerant population without splitting in two. But that's just my POV.

To the topic, my point was that in India, note that India was larger before partition and that the RSS existed before partition, Hindutva organizations have felt that there has not been equality between religions. Do you remember the motive behind the assisination of Gandhiji, the reason was mainly because of Gandhi's allowance and assistance in Partition. Those are the different standards Hindtuva organizations point to, tolerance vs intolerance, Gandhi would've never supported moving the Muslims out of India, yet he managed to allow moving the Hindus out of Pakistan. Do you get my point...if not I'll try and clarify tomorrow...Nobleeagle (Talk) 10:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the POV that we have a common heritage here, and almost all of us have a Hindu and/or Budhist ancestor if we are from this land, and there is no point in denying these origins. I see your perspective on Gandhi, Though if you have to hold something against him as an Indian, one could hold a grudge against him for forcing Nehru to give Pakistan's portion of the British Indian treasury to Pakistan after the latter had invaded Kashmir. But my point in relation to the article is that there are no examples that seem to substantiate the claims of biased govt standards and policies .( successive governments as the article puts it) Haphar 13:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I see my mistake, although it was only one line that was quickly removed so I can't imagine why this huge fuss. But what I am talking about is not really the standards of the Indian Government on Indian Muslims and Indian Hindus. Its either the Indian Government's early attitudes towards Pakistan or the way the religions have treated each other as opposed to the way the govt. Again, I'm sorry for any hurt I may have caused by my comments on the Partition, I truly felt bad when I read the accusation that was placed on me above, I believe religious tolerance is an integral part of Hinduism. I'm not even far-right, according to the [www.politicalcompass.org Political Compass Test]. Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I thank you all for pointing out that all this is POV. My personal POV is that if we had not cauterized Pakistan out of our country, Osama bin-Laden would be in my back yard (so to speak), as would the American bombers. So I'm glad we got rid of them, and that we are a rapidly growing nation and they're an Islamist toilet of terrorists in hiding. Just make sure that none of this goes into the article, consciously or subconsciously. I urge all wikipedia authors watching this article to look at edits critically, irrespective of whether they conform to their POV or not. (Netaji 09:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC))

Link removals

Please do not remove any links, but instead arrange them and describe them if they support one side, since most websites about Hindutva support one side. By the way, Hindutva is the DOMINANT party in India, meaning Yes, it Is, a Majority movement. Basawala 01:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

What utter rubbish. You need to read some papers. The dominant party id the Indian National Congress, a socialist party. They won the elections, remember? Referring the link I removed is like putting a link to an antisemetic website in an article about the Arab-israeli conflict. It is POV and out of place.(Netaji 01:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC))

But the Bharatiya Janata Party won the election before that, did they not? We can at least safely say that around half of the Indian population support Hindutva... Nobleeagle (Talk) 01:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The BJP does not officially support hindutva. Hindutva was coined by VD Savarkar and does not have any linkage with the BJP. The RSS does officially support Hindutva, and they never won any national elections. Where does it say in the charter of the BJP that they support hindutva? Provide links to their party charter or manifesto and highlight any endorsement of hindutva. Until you do, the site linked to is POV, unsubstantiated, and stays out. Please do some research in reality and not in dreams. (Netaji 01:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC))

Even so, in the link that was deleted without warning, there was NO MENTION of Hindutva being a majority movement, from what I could find. This link should be put back on the article. Basawala 01:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course the BJP supports Hindutva, I can happily provide proof: all here. Nobleeagle (Talk) 01:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

See below:

• Doesn't change the fact that the website is a lie. It says (and I quote)
  • "In Modi’s Gujarat, Hitler is a textbook hero "

In fact, the favorable mention of the erstwhile chancellor has nothing to do with modi, but an addition of the Congress (http://www.sulekha.com/news/nhc.aspx?cid=423798).

• • "It must be remembered that these fanatics are not small in number".Relative to the population of India, they are small in number, another deliberate lie.
  • Plus, the website has no legitimate or scholarly standing. It is, in fact, a muslim site (big surprise) , has a high risk rating by netcraft inc (7/10) , and is POV, ill frequented, and potentially contains dangerous code that could hijack client computers to disseminate viruses written by terrorist orgs.

It stays out. (Netaji 01:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC))

I'm not debating removal of the site, simply debating the idea that Hindutva is not a majority movement. It is at least a majority movement amongst Hindus, as most Non-Hindus would not have voted for a Hindutva-party in the election before last. Nobleeagle (Talk) 01:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Says who? Koenraad Elst is not a Hindu, yet he supports Hindutva. Ariel Sharon is not a Hindu, yet he supports Hindutva. The middle class voted for the BJP because they were modernising the country away from the communist economy of the Congress, not because of hindutva. Many Buddhists and Sikhs support Hindutva, as evidenced by the Khalsa, VHP alliance in Britain. Sikhs are pissed at congress atrocities on them. Hindutva, despite its support, is opposed by the pseudosecularist self-hating left-wing moonbats who form the majority in India.(Netaji 02:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC))

Let me rephrase, Hindutva does not have majority support in non-Hindu religions. Remember that Hindutva ideologies includes Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs as Hindus. Basically those whose religion traces back to India. Or are you trying to tell me that its a majority movement in all religions! :) Nobleeagle (Talk) 02:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Correct, hindutva is a generic term for all indegenously Indian cultures, be it Shaivites, Vaishnavites,whatever caste (including legitimate Indian gentiles), Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Santhals, Aadivasis, Andamanis, whoever. It does not include communists, muslim terrorists, crosspuggers and pinko liberals, who dominate the Indian political landscape. Pinkos collude with crosspuggers and muslims in order to secure the minority vote bank against the interests of the Hindu majority. Most Hindus are too self-hating to see that (long story as to why), so they run behind them like the mules of Stalinist Russia. Thus, hindutva is NOT a majority ideology at present, though it will be very soon. However, hindutva speaks for the majority, whether they know it or not. See the difference? Obviously, Hindutva is not a majority ideology among non-Hindus, though we have many supporters among devout Jews, the AIPAC committee, sympathizers of Zionism, and Occidental friends of Hindutva such as Koenraad Elst and Daniel Pipes.(Netaji 02:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC))

American English?

This article has many Americanisms and spellings in it, and since its an Indic-related topic, it should be "converted" into British English. Thank you. Basawala 18:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. Like it or not, more Indians are adopting American English. America is very popular and well-liked in India. Too bad, Osama.(Netaji 20:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC))

No, actually it should. India-related articles should be written in Indian English which basically is the same as British English (Commonwealth English if you would). This is Wikipedia policy see WP:INWNB for further details. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 16:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Why? Three centuries ago, nobody had evn heard of English in India. Now, all of a sudden, you want to advance "British English" upon us because Indians were forced to use it as slaves? Why shouldn't this article give credence to the fact that India, now a budding friend of the United States, is CHANGING to adapt to American English, which is the lingua-franca of the future, whether a bunch of stiff-assed Brits like it or not.(Netaji 12:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC))

Three centuries ago, lots of things were different and so that's not really a valid argument. Yes, because I want to enslave you with British English - of course, you can't be enslaved with the increasing Americanisation (or is that Americanization)? If you want to attempt a reform you can tell the Indian government to teach American English in schools instead of the Imperialist English being taught at the moment. But in all seriousness, I'm not bothered which is used (even though I prefer British English), and if you wish to bring this issue up you can - the place to go is WT:INWNB. If enough Wikipedians agree with your wish to change it, then we can come to some sort of agreement. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 01:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

American multinationals are not the cabal of gangsters and prostitutes that the East India Company was. We need to eradicate all British influence on Indian Culture and migrate to sympathize with a country that is our ally. You're trying to enslave me with British English? Dunno if you're trying to be sarcastic or what, but last time I checked, babu, the British regard Sikhs with little respect. In the US and Canada, Sikh boys are allowed to wear their Kirpans to School.(Netaji 01:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC))

The East India company is a long gone entity my friend. Times have changed. But yes, I was being sarcastic in my comment.

And, for the record, Britain has for a long time protected the rights of baptised Sikhs (including the right to wear the Kirpan at school). And arguably, it goes much further than the protections granted by the US and Canada. In the UK, the Sikhs were recognised in a landmark ruling by the House of Lords (1982; Jews are the only other religious group to have this same protection) as an ethnic group and hence they are protected by racial discrimination laws. Therefore it would actually be *racist* for a British school (be it a public (private in Amerian English!) or state school) to prevent a baptised Sikh student from wearing a kirpan without just cause. The same goes for all positions within the government, including positions in the army.

But back to the original point. If you want to change the policy (which you are perfectly entitled to do) then please bring it up on WT:INWNB. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and not that I want to get into a rant about this nor do I necessarily subscribe to this view, but many baptised Sikhs would contend that Sikhs have been treated far better by Britain in the last 20 years than they have by the government in their own country (the congress that is...). Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this view. The bloody useless Congress government has been despicable to the Sikh people. It is but part of their pseudosecularist agenda to delitimize the Great Khalsa. Sikhism is a uniquely Indian religion and embodies the Indian ethos perfectly in Sikh principles. Hindutva activists wish nothing but coexistence with the Great Khalsa. In fact, I believe that Sikh members of the B.N.P. have formed an alliance of sorts with Hindu members of the B.N.P. in order to speak out against the massive atrocities inflicted on both peoples by muslims.(Pusyamitra Sunga 10:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC))

historians and personal attacks

I have been referred to as a "pinko" because I pointed out that Koenraad Elst's views are viewed as false by the entirety of Indo-European studies? I understand this is is a very heated issue, but I don't understand why anyone who disagrees with Indian nationalism is labelled either an imperialist or a communist. --Krsont 08:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Because they usually are. Sorry if I flew off the handle, but wikipedia is not the place to defame scholars. Please leave defamation to terrorist-sympathizers. Plus, I have no interest in this wikipedia article become a "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" against Hindus, so please do not delete the facts in favor of biased information or biased tone. Thanks. (Netaji 08:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC))

There is nothing in my additions that defames Hindus or Hinduism, and I am very sorry if you feel that way. The fact of the matter is that most linguists and historians agree that Indo-Aryan languages, and some elements of culture, did enter India at some point after the collapse of the Indus Valley Civilization. These views are not intended to discredit Hinduism, or support terrorists(!), merely to represent history and pre-history as best we can.

also: I'm confused with the continued addition of the term "Aryan Invasion Theory" or "AIT" to this page. As far as I can tell this phrase and concept is only mentioned as current in Indian nationalist literature, wheras in reality the melodramatic idea of an invasion was abandoned long ago in mainstream history and linguistics. The term "Indo-Aryan migration" is much more appropriate and accurate. --Krsont 08:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Wrong, and wrong. Read Romila Thapar's "Ashoka and the Decline of the Mauryas". In it, she keeps mentioning all that "Aryan Race Invasion" nonsense. It's like a bloody Nazi propaganda leaflet written by Joseph Goebbels, for Krishna's sake. Many historians do criticise the entire concept of the "Aryan Race" as a total lie (as do many Jewish Scholars like Abraham Foxman and Allan Dershowitz) deliberately created by 19th century race theorists to advace colonialism and anti-semitism. And yes, this IS pertinent to the Hindu Rashtra issue, as the AIT is a canard used by anti-Hindu haters to delegitimize our legitimate claim to India, just like anti-semites use race-theories to delegitimize the Jewish claim to Israel. It's the same basic deal.(Netaji 08:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC))

I would agree with you entirely, that the Aryans where not a race, and that genetic influence on India from Central Asia is minimal to none (as recent studies such as that by the Human Genographic project[9] have shown). But again, it is an ingress of Indo-Aryan culture and language that is the question here, not genetics or "race". And, as I have stated, mainstream scholarship is unified on the issue - all the evidence points to it having happened. To attack this fact as anti-Hindu racism is ridiculous. Politics does not come into it. --Krsont 08:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

"Mainstream Scholarship" once was unified on the fact that the Earth was flat, that heat was conducted by a fluid called 'phlogiston', that sperm cells contained little dwarves, and that Jews ate people and secretly conspired to take over the world. As long as there is no universal consensus to a claim, it remains disputed. There is no dispute over categorically verified facts in academia, like the postulates of Quantum Mechanics. The 'Aryan Race Invasion' garbage cannot be given the same degree of respect as the postulates of Quantum Mechanics, as it is still disputed. So is any sanitized variation of the "Indo-Aryan" Theory. If one aspect, any aspect, of an idea or concept is tainted, the entire theory is suspect.(Netaji 08:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC))

The evidence is not nearly as easy to dispute as you claim. The Indo-Aryan languages clearly show a Dravidian substrate in their phonology and vocabulary, something which is not present anywhere else in the Indo-European languages. This shows the original languages of North India where Dravidian, and that Indo-Aryan language came into India from outside and was adopted by a mostly Dravidian language speaking populace. There is nothing Eurocentric about this theory - the same methods have shown a substrate in the Germanic languages (see Germanic substrate hypothesis) that show that the original Germans did not speak an Indo-European language either. Infact, it is probably more correct to characterise the Hindutva theories of Indo-European origins as outdated fairy tales. When the language family was first proposed, most European scholars believed that the language family originated in India, based primarily on the percieved age of the Vedas. It was only later that they realised the evidence showed an origin somewhere further to the West/North, as the finding of the Hittite language (the earliest evidence of which is dated earlier than the Vedas) has shown to be a correct assumption. --Krsont 09:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Please read a small but undeniable number of papers and books written by Arun Shourie and other historians that provide alternate explanations to most of your points above. It is also equally possible tha the evolution of language went the other way (an error in sign ,perhaps?), FROM India TO the rest of Eurasia. There are few reliable documents in India (other than the Vedas, Mahabharata, Ramayana, and Gita) that date before 350 BC, and the dating of the documents that may establish that the Eurasian languages predated ours are done by imprecise means that can be questioned. The linguistic links don't establish a temporal order of evolution without documentation, they only establish a link. It could have gone either way. Fact remains that history is not mathematics, and as long as you can't CATEGORICALLY prove (evidence is not proof, only a substantiation) that the Indic languages came from outside India, and if alternate theories can explain your data with reasonable accuracy, the claims remain disputed.(Netaji 09:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC))

The evidence does quite clearly demonstrate a temporal link: a Dravidian substrate is found within India, but no-where else. If the Indo-European languages had come from India these Dravidian elements would be found outside of India. They are not. However even if we accept that this hypothesis is disputed, and that alternate explanations exist, that does not mean that it is fair to categorize mainstream views as divided, or that it is wrong to point out that these opposing views come almost exclusively from and supported by nationalist individuals and groups. This is a similar issue to the creationist/evolutionist debate - while there is a strong current of anti-evolutionist thought in many groups, this does not mean that biologists themselves are truly divided on the issue. --Krsont 09:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact also remains that the AIT is a theory that is touted primarily by westerners. Many Indians do not buy into it, and Indians are more in touch with their culture and their history to have at least some say in the theories of their origins. After all, we don't dispute that Jews came from Israel (muslims do), or that Lief Ericsson discovered America (Spaniards do). Also, you made the following statement:

• • • • • If the Indo-European languages had come from India these Dravidian elements would be found outside of India.

The logical fallacy in this claim is obvious if you can draw some Venn Diagrams.Your argument is problematic. The contrapositive of a logical statement WOULD be true if you have firmly established that EVERY INSTANCE OF set A leads to EVERY INSTANCE of set B, and you haven't established that at all.None of these so called "scholars" (with no background in mathematics or logic it would seem) have.(Netaji 11:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC))

I'm going to admit I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Please define what set a, set be, and set c represent. The fact is Dravidian linguistic influences only exist in the Indo-Aryan branch of the Indo-European linguistic family. They acquired this after they entered India. These Dravidian elements are not found any where else. I don't see how a venn diagram disproves this. As for your claims of the "AIT" being proposed by westerners, I really have no idea what you mean. The invasion claim is a discredited view of history, the term is only found in Indian literature. Linguistics is not the study of invasions, despite what the rather melodramatic, and (yes) racist views of 19th century Europeans claimed. Modern linguistics has put these things behind them them. And your examples given of nationalist denials of facts only strengthen my claim - just as the Arab view that Jews do not belong in Israel, or the (apparently, I've never heard Spanish people claim this) Spanish claim that the Vikings never got to America, are nationalist, so to is the divergent and non-mainstream Indian view that Indo-European languages came from India. This view flies in the face of the linguistic facts, and is based, as far as I can tell, soley on nationalism, nothing more. --Krsont 11:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me make my argument a bit clearer (I was a bit vague and made a mistake in the last post). You say that, the fact that certain aspects of Indic languages (Indo-Aryan) are common to those outside India, and others (Dravidian) are not. Thus, it follows that the languages outside India are the origins of the Indic Language family. This is logically fallacious, as you have said (A represents Indic languages, E represents Eurasian languages , let us assume A = I U D where I is Indo-Aryan and D is Dravidian).Now, let me try to condense your argument into logical statements:

D \intersection E is null, ok ;

I \intersection E is not null, ok ;

On the basis of this, you are trying to prove the following:

• • A is a subset of E (this is just plain false, draw a Venn Diagram to see for yourself)
  • there is a causal relationship between A & E that is established by the above claims (please try and prove this, you can't. You don't have enough information)

In addition, you make claims that if statement X (Dravidian Substrate is found within India) and Y (Dravidian substrate is NOT found outside India) being true, plus X` (Indo-Aryan languages found in India) and Y`(They are also found outside) are true, it automatically follows that XUY --> X' U Y', then that is also false.

I could just as easily claim that Indo-Aryan languages originated in India together with the Dravidian family (influencing each other marginally), but the Aryan languages advanced to Eurasia during this time, and the Dravidian influence has been diluted to the point that you can't detect any. Then, as time went by, Dravidian languages influenced Aryan ones in India more (without influencing foreign languages much), making THAT detectable.(Netaji)

I'm not a logician, so I regret to say I understood little of the above. But I must point out that your idea that Dravidian languages could have influenced Indo-Aryan ones by adstratum rather than substratum effects is false - the nature of the Dravidian influences in Indo-Aryan makes this extremely unlikely. The influence was far too large, and at far too basic a level (phonological and some aspects of morphology) to merely be adstratum resulting from mutual influence/a common sprachbund. Such adstratum influence did certainly also occur, but after the initial establishment of Indo-Aryan languages in India. Of note also is the existence of Mitanni, an apparently Indo-Aryan language, spoken in the ancient near east, that shows no evidence of a Dravidian substrate (having split off from an earlier stage before Indo-Aryan languages entered India). So also do the closely related Iranian languages show no evidence whatsoever of Dravidian influence at any point in their history. Does it really make sense to dismiss all possible Dravidian influences as having "diluted" away so quickly, and so completely, and that the Dravidian languages waited until after Indo-European languages had spread into "Eurasia" before influencing it further to the point where it is so obvious today? The only logical explanation, and the one that the comparative linguistic community have arrived at, is that Indo-Aryan languages came into India from outside. Anything else just doesn't make sense.--Krsont 13:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Trying to make sense out of an originial senseless theory (which you admitted earlier) is also senseless .Bharatveer 13:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I assume the "senseless theory" you are referring to is the "Aryan invasion" that keeps being mentioned. Yes, it is senseless, but it has nothing to do with modern linguistics. As I also "admitted earlier". --Krsont 13:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Its no good trying to seperate Modern linguists from AIT. Almost all "Modern Linguists" still BELIEVE , I repeat BELIEVE and SUPPORT ARYAN INVASION THEORY , which is a fact which you cannot deny. Bharatveer 14:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I just did deny it. The Aryans never invaded India. at most they migrated, but even then it was in small numbers. All they gave was language. See this study by the human genographic project (which i also posted earlier)[10]. No genetic evidence of large scale invasion or migration was found. The change was linguistic only. There is no, i repeat no, conspiracy among linguists to secretly believe blond-haired blue-eyed pretty Germans guys invaded India. I don't know how I can put it any clearer. --Krsont 14:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Many blond haired blue eyed (but not sure abt "prettiness)+ one or two germ ans "ultra modern Linguists" + some brown haired brown/black eyed commies from India got together very "recently" in CALIFORNIA and announced their whole hearted support for AIT . Did You forget that??? Bharatveer 14:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

are you referring to the Californian Hindu textbook controversy? Again, you are confusing the issue of migration with invasion. Teaching the fact of a possible migration (note also that they now teach that some disagree with the migration theory) does not mean that they are a) teaching an Aryan invasion as it was invisioned by racist British Imperialists or b) that they are a bunch of commies/racists/racist commies/"germ mans" trying to put down Hinduism/India or deligitimise the Indian state. Again, linguistics has nothing to do with politics. --Krsont 14:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Linguistics have EVERYTHING to do about politics.

I will cite 2 from the many examples. In India : remember the GREAT LINGUIST Robert Caldwell and his relation with DRAVIDIAN MOVEMENT politics of Tamil nadu. (Too bad nothing much came out of it.)

In Rwanda , Hamitic Theory of Races & Rwandan Genocide. (You got something like 10 million souls ). Bharatveer 14:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

language definately has something to do with politics, because it's a defining charecteristic of culture. When Robert Caldwell identified the Dravidian language group, it allowed the peoples that spoke those languages to develop their regional identity. It's only natural that led to a seperatist movement. But it was not linguists that led the seperatists movement, it was politicians. It is not linguists who continue the violence in Sri Lanka, it is the Tamil seperatists. Language may be a rallying cry for various political movements, often seperatist ones, but that does not mean linguistics is a tool of government or any other political organization - or at least it shouldn't be. Thankfully in the past few hundred years a lot of the world has come to the realisation that science shouldn't be told what to think or study by governments. As for the Rwandan Genocide, again you are confusing race/ethnicity with linguistics. Infact both Hutus and Tutsis speak the same languages, none of which are "hamitic" (I'm assuming you meant "Afro-Asiatic" here). --Krsont 15:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope I meant " Hamitic " itself . Linguists doesnt do anything , they just say or write as instructed by their employers.If the next question is who is the employer , then look for some "Cross" relation between Mueller , Caldwell and Rwandan Genocide. The relation is not that difficult to find .Bharatveer 16:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, of course! The British. I guess we can settle this then. The British Empire invented linguistics so they could make people the world over feel bad about themselves, and then move in to take over their country. Why did you not say so sooner? it all makes perfect sense! Infact, it goes right back to the foundations of Britain itself - linguists must have invented the Celtic languages of Wales, Scotland and Ireland, just so the native peoples would feel really bad about themselves and submit to the rule of England. And now that I think about it, there are many notable linguists the world over who actually speak English! Clearly this conspiracy runs very deep. The Ministry of Linguistics at Westminster must be shaking with fear that someone has finally uncovered their dastardly scheme. who knows, they may have, as we speak, been inventing a new language for Iraq in order to divide it and cause a civil war, just so the Britishers could rule it better! Looks like you really averted a disaster there. And I guess all those linguists in the employ of HRH should be looking for new jobs. --Krsont 16:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You know very well that i was not talking about the british.But Holy C (ow) , i know you will not like to mention it here . Since I think this is not place to discuss all these kind of issues. I will stop this discussion for now. Bharatveer 17:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

fair enough, although I really did think you where talking about the British there. Either that or Christianity (and that'd be a lot harder for me to argue with, cos I'm a complete anti-christian myself). --Krsont 17:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

racism

my edits regarding the nature of claims of racism on western scholars keeps being reverted. Note I am not the one who said that this writer has called western historians racist, this was added by another contributor. Is it not true? and is it really that controversial an idea that calling people racist is an attack? how could there possibly be a disagreement on this? --Krsont 10:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

AIT was( and is even now with modified AMT or ATT) clearly a RACIST theory .So calling it as such will not make it an "attack". Bharatveer 10:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

This is entirely your minority and fringe POV. There is nothing racist about it; quite simply because the theory does not concern genetics or race. Language and culture is not genetic, and to claim otherwise is itself racist. --Krsont 10:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Shaheb. The AIT is RACIST! I second the motion and suggest that you stop defaming our people for the sake of advancing your Eurocentric agenda on wikipedia.(Netaji 10:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC))

When have I ever defamed Hindus or Hinduism? and what evidence is there for this supposed Eurocentric agenda? There is nothing Eurocentric whatsoever about the Indo-European hypothesis - the two main contenders for the Indo-European homeland place it either in Turkey or Central Asia. Not in Europe. Europe was Indo-Europeanised in exactly the same as North India and Iran where. So if Europeans can accept that their civilization was not the source of Indo-European language and culture, then why can't Indians? Is it not more accurate to say your view is the more ethnocentric one, dismissing all evidence of outside influence on Indian culture as either racist or communist? --Krsont 10:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

What evidence of Eurocentricity? How about the gas chambers of Auschwitz? The 60lakh Jews that suddenly 'vanished' from Eastern Europe? Now what about the endless litany of pamphlets, essays, and books written by Alfred Rosenberg, Joseph Goebbels and dozens of others in the erstwhile "Third Reich" touting the glory of the "Aryan" supremacy? Not enough evidence of what the "Aryan Invasion" Theory was meant to accomplish in Europe at least? Now go to Indian history and rad about the massive scale of genocide, slavery and brutal atrocities committed by the British in the name of "Aryanism". Still not enough?(Netaji 11:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC))

Read origin of AIT & Philology - Bharatveer 11:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Nazis and British Imperialists are not the same as the modern day international linguistics community. Comparing a theory of linguistics to genocide is beyond ridiculous. There is nothing political about this theory. It is not designed to defame or harm Hinduism, and it does not discredit the legitimate right for Hindus, or Jews, or any other peoples, to exist in peace. Yes, elements of it in the past was incorperated into the ideology and policies of the Nazis and British in India, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with modern linguistics, or the fact that the theory itself is still true. What you're saying is not even an ad hominem attack, because the Nazis version of the Indo-European hypothesis was at odds with even the Indo-European theories of the time. It's like saying all vegetarians are Nazis because Hitler claimed to be one, despite the fact he actually regularly ate meat. --Krsont 11:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I reiterate Bharatveer's post, read origin of AIT & Philology. BTW I'm putting that up as a link in the article. The AIT is nothing more than "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of India". (Netaji 11:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC))

I completely agree. The invasion theory was a horrifically racist explanation for the existence of Indo-European languages in India. Except of course, no serious linguist or historian still advocates the invasion theory. Genetic evidence has disproved it, archeological evidence has disproved it. The continued insistance on the term "invasion theory" only shows how out of touch the nationalist view is. As I have said before, Indo-Europeanization of India was no different from the same process in Europe and Iran. A cultural transformation. Nothing more. You're just attacking something the rest of the world has long gotten over. --Krsont 11:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Nein, mein Freund. This article is not about AIT. It's about Hindutva. I'm challenging the claim made by anti-Hindu "scholars" of the west that Hinduism is not native to India because white people brought it from Europe through this "Aryan Invasion" <insert Hakenkreuse here> thingie, which is utter donkey-poo.(Netaji 11:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC))

you're right, it is bullshit. Outdated imperialist bullshit. But Hindutva isn't just attacking that. The Hindutva view rejects all forms of the Indo-European hypothesis as it concerns India, even the modern view that says Indo-Aryan languages where introduced into India from Afghanistan after the collapse of the Indus Valley Civ.. (Would you say this is an example of Afghanocentric imperialism?) Fair enough, Hindutva reject a modern historical and linguistics theory. That's something to note in the article. But to say that the people who support these facts are the same as the racists and nazis of the past is defemation, and an attack. It is not valid criticism, anymore than calling all modern Germans Nazis is. --Krsont 11:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is the point, let's not debate about the AIT. Debate about the issue...there are some scholars who oppose the AIT, OK? So just leave it at that, those who follow Hindutva believe in Indian origin of Hinduism and they are backed by some scholars (add examples), although others still refute their claims as religiously or politically motivated. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think the page as it now is represents a fair compromise on this subject. --Krsont 10:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Page protected

I have locked the page due to excessive reverting. Blnguyen | rant-line 00:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Some points to consider from WP:3RR

• The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia article within a 24 hour period. This does not imply that reverting three times or fewer is acceptable. In excessive cases, people can be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day.

• Reverting, in this context, means undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part. It does not necessarily mean taking a previous version from history and editing that. A revert may involve as little as adding or deleting a few words or even one word. Even if you are making other changes at the same time, continually undoing other editors' work counts as reverting. "Complex partial reverts" refer to reverts that remove or re-add only some of the disputed material while adding new material at the same time, which is often done in an effort to disguise the reverting. This type of edit counts toward 3RR, regardless of the editor's intention.

• Note: There is no requirement for the reverts to be related: any four reverts on the same page count.

• The three-revert rule is not an entitlement, but an "electric fence"; the 3RR is intended to stop edit wars. It does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every 24 hours or endorse reverts as an editing technique. Persistent reversion remains strongly discouraged and is unlikely to constitute working properly with others. The fact that users may be blocked for excessive reverting does not necessarily mean that they will be blocked. Equally, reverting fewer than four times may result in a block depending on context.

Noting the part about "Complex partial reverts", this is often unknown to a lot of users, who think that there must be 4 identical reverts to count for 3RR, which is incorrect; otherwise people can game the system by rephrasing each revert. I note that several users have overstepped the mark, with more than three reversions (although not identical), so I didn't bother blocking anybody because people may not be aware of the fact that the reverts need not be identical. I have locked the page instead so that genuine discussion will have to occur.Blnguyen | rant-line 00:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that editing should be restricted until consensus is reached (which I fear, may not come to pass due to the deep-seated hatred that many editors here have for Hindus). Anywho I believe that my opponent and I have reached reasonably common ground regarding our last edits. (Netaji 00:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC))

I agree, I too felt that a reasonable compromise had been reached. --Krsont 01:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Is it reasonable to consider unprotecting the page now? Andycjp 11th August 2006

Genetics and linguists vs opinion

The above discussions show that "opinion" over fact is a problem not just unique to born again Christians ( evolution vs intelligent design. The obviously American Inspired right wingers here ( I guess fascism was too european for someone rejecting European influence on India) show that very clearly , even Arun Shourie is made a historian to get a point of view across. Haphar 09:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm very sorry you feel that way. Let me enlighten you (you're ignorance is understandable) as to the fact that Hindutva does not satisfy the litmus test for fascism. For instance, Fascism implies for big government (3rd Reich had a HUGE-ass government), whereas Hindutva activists want small government (village panchayats, decentralized administration etc.). Please read Koenraad Elsts essays on the subject and you will see that Hindutva has nothing to do with fascism. As for your American "Right Wingers" , you might want to hear the Neoconservative point of view in America. We believe in many of the things they do (A large fraction of American neocons are of Jewish culture, are you accusing Jewish people of fascism? That would be a massive historical irony). We believe in democracy, but, like Neoconservatives, we do not believe in secularism. Secularism and democracy do not go hand in hand. That is a false contention. We aim to be a democratic Hindu Rashtra, much like Israel is a democratic Jewish State, otr the US a democratic Christian one. We do not desire a Hindu Theocracy. The very idea is absurd, as the Hindu Dharma, being non-doctrinal, cannot set up a theocracy (unlike Islam, which can, see Iran). We want Hindu Vedic, pauranic,Shastric, and karmic values incorporated into the executive, lgislative and Judiciary systems in India for the benefit of all Indians and to create a uniquely Indian democracy (instead of imitating a useless and outdated british system, as India is doing today).

Regarding the Aryan invasion hoax, it IS a hoax, and it is perpetrated by a virulently racist and anti-semitic left wing academia of the west as part of an agenda to delegitimize our right to exist. It has been co-opted by Indians in a massive bout of self-hatred that is increasingly commonplace in Indian society. Because of centuries of colonialism and brutal slavery under the heel of the Anglo-Saxon race(s), Indians have been indoctrinated into believing that any claim made by the archetypal "white scholar" must be correct, and cannot be questioned. Especially if it is an attack on Indian cultural ethos (you may read the wikipedia article on Self Hatred to understand this peculiar phenomenon yourself). it is this self-hatred that lead Indians into embracing a horrible travesty of a political/economic system that is socialism, and it has led Indians to slowly bastardize their society in a fit of gutter multiculturalism. I am disappointed in the western academia, that they have not gotten over their violent and ethnocentric views against the Indian civilization. Hindus have been the objects of hate and the victims of massive genocides for centuries. Particularly this one, such as in Kashmir, and Bangladesh. This is, in part, because of the stateless nature of Hindus (when every other major religious denomination in the world DOES have states of their own). These are precisely the problems that Hindutva, as an ideology, means to resolve.

Arun Shourie is a historian. He is recognized as one. The University of Texas at Austin (where I study) lists his books in it's history section. His publications are given merit as a historian. Onlu in his homeland, dominated by Indians in denial of their own heritage, is he lambasted. He is an intellectual refugee from his own country, a country where Indians are so blinded by left-wing half-truths and lies that they cannot see the imminent danger faced by the forces of pseudosecularism and Islamic terrorist aggression upon our nation, and sings in praise of bin-Laden and other terrorists as a 'hero' while they plot to destroy us all.(Pusyamitra Sunga 09:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Your ignorance of what I know or do not know is more understandable but not your assumptions that I am ignorant. Fascism was of Italian origin, and the Nazis went much beyond the Italian model. It is not neccecarily of the govt ( whatever the size of it's ass), a fascist movement remains one even if out of power. There may be some sane elements in Hindutva and it's ideologies but there are also the Shiv Sainiks and the Bajrang Dal and elements of the VHP like Togadia who are more fascist than tolerant. So there is where the distrust of a " Hindu" state comes in. Even now they attack cinema halls showing movies they do not agree with, as well as gift shops over valentine day ( something that the Dukhtaran E millat picked up from them- talk about teaching the islamic right wingers new ways of intolerance). So this denial of the right wing element is what is the scary part. That is where fear over the "Mukhota" comes in. Islamic fundamentalisism is also scary and bad bt having a Hindu one is not justified just because Islam has it. Wrong is wrong for both sides.

Coming to the invasion part, the counterview that the culture evolved here and had no outside influence is way more erroneous than the earlier Aryan invasion one. There is an Aryan influence, how it came about can be debated and found out more with the genome project making head way ( incidentally North India has more Central asian and european haplotypes than the rest of India it is not in a majority but is significantly higher than the rest of India, so there was migration to these parts).

About Jews and fascism, if Hindu rashtra's views on minorities are the same as Israel that denies even voting rights to Palestinians, then all I can say is you make the intent clear, thankfully you are honest enough to reject secularism and admit you are against it, without the shadow boxing of "psuedosecularism" vs your version of true secularism. Thank you for that, and that is the whole element, to cater to the intelligensia the hardliners pretend to be rational and say they are for secularsim but this is not true secularism, wheras at heart they are against secularism. I once again thank you for being honest on this point. Coming back, why should the minorities accept this marginalisation like the Palestinians ? And what the state of Israel has done to the Palestinians is also not right. What Europe did to them was wrong but does not justify what they are doing to the Palestinians.

I hate socialism, but that does not mean we jump into a right wing religion based system, that is the other extreme. And you are wrong that there is no Hindu nation, Hindu's do have their own "country", it is Nepal.

Arun Shourie is a journalist maybe a politician as his second calling an could be also called an author, A Historian is not his primary definition. As much as "Discovery of India" by Jawaharlal Nehru might be in the "History" section, but that does not make him a historian, he remains a politician. And who says Arun Shourie is lambasted in India ? He did a great job as a journalist and an equally good one as a minister for disinvestment. He has a right wing persepctive in his POV that some disagree with, but he also has a huge amount of respect, including mine, I wish the country had more people like him, still all the respect he gets does not make him into an historian. Haphar 14:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

First off, Palestine doesn't exist. There is no such place. There is only Israel.Israelis don't give voting rights to Palestinians? Funny I seem to recall them 'voting' terrorists to power in their nonexistent country. Plus, they have no voting rights in Israel because they are terrorist mass-murderers and child-soldiers. Only Indians are foolish enough to give muslims any rights. That is why israel is one of 4 developed countries in Asia, and India is a stinkhole.

Secondly, nepal is no longer constitutionally Hindu. Your communist friends have ruined her.

Thirdly, Jawaharlal Henru had a degree in history. He was a professional historian.

Arun Shourie is not a historian? Funny, then why does the Perry Castaneda library of the University of Texas at Austin have his books in the 'history' section, eh????? Netaji 19:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I had responded to your sockpuppet on the history aspect, but to reiterate :- Some of Arun Shourie's books are books you would get in the history of India section ( and a degree in history making one a "Historian" should make all arts degree holders artists and science degree holders scientists). So if he has written books that deal with history, those would be in the history section. Like Erich von Däniken's books might get covered in Archaeology or even anthropology, as well as history it does not make him an archeologist, and anthropologist or an historian. Arun Shourie delves into history to try and bring about support for a very selective POV.

Secondly your "Hindu Kingdom" friends did more damage to Nepal than the communists. The communists did not gun down an entire royal family, a Hindu royal did. A Communist did not dismiss a Parliament, a Hindu king did.

Third- Hindu rashtra does not exist, you still talk of it, and if Palestine does not exist where did they vote the "terrorists" into power ? How are the muslim murderers and terrorists any different from people who kill in the name of religion in riots ? [11] Here is an article for you to read on who all are terrorists. Haphar 12:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Palestine does not exist. USA and Israel don't recognize them. Only Arabs do. USA and Israel are more important than YOU. Are you a closet anti-semite? Muslim murderers and terrorists kill innocents. Ritoers kill other rioters. No accredited organization in the world recognises Hindutva as a terrorist movement. Plenty of them recognize muslim orgs as terrorist movement. Too bad, my dear Osama fan.Netaji 18:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Neither does the Hindu Rashtra exist, does not stop some people from mooning about it ( or dreaming about it). And in case you missed it let me repeat myself ( again) Where were the elections held that you talked of ? a place called Palestine. After advocating democracy when the Hamas won the US cut the Palestine funding. It has to be an entitity for some funds to be cut or a government to be elected, funding is not cut for dreams or imagination but for real things. USA and Israel may be more important than his own nation (India is a stinkhole) for a desi boy trumpeting the glory of America ( and Israel) ,spouting a cant one can already get on Fox news. But both have diminished the goodwill they have had and continue to do so. Israel was the "occupier" in the 40's in Palestine but it built up a huge goodwill in the 60's and 70's when the Munich and Entebbe like events showed them to be an underdog defying the odds. They won great admiration and following then, but in the last decade their intransigence has frittered that admiration and following. Today the Palestinian is the underdog , and Israel the bully. Europe sees it, but USA and it's Jewish lobbies do not, and the USA does not see how the blank Check they give to Israel erodes their own goodwill.

And as far as importance of Individuals goes forget nations, Osama or Hezbollah or even Hamas would get more importance from the USA and Israel than a collegite anywhere in the world. ( That includes YOU too my friend, Austin Texas will not help, your skin is the wrong colour there and you are from the wrong religion for them to care ). What is more laughable about the whole discussion is when there is no logic or answers available you resort to name calling and accusations. You have indulged in name calling, accusing other religions, running down countries, and then you call others anti something ? That is indeed rich.But what am I doing talking logic to you ? does not work with you. So are you a closet white supremacist ? Hail all things white and run down the heathen non whites ( including your "stinkhole" country ). ?

I am warning you one last time. Do not resort to insults or ad-hominem attacks again or you will be violating wikipedia rules and I will act accordingly. Remain civil and courteous and I will be so as well. You have demonstrated a clear anti-semitic bias by attacking Israel needlessly. Jewish lobby? There is no such thing. Another anti-Semitic lie. Typical of anti-semites, to blame everything on the 'Joooooo's'. You have been around too many muslims. Jews in this country are too powerful and well connected to care about you and what you think. They have made this country what it is, and are rightly fighting for their homeland in Israel. They support us because the enemy of an enemy is an ally. Too bad again...

Sorry, but Palestine still doesn't exist as far as anyone important is concerned.And yes, we Hindus have many powerful friends here in the USA. Neoconservatives are on the side of Hindutva as far as India is concerned, and they are the REAL opinion makers in this country. Too bad again. Plus, Hindutva is not regarded by any accredited organization as fascist. Too bad for you again. No amount of ranting and chest-beating will change that.Netaji 11:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I am warning you that your language and personal attacks which have lead to bans in the past are repeating themselves here and with other users. You ARE violating wiki rules, and I have acted in response to your blatant personal attacks.

"Desi" is not an insult "bubba" is.

If you find "closet white supremacist" insulting please look at your own "closet anti semite".

"What's the F'ing problem" is also offensive ( on Talk:Hinduism_and_the_Sikh_Panth)

I have not attacked Israel "Denying voting rights to palestinians" is not an attack on Israel. It is an attack on one policy of Israel. Does not make a person an anti semite and you are not the world's policeman or decision maker on semitism or anti semitism, I have an opinion that Israel is wrong on that point, you can disagree with it without accusations that are personal. You did not and I responded in kind, so if you can't take it then watch what you dish out.

USA and Israel are more important than YOU" is also a personal attack.

"India is a stinkhole" is an offensive thing to say to someone who lives in India and is proud of it- warts and all (and then you give lectures on self hatred).

"Dear Osama fan" is insulting and personal.

Here is the western media's opinion on Jewish lobby [12] ( might not get coverage on Fox). Your not agreeing to a thing does not remove it's existence, as is the case with Palestine and Palestinians. You can deny their existence won't change the facts that Palestinans won't go away.

You can imagine US support for Hindutva ( and the USA spoils things by signing a nuclear deal with the Socialist leftist Congress UPA government- so much for supporting Hindutva). Forget supporting Hindutva 99.99999999% Neoconservative American Christians would not be able to find India on the map let alone know what Hindu is, don't even talk of Hindutva. A guy in a white dhoti and head shaven going "Hare Krishna" they would identify as a hippy.They are internally focussed and want USA to be US centric and keep the world ( including immigrants who do not have the right religion or skin colour. Even "off White not quite white Mexicans won't do even if they are Christian) outside. You can claim them to be friends they won't claim you.

Haphar 14:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

HA!HA! Palestinians will go away when they are a hole in the ground, made there by Israel. Here is the truth about the nonexistent Jewish Lobby [13]. They have completely annihiliated two anti-semites who tried to tout this 'Jewish Lobby' nonsense. Neoconservative Americans DO support Hindus. Check Daniel Pipes's website. He has repeatedly said that Hindus should be supported against muslims in America. Plus, this neocon blog [14] is a classic example of growing support for Hindus among neocons [15]. Who cares about standard conservatives? It's NEO-conservatives that count. They are the REAL opinion makers in this country. Too bad my friend. America is waking up to the truth.Netaji 19:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any non jaundiced source, Koenraad Erst is not even remotely an expert, and Daniel Pipes is known to be jaundiced. Neocon is Ann Coulter, she won't be able to spell Hindu forget liking Hindutva. Try Rush Limbaugh ( proof that right wingers do take drugs) They won't even know the direction that India is in.

ADL is your source for debunking the lobby ? A website dedicated for protecting a religion is a neutral party to claims that the religion manipulates the media ? This is where the Ha Ha with caps lock and cymbal clashing should happen, in a deep rich baritone.And you expect ADL to fall at the feet of two guys showing the extent of the Jewsih lobby ? That's like giving a Pakistani website's analysis in response to an Indian claim of Pakistan supporting Terrorsim in India. Non even worth considering. A blog is all you have to show for support for 800 million people ? That's all ? And this is the great awakening.Boo ha ha hum to dar gaye (in your words but with the cymbals and the deep baritone). Haphar 19:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The blog is representative. I have interacted with neocons on a fairly regular basis and they support Hindus.Daniel Pipes is a think tank leader and is US government financed. Too bad. Secularists can yell and scream all the epithets, insults and personal atatcks that they want. It gives life meaning to them, I know. Too bad for them that their opponents are too powerful for them to handle.

Elst IS an expert and has degrees and experience to prove it. No way you can debunk him without scholarly support. Without that, it's original research at best, character assassination at worst. More anti-semitism is expressed by attacking ADL and veiled accusations of a 'Jewish Conspiracy' (a fantasy of which ADL is a part of too ,presumably. Whose next, The Templars? Aliens? The Banks? Elvis Presley? Perhaps everybody who exposes your bias is a Jewish pawn, eh? These are standard rubbish touted by anti-semites),like white supremacists do on their web sites.Netaji 11:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure it is representative, representative of a few extreme right wing fringe elements who get on there. Elst is an expert on voice of dharma site, No one but loony right wingers (who swear by Varsha Bhosle) quote him and his laughable comments like " Teesta has secretly converted to Islam" are made without any data. So much of an expert that not even right wing rags like Saamna have repeated this slander.

ADL is a site that is for defence of Jews, so it is for Jews, it cannot be seen as a neutral party in an issue regarding Jews. That is not any veiled accusation, the site itself mentions it. A site proposed to defends Jews is not neutral on an issue where Jews are involved. It can have an opinion or POV but it would not be seen as unbiased. So like one does not expect the RSS or the Shiv Sena or the VHP to be neutral parties on Ayodhya, ADL is not neutral on an issue talking of a Jewish Lobby. Well you want to bring the Templars and Aliens and Banks as well as Elvis to the party you can do so, they would be better than the sorry list of sources you have sourced so far. So get of your hysterical name calling horse,just shows that you have run out of facts again

Haphar 15:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

While this debate is fascinating and edifying, and I can feel my hair growing thicker and curlier just by reading it, it doesn't seem to be directed at improving the article in any way. Would you mind, therefore, desisting from posting off-topic discussions here, and take them to your respective talk pages, or even better, to e-mail or some other web forum? There are plenty of places on the web for this sort of thing. This is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Graft 16:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

German Hindutva

The germans practised real hindutva. (Why they chose to be aryan & adopted swastika?) They were inspired by Helena Blavatsky and Max Muller. The germany in WWII was real Hindu Rastra. The article is silent about german phenomenon. Let some wise guy expose it.--Anirudh777 10:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Quod erat demonstrantum. See section above. (Pusyamitra Sunga 11:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC))

That comment shows your ignornace of the subject. Hitler was Christian, the Germans exploted the AIT and Swastika for their own Racist thought. This page is about Hindutva, not Nazism. Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Laughable content

I am sure Subhash is busy wrecking this article too by this propoganda, just like the Shiv Sena article. Hindus believe India to be their "fatherland"? This echoes Hitler's refering Germany as fatherland. Let us purge this article of charged and propoganda based statements like these.--Wikindian 17:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

All backed by references. Shouldn't you be cleaning Osama's dialysis machine, mate?Netaji 17:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The pitribhumi claim in in veer Savarkar's writings. Your constant houndings remind people of Yasser Arafat.Netaji 17:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Subhash, you should rephrase the statement as "according to Savarkar...." and not state it as a fact. By saying that "Hindus believe India to be their pitrubhum...," you are claiming that all Hindu nationalists hold this view. Maybe you should put an intro in the section like "Views on Hindutva by prominent Hindu nationalists (like Savarkar)." It is subtle changes like these that wreck the article. And, where is the source for this statement? Which book, or newspaper etc. quoted Savarkar?

--Wikindian 21:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Here. Google is a friend of the Gods.Netaji 21:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

As per the Article quoted above "To Savarkar, Hindutva was akin to a national ideology of all those who regarded India as its pitribhumi (fatherland) and punyabhumi (holy land). " Does not talk of Hindus here.( er and the net seems friendly to ALL gods, not just one religion) Haphar 11:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

He talks of Hindus as a race, not as a religion.Defamation won't work. Savarkar spoke of Hindus as 'those of the hind-land' ie all those who adhered to native Indian religions and cultures.Hindu can be used in two ways.Remember 'Taraana-e-Hind' again? Don't try to muddle the issue with your hate.Netaji 11:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

He said Hindutva- Quoting from the source you provided from the Divine Google. This is specific to the fatherland issue and the link provided. So as per this he his talking of Hindutva only and not just Hindu's. Where is the "hate" coming from ? Just clarifying what has been provided as a link by you is saying about this topic. Don't create a muddle by getting racial here, the religion angle is causing enough of a debate. Haphar 14:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

All right, I apologize for this post for overreacting; I should have read that section more carefully. But I am sure that there is plenty of Hindu nationalist propoganda in this article that needs to be neutralized. --Wikindian 16:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

'Hindu' in 'Hindutva' is meant to be used in the tarana-e-hind context ie ethnic Hindus.This is an article ON HINDU NATIONALISM. Therefore, it's point of view needs to be represented and given credence. There is no propaganda here. There is more secular propaganda on Hindu articles. A criticism section is also there, where anti-Hindus are free to vent all the hate that they want.Netaji 11:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Another flagrant personal attack from me

Yes, their views hold no logic, all they want to do is to strangle Mother India, who is already being violated by Muslims. After all Hindus are beautiful and innocent angels and Muslims bloodlusting jackals, aren't they? Aha!, finally goccha! Wonder why it took so long, though. Probably couldn't digest sweeping generalizations, that's why.

Well, Hindus didn't ram planes into buildings or bomb trains. We never instigated, only retaliate when the stupid UPA government failed to do it's duty and protect the people of India from terrorism.Netaji 05:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikindian's disgusting attempts to excrete hate

Stop adding rubbish and nonsense to this talk page. Either argue civilly, or leaveNetaji 11:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

My experience with you Neta has been that you have been uncivil, insulting and derogatory. For you to talk of civility is not fair. I can vouch that the loss of civility is almost always in response to your insults. Would request you to cool down and you would find that the rest would do so too. Haphar 14:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

When users engage in coordinated acts of character assassination, vandalism, ad-hominem attacks and repeated and unchecked derogation, there is often no choice but to respond.Netaji 11:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Who are you to preach civility then? And are you trying to enforce civility by being even more uncivil? --Wikindian 03:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

In order to fight bad people sometimes one must be equally bad.Netaji 04:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Which is why we have stooped to your level Haphar 14:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

THERAPY FOR THE CHAUVINISTS

I find it unfortunate that a few rhino-skinned Hindu chauvinists are wrecking articles on Hinduism in Wikipedia. The basic problem with them is that they are so distanced from the street reality and politics of India that they have carved fantastic dreams about Hindutva and the evilness of all Muslims in India. Everything is black and white for them. They have become so hooked to the propoganda that it is like drug-addiction. Anything that has the effect of neutralizing this addiction is dubbed as "liberal propoganda." So, they ignore most of the news sources today. Instead, they base their serpentine scholarship on blind pro-Hindu propoganda from dubious and extremist sources. And then, in all their holy fervor and righteousness, they infect articles such as this one with dysentric and jaundiced views. Anyone who seeks to neutralize their wild language becomes a terrorist-lover, Osama's right hand. The fact is that most politicians, including the all-mighty, fuerher-like Thackeray (who claims that he is a devotee of Lord Vitthala) have only one aim: to stay in power by making the puppett-population dance. And the chauvinists are the most agile puppets, it seems to me. So, PLEASE don't wreck this articles, and, if you think that you have this disease, consult the talk page before inserting any pro-blind-Hindutva propoganda. Thanks for your attention.--Wikindian 18:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't engage in off-topic rants against Balasaheb. It detracts from your credibility (already pretty weak from your ad-hominem attack above). Character assassination seems to be the forte of many in the liberal left when they can't counter with legitimate arguments...Netaji 11:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

As if you are paying heed to the piles of arguments that I made on the Talk:Shiv Sena page. Don't twist the issue. --Wikindian 16:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Rhino-skinned haha. Black, white, gray? Please define the skin colorBakaman%% 03:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Your capital-lettered threat to Hindus shows that you are a chauvinist yourself. As I've said below, the primary sources of Sangh Parivar publications should be cited and quoted. A lot of nonsensical secondary sources have been quoted on the talk page. These must be at best put aside for a criticsim and allegations section. Otherwise, there is no way to improve this article. Wikipedia is not a site for hatred or propaganda. Let us keep this "strictly business, not personal". --^Babub→Talk 07:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

All three of you get a warning

Please stop these pointless personal attacks. Don't think the other person has insulted you more than you insulted them, all three of you are uncivil in your 'dispute resolution'. Consider this a warning. Next time I see this I'll report the uncivil ones and they are likely to get a block. Nobleeagle (Talk) 10:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for monitoring this issue.Netaji 11:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Haphar, Subhash, Wikindian, etc, please be aware that this page is on my wathclist. Blnguyen | rant-line 02:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Request to add template

{Editprotected} Request to add {{Template:Hindu reform movements}}. This would be apt. --^Babub→Talk 01:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Done.--Commander Keane 04:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions towards removing POV

1. Rely on primary sources (Sangh parivar publications and Hindu authors)
2. Make a criticism section and dump all the criticisms of secondary and tertiary sources there
3. Avoid ad hominem attacks on talk page.
4. Delete/ modify these attacks as per Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Civility

--^Babub→Talk 04:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with these recommendations... the "On the Criticism of Hindutva Organizations" section seems somewhat biased, as if refuting all criticism of hindutva organizations.

Unprotected

Let's see what happens. Try not to edit war too much this time, remember that 3RR is not an entiltelment. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 08:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

christian divorce tougher????

this page claims that divorce laws for christians are tougher than those for the hindus. they are definately tougher than the muslim laws who just have to say talaq thrice. but i doubt them to be tougher than hindu laws (atleast in india).nids 22:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Section "On the Criticism..."

This section is rather POV, since it talks about how many "self-professed anti-Hindu" organisations overlook many aspects of Hindutva, all with an authoritative tone. In fact, that section is more like original research to me. Mar de Sin ^{Talk to me!} 16:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't remove the tag. Although the section deals with a position, its tone is too authorative to be npov. Mar de Sin ^{Talk to me!} 20:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Authoritative? Whose authority?Does it even mention names?Hkelkar 20:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

That's the problem! It talk about a specific position in a way that sounds as if it is accepted fact, without mentioning any people/groups who promote the view. The passive voice, is also used too much and there are weasel words(see WP:AWW).

"Weasel words give the force of authority to a statement without letting the reader decide if the source of the opinion is reliable." from WP:AWW. Mar de Sin ^{Talk to me!} 21:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Specifics please.Hkelkar 22:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I have removed these from section, as this is irrelevant. I will check this information is clear from the RSS article.

It should also be noted that (primarily Dalit Christians and some self-professed anti-Hindu) organizations who criticize Hindutva organisations such as the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh overlook the contributions made by the Hindutva wing to the development of India and its revival. Guru Golwalkar was responsible for the accession of Kashmir to India. The RSS had rendered service during 1962 and other Wars. The RSS also rendered relief work during the 2001 Gujarat Earthquake [16]. It had rendered notable services during the recent Sumatra-Andaman earthquake and the subsequent Tsunami [17].

BobFromBrockley 14:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Fascism and Israel

At the moment, the "Allegations of "Fascism" in Hindutva" section of this article is a dismissal of all criticisms as being driven by far left ideology or Islamism. Then there is a paragraph explaining that RSS is pro-Israel, which makes little sense in this section. Previous versions of the section, as contributed by more than one editor (not just me!) made it clear why the Israel mention is there. Here is a previous version which is clear:

The allegation that RSS is fascist, or heavily influenced by fascism, is often supported by referring to a comment made by Sadashiv Golwalkar, head of the RSS from 1940-1973, about the German stand against Jews, before World War II:

German national pride has now become the topic of the day. To keep up purity of the nation and its culture, Germany shocked the world by her purging the country of the Semitic races, the Jews. National pride at its highest has been manifested here. Germany has also shown how well-nigh impossible it is for races and cultures having differences going to the root, to be assimilated into a united whole, a good lesson for us in Hindustan to learn and profit by." ("We or our nationhood defined" 1938, p.37)

However, this does not imply that Golwalkar was a Nazi or anti-semite, but rather that German fascism was a model for some of early Hindutva thinkers. In fact, Hindutva groups are overwhelmingly supportive of the Jewish State of Israel, including Savarkar himself, who supported Israel during its formation. RSS is the most pro-Israel group in India at present and actively praised the efforts of Ariel Sharon when he visited India . R.S.S spokesperson Ram Madhav recently expressed support for Israel (when the far left Marxists and Islamists in India routinely attack Israel and Jews and have, in fact, accused Israel and Zionists of "fascistic" inclinations as well).

This gets regularly removed by other editors, as being POV. I think that a quotation from one of the most important figures in the story of the Hindutva movement, Sadashiv Golwalkar, showing a clear influence from fascism, is obviously very relevant for this section. The version also makes it clear that Sadashiv Golwalkar was NOT anti-semitic or a Nazi, which gives a context to the otherwise inexplicable discussion of attitudes to Israel. I realise it is futile for me to put this back in, as I know it will simply be immediately reverted, but I ask other editors to consider. BobFromBrockley 09:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation page and merging of article to Hindu nationalism

An editor has suggested that this article and Hindu nationalism should be merged. This article is based on a neologism that was invented by VD Savarkar in the 20th century. Since then, it has had many uses, which widely differ regarding the meaning of this term. For some it is Sarvarkar style nationlism, for others it is Nazism, and for others is just a political ideology. For this reason this here should be a disabmiguation page, that points to the actual very different meanings of this neologism, like the book "Hindutva" by Savarkar, Hindu nationliasm and others.

Why do we have so many nationalism articles in Indian topics? Indian nationalism, Hindu nationlsim, Muslim Indian nationalism, Pakistani nationalism and Hindutva. There is not even an article on German nationalism or on French nationalism.

As an alternative to an disabmiguation page, this page could discuss the history and use of the actual neologism term like the articles in Category:Political neologisms. Everything that is about Hindu nationalism can still be moved to Hindu nationalism. --RF 15:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Etymology of "Hindutva"

In the lead, it says:

Grammatically, the term is a samaas (A morphological construct in Sanskrit grammar meaning "margin", basically the same as a portmanteau) of the Persian word "Hindu" and the Sanskrit word tatva, which loosely translates to "characteristic". Hence, according to Savarkar, Hindutva is meant to denote the Hindu characteristic, or Hinduness.

In the "Definition and Etymology" section, it says:

The etymology of the word is peculiar, "Hindu-" coming from a Persian root ("S" in Sanskrit becomes "H" in Persian; whence "Sapta Sindhu" = "Hapta Hindu") while "-tva" is a Sanskrit suffix from the Sanskrit word 'tatva' (meaning characteristic).

Does this mean that Savarkar himself specifically claimed that "Hindutva" is a samās of hindu and tatva(sic)? If so, he should be quoted or cited, because the grammatical "explanation" is nonsense.

First, it's tattva, not tatva. Second, there is no form of samās with tattva that involves eliding the tat portion. Third, tva is a taddhita suffix: it doesn't come from tatva or anywhere else. And attaching it directly to hindu -- no samās at all -- is a completely straightforward application of Pānini 5.1.119 (tasya bhāvastvatalau = tasya bhāvaḥ tva-taL-au), whence hindusya bhāvaḥ = hindu + tva/taL = hindutva, hindutā "the state, nature or condition of being a Hindu, Hinduness". rudra 01:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the word Hindutva specifically, but I believe that Rudra is correct, in that -tva is just a suffix used to form neuter nouns. It is applied to a base to form an abstract noun as in these examples from p. 145 of A Sanskrit Manual: Part II by R. Antoine (Xavier Publications: Calcutta: 1970), which add an "m" on the end which usual for Antoine's method of listing neuter nouns (a dictionary convention):

• prabhu + tvam = lordship
• andha + tvam = blindness
• rāja+ tvam = royalty

The suffix -tva forms neuter abstract nouns in contrast to the suffix -tal which forms feminine abstract nouns.

The issue of where the word "Hindu" came from is dealt with on the article for that term. I am not sure why it needs to be repeated here. Buddhipriya 02:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hindutva Reverts

I am surprised to see that many of Hidutva editors or supporters are not respecting other editors additions to this article, in spite of providing references for all my contents, Hindutva editors are reverting the contents stating POV or SOAP. I am not challenging the contents of pro-hindutva editor though it’s baised but adding other points. I hope pro-hindutva gang will respect other editors.John Paul 13:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. The ID was created to comment on the contents of one page - there is nothing wrong in it. It adds to wikipedia statistics of users! --Bhadani (talk) 17:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

restructure

after months of inquiring, it is still unclear what exactly is the difference in scope between this article and Hindu nationalism, since both refer to the other as a synonym. Either clean up both articles so their respective scopes are clearly different, or merge them. It goes without saying that reviews of fringe literature related to Hindutva ideology have a place here. If the discussion is over-long, feel free to split it off per WP:SS. dab (𒁳) 17:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that contents deleted as not fit for encyclopedia as decided by the due process of AfD should not be added to other places to undermine the creditability of this encyclopedia. This reminds me of an annonymous user who was adding repetedaly some contents from one of the deleted page to Jawaharlal Nehru: [18]. We should avoid such things. However, the life here is dynamic and during last two years, wikipedia may have undergone a transformation and may be allowing additions of deleted contents and unencyclopedic contents. --Bhadani (talk) 17:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

no such thing was decided. There were allegations that an isolated treatment of propaganda may be inherently biased, with lots of calls to incorporate such criticism into the main Hindutva article. Which is what I have done now. If any of the sources cited fail to meet Wikipedia requirements, please point these out, and we will apply equal scrutiny to all sources used here. There was never, to the best of my knowledge, any discussion of sources published by Rutgers, Routledge etc. being "not fit for encyclopedia". If such sources are used misleadingly (cherry-picking), feel free to set things right by citing other sources of similar credibility. dab (𒁳) 17:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

In you assessment, I am a troll, and I would not like to talk as you may block me indefinitely. --Bhadani (talk) 17:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Then why are you debating with me on this talkpage? Bhadani, if I had the power invested in me to block editors who are obviously not here to improve the encyclopedia, there would be a fair number of accounts terminated, but yours is not anywhere near the top of the list. As it happens, I do not wield such powers, so your comment is not helpful (yes, being unhelpful on purpose is known as "trolling". you should know better). dab (𒁳) 17:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I know that you are going to indefinitely block me as is clear from your threats. Accordingly, I will not talk to you in future as I am afraid of you and the group you lead. I do not want to annoy you if you find me annoying. I am afraid of you as you area a very powerful. --Bhadani (talk) 17:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not leading any group. I came here without any knowledge of anything called "Hindutva", editing articles on the history of religion. I am not leading any group, and I am not threatening anyone. Unlike what could be said of some Hindutva editors on Wikipedia. I fully and wholeheartedly subscribe to WP:5P, including WP:ATT, WP:RS and WP:UNDUE. I implore anyone disagreeing with opinions referenced here to counter them with other opinions from similarly respectable sources. Simply blanking fully referenced paragraphs will not do, sorry. If a detailed criticism of fringe literature produced by Hindutva propagandists is too much for or "tangential" to this article, feel free to export it to a sub-article, as I am suggesting by the {{split}} template. The only thing you have to fear on Wikipedia is that your own opinion will not stand up to scrutiny in the light of academic sources. If this happens to you, you can either accept that your opinion is marginal or untenable, or you can go down the path of N. S. Rajaram and denounce academia as a whole (the outcome 250 years of hairy disputes between individualist experts) one evil colonialist conspiracy. If you choose to do that, you will have to stop editing Wikipedia, because you will no longer subscribe to its principles. thanks, dab (𒁳) 18:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I just came across this discussion. I happen to know about the Nehru instance that Bhadani mentions; in fact, discussing why that needed to be kept out of the Nehru article was one of the reasons why I registered, after editing peacefully and regularly for two years as an anon. If anyone cannot see the difference between a troll placing completely uncited original research in an article after 'Nehruvian-Stalinism' or whatever was deleted as an independent article, and what needed to be done here, then I strongly suggest they think very hard about whether they need to be around disputed articles in future. Hornplease 21:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The Hindutva movement is a very recent element of Hindu nationalism. U cant say that guys like Swami Vevekanada were Hindutvavaadis. Thus Hindutva is a part of Hindu nationalism, but isn't synonymous with it by any means. If Hindutva and its details were merged with the Hindu nationalism article, that article woudl get very long and then we will need to create a main article for Hindutva so that we can summarize that article. It's logic to have two seperate articles. Darrowen 02:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Definition of the Term Hindutva

“Ordinarily, Hindutva is understood as a way of life or a state of mind and is not to be equated with or understood as religious Hindu fundamentalism. A Hindu may embrace a non-Hindu religion without ceasing to be a Hindu and since the Hindu is disposed to think synthetically and to regard other forms of worship, strange gods and divergent doctrines as inadequate rather than wrong or objectionable, he tends to believe that the highest divine powers complement each other for the well-being of the world and mankind.” --from the supreme court of india -> http://www.letindiadevelop.org/IndiaTribuneMarch72003.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kkm5848 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

Hi Bakaman Well Done

I know it's hard to digest the truth, inspite of verifiable links you RV the contents of Hindutva! Everyline of this article is biased and OR. I know if I write a single line without verifiable link, you have powers to block my ID forever and you will not spare me for a second, I can see that you have great knowledge and great contributor but it does not matter, The identity of gentleman is not measured with his knowledge but his manners. I don't that you even respect the rules of wikepedia. Since I abide the rules of wikepedia, I am not deleting anyline from Hindutva article as I respect other auhtor too have right to include verifiable contents.

With Love John Paul 12:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

"The true face of Hindutva" is nothing more than a Haqeeqat-like disgraceful insult and libel against these groups. I am abiding by WP:LIBEL.Bakaman 23:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

context: [19] --dab (𒁳) 16:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Remark on protection

The page has been protected as there was apparently edit warring 'without discussion'. Please do note that at several points I have left edit comments indicating that all changes that were being reverted at once were made incrementally, and with reasons in informative edit summaries at the time. I further encouraged mindless reverters to respond to those points on the talk page. Hornplease 21:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Well i didnt go through all your edits in this version. But i notice that you remove a lot of stuff related to Uniform Civil Code and include irrational criticism of Hindutva from unknowns. By the way, i am just curious to know if you support the Rajiv Gandhi's Muslim Women Act. I know many Pseudo-Secularists who supported it. [Hope you dont mind calling them Pseudo-secularists].--nids(♂) 05:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The 'criticism' of Hindutva was not that, but mainly quotes of scholarly articles, the sort that are expected here. The detailed discussion of the UCC was split off, as there is a main article on the subject - as also an article on pseudo-secularism. Finally, my personal opinions are really irrelevant, though, since you ask, it is generally accepted that the MWA was, if nothing else, a violation of the separation of powers. Hornplease 19:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

We do have separate articles on UCC and PS, but that does not mean we should almost remove them from this article. Infact, UCC and PS are the most important factors in the resurgence of Hindutva and i dont see any reason to trim down their volume as it is in the current version. Well, i know that you dont need to state your position for MWA, and infact you havent. I just thought that you might have given some rational criticism on Hindutva, if you had openly criticized the MWA too. Else, position of most anti-Hindutva guys and gals is crystal clear. --nids(♂) 22:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're on about. I'm not here to criticise Hindutva, I couldn't care less. There are a million reliable sources that do that anyway, the question is which are the most encyclopaedic.

Please read WP:MAIN. If you can cite your belief that the UCC is central, then we might have a discussion. Otherwise we don't need that discussion.

I suppose the other amendations are satisfactory? Hornplease 19:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I cant say about other amendations, but its clear that you are just pretending to be neutral while you are not. {So like FOSA, which pretends to be neutral but does have alleged terrrorist links.} As an example, you are removing all the references to Koenraad elst and Daniel Pipes while you introduced us to famous Christophe Jaffrelot's. You dont become a scholar just by critcising Hinduism, which seems to be your position.

Also, there are million reliable sources promoting creationism. Some even by Harvard graduates and professors. But that doesnt make them right, or worthy of their inclusion (outside of pseudoscientific articles).

By the way, i didnt understand why you sent me to WP:MAIN.--nids(♂) 23:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant [Wikipedia:Main article fixation]], to indicate that a complete discussion of the UCC doesn't belong here. (WP:Main used to redirect there.)

Jaffrelot is a director of CERI - Sciences Po, and one of France's premier political scientists, with a specialisation in Indian political science. The comparison to Elst, a writer without institutional affiliation who has never been peer-reviewed, could not be more marked in terms of encylopaedic quotability.

As I said, I have no interest in criticising or promoting Hindutva, merely in policing the nature of quotes or references added and maintaining a scholarly tenor.

Can you isolate any other locations of disagreement? Otherwise I will assume that objections have been dropped. Hornplease 22:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, do not assume anything. Let me clarify again that I cannot comment on other amendations and i have never reverted you.

Being a director of an Institute neither makes him neutral, nor reliable and not even notable. Ever heard the comments of Prinicipal of St. Stephens or the famous racist harvard professor who was virtually reprimanded by the court.

UCC article discusses UCC and this article should discuss Hindutva relation with UCC. Completely different topics and in line with wiki policies as is shown by the current version.

By the way, who gave you authority to discard Koenraad Elst as a reliable source. And just to remind you, you also removed the quote of Daniel Pipes wherein he compared Ayodhya issue to Temple Mount. --nids(♂) 08:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, please read WP:RS. Regardless of your belief about the individuals in question, a head of an institute or a tenured professor at UCLA, both specialising in Modern Indian history, are of encyclopaedic value, whereas those of Elst, a writer without affiliation or review, are not. This is how WP operates, and if you wish to see this changes, please take it to Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. Hornplease 18:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

On your orders, I spent half an hour looking at WP:RS, but still couldnt find where it was written that Head of an institute or a tenured professor are reliable sources. Hope you could point me to that.

On another note, you also removed the quote by Daniel Pipes. I believe the only solution would be to list it at Talk reliable sources, if you agree to go by the consensus.--nids(♂) 19:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Take whatever you want wherever. The simple fact is that well-known academics, widely published, and recognised as heads of their profession through the award of tenure or chairs at major institutes of higher learning, are valuable sources of scholarly analysis, and should not be removed unless the comments are irrelevant or duplicated. Amateurs writing for subsidised presses with no peer-review, however, are hardly as useful to the encyclopaedia as sources. Note also that "A questionable source is one with no independent editorial oversight or fact-checking process, or with a poor reputation for fact-checking...." is not permitted which means that much published by Voice of India is inapplicable.

I hope that helps explain. Is there something else that you need to have clarified before the page is unprotected and the edits are made?Hornplease 19:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Also,about the UCC: the current version makes too much of it. Naturally the fact that it is one of the planks of various Hindu nationalist organisations should be mentioned. But giving it more prominence on this page will require a couple of citations from reliable sources indicating that it has more importance than that. Hornplease 20:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I will have to repeat again that its not because of me that page is protected and i have never reverted you so its useless if you keep asking me about that. And I shall again assure you that whenever the page will be unprotected, I wont revert you without consensus.

So, If I list Daniel Pipes and Elst on talk RS, will you abide by the consensus?--nids(♂) 20:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I certainly will abide by consensus. Note, however, that I think even if Pipes is quotable about the Middle East (which I think he is) he is not about India. Hornplease 20:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Since its not the source that is disputed, I'd say that RfC will be a better solution. Shall i file one.--nids(♂) 08:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If you feel that that will help, go ahead. It would help if you analysed the changes that were made earlier and reverted to the current version to see if there are any other disagreements prior to listing. Hornplease 19:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Kapalishwar temple

I doubt if the Kapalishwar temple in Mylapore, Chennai is in any way damaged. It is in perfectly good condition. Is it possible to correct this exaggeration? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.163.180 (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

And the sentence itself, The destruction of the Mylapore Kapalishwar temple in Chennai and Vedhapurishvarar Temple in the city of Puducherry are some of the temples usurped by the then Christian rulers, is syntactically and semantically incorrect and consequently makes little sense. --Jerome Potts (talk) 05:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

to be added

• Bergunder, Michael Contested Past: Anti-Brahmanical and Hindu nationalist reconstructions of Indian prehistory, Historiographia Linguistica, Volume 31, Number 1, 2004, 59-104.

finally a scholarly paper on historical revisionism in India that addresses both the anti-Brahmanist and Hindutva side in context. Hindutva is discussed on pp. 88-94 (chapter 7). On Hindutva "philosophy":

The disastrous consequences of the Hindutva doctrine are apparent when one surveys the existing religious and cultural diversity of the Indian subcontinent out of which the Hindutva politicians wish to forge a unified people. Their attempt at an ethnic and cultural homogenization can be seen to involve a double strategy of exclusion and appropriation. A strategy of religious appropriation means that Dalits, Buddhists and Sikhs, for example, are regarded as Hindus and their own identity denied them. By contrast because they have their holy cities outside of India Muslims and Christians are entirely excluded and are required to assimilate themselves thoroughly to Hindu culture. In particular theMuslims here provide a welcome image of opponents against which to form an identity; in Savarkar’s words: “Nothing can weld peoples into a nation and nations into a state as the pressure of a common foe”

On the "Indigenous Aryans" thing:

The Aryan migration theory at first played no particular argumentative role in Hindu nationalism. As indicated above, it was presupposed without question by Savarkar and the emergence of a Hindu nation constructed around it. This impression of indifference changed, however, withMadhev Sadashiv Golwalkar (1906–1973), who from 1940 until his death was leader of the extremist paramilitary organization the Rashtriya Svayamsevak Sangh (RSS). In contrast to Savarkar, Golwalkar entirely rejects the Aryan migration theory in his very influential book published in 1939 under the title We, or the Nationhood Defined. ... The price for Golwalkar’s denial of the Aryan migration was isolation from Orientalist discourse and with it from the official account of history as it was transmitted in schools and universities. ... In contrast to many other of their openly offensive teachings, the Hindu nationalists did not seek to keep the question of the Aryan migration out of public discourses or to modify it; rather, efforts were made to help the theory of the ndigenousness of the Hindus achieve public recognition. For this the initiative of the publisher Sita Ram Goel (b.1921)58 was decisive. Goel may be considered one of the most radical, but at the same time also one of the most intellectual, of the Hindu nationalist ideologues. His radical views ensure that at times even the cadres of the Sangh Parivar distance themselves fromhim, for his extremist anti-Muslim tirades are seen by them as an obstacle to experiencing wider social acceptance. Since 1981 Goel has run a publishing house named ‘Voice of India’ that is one of the few which publishes Hindu nationalist literature in English which at the same time makes a ‘scientific’ claim. Although no official connections exist, the books of ‘Voice of India’ — which are of outstanding typographical quality and are sold at a subsidized price — are widespread among the ranks of the leaders of the Sangh Parivar.

--dab (𒁳) 12:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

in line 9 of 'Definition', the word 'synthetically' probably should be syncretically.

thank you Runehawk 16:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Could be, but that's a direct quote and the article agrees with the source. Synthetically isn't obviously wrong, just different. Maybe a slip of tongue from the speaker. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Merging ideology section from Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh

The ideology section there is about Hindutva yet is longer, more detailed and way more informative. I think with a bit of work, the two sections could be swapped. What do others think? Darrowen 01:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Hindu Mahasabha?

Wouldn't Hindu Mahasabha qualify as the first Hindutva organisation? (presently the article mentions RSS as the first Hindutva organisation) --Soman (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge

I suggest that much of the material from this article similar to Hindu nationalism be merged into that article and this article can be for discussing the etymology of the term "Hindutva" or better, it can be a redirect to Hindu nationalism. ^Babub→Talk 15:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

yes -- this has been suggested for ages, but beyond unjustified removal of merge tags, nothing has been done about it. If these are to be different articles, they need a discernible difference in scope. The burden of establishin this lies with whoever wishes to keep the articles separate.

as it stands, Hindu nationalism has two sections, "History" and "Hindutva". The definition of "Hindu nationalism" is "a movement promoting Hindutva", and the definition of "Hindutva" is "the term used to describe movements advocating Hindu nationalism". Go figure: WP:CFORK. If necessary for reasons of article length, there can always be a separate history of Hindu nationalism. --dab (𒁳) 09:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I don"t think that there is need to merge. These pages are large enough to maintain as separate pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumarsarma (talk • contribs) 12:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Saffronization

I request to merge the page of Saffronization as part of this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumarsarma (talk • contribs) 09:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC) Good idea.

The categorisation of Hindutva under religious fundamentalism is unfair

It is surely unfair and based on ignorance. Hindutva must not be confused with Hinduism, exactly like Zionism is not confused with Judaism. Some Zionists are relgious Jews, some others defend the identity and the culture of the Jewisih people, without accepting Judaism as a religion. Sharon is undoubtedly a Zionist, but he cannot be considered a Jewish fundamentalist, since he does not even believe in Judaism as a religion, but openly declares his atheism. The same applies to Veer Savarkar, too. He was the founder of the notion of Hindutva, but was not a believing Hindu, but an atheist.

The categorisation of Hindutva under religious fundamentalism is unfair. There might be people who have different opinions about this, but let us go by a neutral interpretation.

The Supreme Court of India has observed that "Ordinarily, Hindutva is understood as a way of life or a state of mind and is not to be equated with or understood as religious Hindu fundamentalism."

I suggest that this page not be categorised under religious fundamentalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabriel N (talk • contribs) 14:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

well, as it goes with fundamentalism, fundamentalists believe they are "only" doing it properly. "Hindutva" of course means "being a Hindu". But it won't do to just merge Hindutva into Hinduism. "Hindutva" is clearly a term for radical Hindu chauvinism or ethnic nationalism, not for the "state of mind" of being a Hindu. Similarly, adherents of Islamic fundamentalism of course believe they are "only" being good Muslims. It is outside observers who categorize Islamic fundamentalists as apart from normal, bona fide adherents of the religion, just as you need outside observers to classify Hindu chauvinism as apart from normal, bona fide practice of Hinduism. It's the way religions work, for some they are spiritual enrichment, for others, they are merely an excuse for switching off the neocortex and start hatemongering. It's the same with Christian fundamentalism vs. bona fide Christianity: meaning, it's human, and found in every religion, but not inherent in any particular religion. --dab (𒁳) 07:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with you on fundamentalism, but then you should have a page on Hindu Fundamentalism and not group Hindutva and Hindu Fundamentalism together. Although there are many who see an element of fundamentalism in Hindutva, academically speaking they are two different terms.Gabriel N (talk) 08:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hindu Extremism

need a separate page for hindu extremism and hindu terrorism --134.151.0.13 (talk) 19:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)--134.151.0.13 (talk) 19:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "Hindu Terrorism" in a scholarly sense, and the page saffron terror already exists anyways. If you look at the talk page for "Christian Terrorism," (talk:Christian_terrorism) you will see that we've argued significantly regarding the definitions of "religious terrorism." The terrorism has to be motivated by religious scripture or ideology, and you won't find any Hindus (in the RSS, or anywhere else) advocating terrorism based specifically on Hindu religion. You'll certainly find "Hindus" who have engaged in "terrorism," but just as the Irish Republican Army is a Catholic Christian group that commits terrorism does not fit into the "Christian Terrorism" category, you'll never find any scholarly resources showing that these alleged groups could be considered under that banner. Trust me, I had to do a lot of research just to get the NLFT and NSCN added as "Christian Terrorist" groups, and those are flat-out, hardcore terrorists. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

This page needs serious restructuring

I believe this section needs restruturing. The section names hardly correspond to the content in the sections. The content in many sections lack continuity. Nihar S (talk) 05:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

it has been tagged for merging for ages. This article is simply a WP:CFORK of Hindu nationalism. We should finally sit down and do the merger properly. --dab (𒁳) 07:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, when I said it needs restructuring, I did'nt mean it was a WP:CFORK. The Hindu Nationalism page too is equally poor in content. Comming to whether hindutva = Hindu nationalism? Hindu Nationalism is a generic term and will include lot of movements while Hindutva is very specific to some organisations. For the moment, I believe, both the pages (minus the rethoric that has been put by both supporters and opponents) are stubs and need more and better referenced content. Deciding whether to merge can be put off for some time, till we can clean up and restructure at least this page. I would try it over the next few days. Anybody there to help? Nihar S (talk) 12:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I will try and add references to unreferenced content. Can we also divide the "Views on other faiths" section into subsections and try to bring in some continuity. That section looks very very messy. Gabriel N (talk) 03:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit request from Atheist9, 4 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The following is wrongly attributed without any reference.Hindutva seeks to eliminate caste system and bring a sense of unity among the Hindus which it can never accomplish if it accepts caste system. Therefore this is wrong.

"Protection of caste systems

Caste is embedded in Indian culture for the past 1,500 years, the caste system follows a basic precept: The ranks in Hindu society come from a legend in which the main groupings, or varnas, emerge from a primordial being. From the mouth come the Brahmans—the priests and teachers. From the arms come the Kshatriyas—the rulers and soldiers. From the thighs come the Vaisyas—merchants and traders. From the feet come the Sudras—laborers. Each varna in turn contains hundreds of hereditary castes and subcastes with their own pecking orders."

Atheist9 (talk) 07:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done: There is no indication what change is suggested, nor any explanation as to why the existing version is contradicted by the above statement. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 9atheist, 5 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Hindutva wishes to remove caste system. http://www.savarkar.org/en/social-reforms/abolition-caste-0 9atheist (talk) 04:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Not a reliable sources; please show e.g. newspaper. To appeal, use WP:RSN.  Not done  Chzz  ►  02:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 9atheist, 5 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The term 'Hindutva' has been coined by savarkar. He did express his wish to abolish caste system.

9atheist (talk) 04:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Requests to edit semi-protected articles must be accompanied by reference(s) to reliable sources.

 Not done  Chzz  ►  02:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Sangh Parivar

The Sangh Parivar isn't an organisation in any real sense (i.e having a clear objective, office bearers etc.) but a loose aggregation of organisations with overlapping points of view. It is more a term of convenience. An equivalent would be the UPA in India or the coalition Government of Britain.Wogsinheat (talk) 09:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)wogsinheat

Merger proposal

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hindu Taliban is a POV title and a WP:NEO. As the term refers to the Hindutva movement I propose it be merged or redirected here. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Support - per nom. Hindu Taliban is IMHO a contravention of WP:POVNAMING. The whole freaking thing is just based on speculations and fictitious allegations by one person. There is no such thing as ′Hindu Taliban′ in the real world and Wikipedia is not a repository of neologisms. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 07:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC) Oppose as Hindu Taliban is a separate term and an independent article is needed to discuss it's uses and history. Merging information from that article into here will be inappropriate, as a major portion of this article will then be discussing the term 'Hindu Taliban' whereas this article itself is focused on the Hindutva movement. Mar4d (talk) 17:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC) Please explain then why the majority of the content in the "Hindu Taliban" article currently discusses Hindutva? "Hindu Taliban" is a POV title, a very poorly source WP:NEO, and as it currently stands is a POVFORK of this article. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC) It is not up to you to decide what 'title' constitutes POV and what doesn't. The only thing that matters here is the coverage and usage of the term in WP:RS. You're comment on POV is hardly relevant. Besides, once I expand information on the term using the many sources that I can currently access, it will need an article anyway. So this merger discussion is both futile and pointless. Mar4d (talk) 12:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC) WP:POVTITLE "When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title (subject to the other naming criteria)." As the majority of content in the other article is about Hindutva then that is obviously the more common name. WP:CFORK "A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject" "Hindu Taliban" is a WP:NEO for Hindutva, so it is not I who is deciding anything, it is policy and guidelines. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC) In fact, as soon as the article is unprotected I shall be nominating it for deletion as a POV fork per "Some refer to hindutva supporters as a “Hindu Taliban.”" India: A Global Studies Handbook p126. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC) Per WP:Summary style: "A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own so neither POVTITLE or CFORK have much relevance because the issue here is expanding the article with the huge number of WP:RS that discuss the term. And there is no shortage of WP:RS. And this article clearly cannot afford to hold so much content, because it is a general article on Hindutva, not on Hindu Taliban which is a term. So whatever way you look at it, your argument does not hold much water. Mar4d (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC) You can present the sources which discuss the neo in depth at the AFD. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC) Per WP:NOTDICDEF as well Darkness Shines (talk) 17:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC) The term is just a personal opinion of the writer & is not widely used.Can you give more sources which would prove that the term is widely used.Parjorim (talk) 04:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Support The term is not widely used to warrant its inclusion in an encyclopedia. If at all its a biased term, merely a personal usage term by the person who wrote that article in New york times or whatever. Moreover as a Hindu I find it as derogatory. If the article cant be removed it should be merged with other articles on the so called Hindutva movement. Parjorim (talk) 03:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Support: the topic of both articles is the same, as "Hindu Talibans" refers to the supporters of Hindutva. Only, "Hindu Talibans" is a derogative, and therefore non-neutral POV term. Therefore, the non-neutral article "Hindu Taliban" (WP:POVFORK) should be merged into the neutral Hindutva. It can be mentioned in the latter that some sources use the term "Hindu Talibans" to criticise extremist Hindutva supporters.--RJFF (talk) 16:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC) Support:Hindu Taliban is not an official title,Just speculations and allegations.Taliban represents themselves as a group as they titled.Definitely merged.Indian government have no problem with these words to vow minority votes and to hide islamic terrorism.Hindutwa is not even fundamentalist term as they are nationalist first,They never spread hate against others religions but their only aim is to provide a path for the followers.Their target are traitors(who live in india and support others) not people of other religions and there is nothing wrong with that.And a simple question to the opposer."Who is Tunku Varadarajan," to decide that?---zeeyanwiki discutez 21:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Procedural close; Hindu Taliban has been deleted at AFD, so there's nothing to merge. Otherwise we would have had a consensus to merge. If you remember anything from that article that would be useful here, ask the deleting admin to restore it for merger. Nyttend (talk) 00:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request for Views on History section

Indo-Aryan Migration and Aryan invasion theory are controversial academic subjects. Regardless of the amount of scholarly papers and biological and anthropological studies done that refute the idea of an "invasion" the main idea is that this was the idea propagandized by British colonialists to encourage the indigenous population to acquiesce to the idea of a civilizing, conquering outsider.

ALSO on the grand scale of sourced McCaulay quotes in which he talks about (and denigrates) the Hindus and their education system these are by far the most tame.

And forgot to make not of the role of the Oxford Sanskrit chair to prsent indian literature to indians in a way favourable to their conversion to Christianity.

You are definitely writing on the bias of suppressing important historical information.142.59.203.143 (talk) 21:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)Rajimus123

Tags

I tagged this page for several reasons, many of which are readily apparent in the intro itself; 1) The lack of academic sources. RSS sources are not RS in any case, but especially here. 2) The vocabulary used is very often POV; saying "Shri Ram," for instance, is not acceptable. 3) There is a generic acceptance of Sangh Parivar depictions of terms like "Hindu." again, obviously problematic.

This is plenty to go on for now. Obviously a major cleanup effort is needed. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Not even a single place, it's pushing any propaganda or POV. Just because you saw some WP:HONORIFIC, you can simply remove. You don't have to make it's issue by tagging. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Bladesmulti, what exactly is that supposed to mean? You haven't addressed any concerns I brought up. Yes, I could fix all those issues instead of tagging, but only if I had had infinite time and resources, which I don't. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 tags are the last resort, you first need to discuss the issues on the talk page, only if you do not find any solution you should put those tags. You have mentioned issues that seems to be very generic. You nee to put specific issues here. What do you mean by following The vocabulary used is very often POV; saying "Shri Ram," for instance, is not acceptable this is a very minor issue and doesn't deserve a POV tag, There is a generic acceptance of Sangh Parivar depictions of terms like "Hindu." again, obviously problematic. where? what exactly is problematic? -sarvajna (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course the issues are generic; it's the reason why I tagged the article. For a specific issue, I could come here, and sort it out quickly. This article, on the other hand, will require a major cleanup effort (not content, necessarily, but language). I cannot sort that out on the TP; I would need to make the changes myself. Pending that, I tagged it, so that a) other users might make a cleanup effort and b) casual readers don't assume everything in the article is compliant with wikipedia policy. I can begin to list specific issues if you wish. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

tags are NOT the last resort. problematic content can be flagged by anyone at any time OR it can be fixed OR removed OR first discussed on the talk page. some flags also require issues to be identified on the talk page for discussion, but in those cases the flags also stay on the article during the discussion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Since you want specific points, here they are. Remember, though, these are examples of a general problem of tone.

1) The sentence about the supreme court, in the intro. They may have said that, but a substantial number of scholars have said exactly the opposite, that Hindutva is an attempt to marginalise some aspects of India, and so it cannot mean Indian culture in general. Without getting into an argument about who is right, I can still say that the intro cannot include only one of these interpretations.

2) The intro refers to the Babri masjid (which I think it should not, but anyhow) but it doesn't mention its demolition; how is this NPOV?

3) Definition section; again, the problem I mentioned above. Others have contested this interpretation, and that needs to be included.

4) No rebuttal given to the RSS idea of a common culture, although many such exist. See Amartya Sen, for starters. Also, a mention of Hindu oppression under Muslim rulers (presumably to distinguish them from one another) but no mention of the fact that the major pre-Islamic Indian empires were Buddhist and Jain, not Hindu in the religious sense.

5) Mention of opposition to the caste system, but no mention of the fact that historically Dalits have not voted for the BJP in large numbers.

6) In the Hindutva growth section, the uncontested assertion that BJP ruled states have grown faster than national average. The source is a dubious one, and moreover refers only to Gujarat, HP and Uttarakhand, and EVEN IN THAT CASE does not support what the article says.

7) In the Organizations section, the uncontestes statement that the Sangh supports Sikh interests.

8) The statement in the criticism section, where the idea that Hindutva is purely cultural is presented in Wikipedia's voice.

9) A very large number of sources are either RSS affiliated sources, or unreliable online ones. There is a remarkable lack of books/articles by historians and sociologists, who are in general far less sympathetic to the ideas presented here as fact. See Ram Guha, or Sen, or Christophe Jaffrelot, or Martha Nussbaum, or Arundhati Roy, or Romila Thapar, or any number of others.

Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The word itself is highly unpopular and unused. Only those uses it, who have some clear purpose, its mostly used in journals, logs, etc. Not really in news, events. You don't write like "That hindutva said this to me", because it's not a common word. Now about the RSS sources or relation, its usually RSS who has to do with this word mostly. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

You have not answered any points I made. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for the late response, Vanamonde93, you should realize that most of the Wikipedia articles are "work in progress" that doesn't mean that we should tag each and every article. This article is about the definition of Hindutva, there cannot be many interpretations, yes if people have used Hindutva as an agenda to do something else put it in the Criticism, again the article lacks information not that it is not neutral. Why there are many RSS source? Well, that is where you get to know more about the definition. Criticism can be found in other places. You added the tags on 16th Jan and still I do not see a single source presented by you. You should also read the usage of the template before using it. Read it here. It says Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article.. You are doing a good job of identifying the issues, if you feel that there is an issue correct it, discuss it on talk page. I am removing the POV tag as of now. Thanks.-sarvajna (talk) 15:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The reason I tagged the article for POV is not simply for lack of information, but also statements that shouldn't be there, or need to be rephrased. I don't want to repeat myself; see points 6,7 and 8 above. I can supply plenty more, if you so wish. And although I did not supply sources, I did mention authors; I am not spouting hot air. If you want specifics, then these are a good starting point. Don't misquote the template page at me. It also say "The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight" which is the attempt here because I don't have the time to clean it up alone. The page also talks about the need for reliable, secondary sources, which are noticeably absent here, which was indeed one of the points I brought up. Therefore, I am replacing the tag. Once the issues are cleaned up, I will be happy to remove it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Will you ever edit the main article? You must, so we can know that what you actually want it to be like. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, the Economic Impact section is more about the definition of the Hindutva rate of growth and less about the assertion that BJP ruled states have grown faster than national average. Also it is not a very well known term and the sentence used an opinion piece, so I have removed the whole section.Coming to your other point about Organizations section, it doesn't say that sangh represents the well being of sikhs it says followers of Hindutva believe that they represent the well-being of Hinduism, Sikhism(emphasis mine). I don't think that should be an issue issue. Your other points, I think you are just nitpicking. Lets see where this goes with the tags. Also note, the next time you provide a source, give something specific like page number. None of us have enough time to read the whole book just to correct something that you perceive as incorrect.-sarvajna (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit request on Hindu and Judaism relations

Please put inside the article this text:

Hindutva groups are overwhelmingly supportive of the Jewish State of Israel, including Savarkar himself, who supported Israel during its formation. RSS is the most pro-Israel group in India at present and actively praised the efforts of Ariel Sharon when he visited India . R.S.S spokesperson Ram Madhav recently expressed support for Israel (when the far left Marxists and Islamists in India routinely attack Israel and Jews and have, in fact, accused Israel and Zionists of "fascistic" inclinations as well) when he said:

The entire world acknowledges that Israel has effectively and ruthlessly countered terror in the Middle East. Since India and Israel are both fighting a proxy war against terrorism, therefore, we should learn a lesson or two from them. We need to have close cooperation with them in this field.

I have found this deleted text by a pov warrior while perusing a wikipedia forum. Thank you.--Clapkidaq (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The content as presented above is properly removed as being POV. Try re-writing with less spin. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Questionable citation

The 13 March version of the text starts:

Hindutva (Devanagari: हिन्दुत्व, "Hinduness"), a word coined by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar in his 1923 pamphlet Hindutva: Who is a Hindu?, is the set of movements advocating Hindu nationalism. Members of the movement are called Hindutvavadis.

I have checked the book and I cannot see how it supports either the first or the second sentences.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the citation from the article and replaced it with a fact tag.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:14, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The statement "the set of movements advocating Hindu nationalism" is not supported by the main body of text. It says that Hindutva is an ideology and a way of life, not that it is a set of movements. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

citizens vs. people in

Is there a potential problem when considering the following statement: "Leaders subscribing to Hindutva have been known for their demands for a Uniform Civil Code for all the citizens of India." In the US everyone is subject to the law and its protections -- not just citizens therefore in India are its laws and protections for only citizens of the country or do all inhabitants while in the country therefore citizens would be a word that should be eliminated/avoided from a number of WP articles when defining relationships of laws and people. Now, I do not want to be placed in a position that might prompt some to say that bribery us the means by way to determine if or when a law or its protections are applicable to a person that may or may not be a citizen of a country. That is another article.66.74.176.59 (talk) 15:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Original research

I have tagged this article for WP:OR. It cites almost no scholarly sources for what "Hindutva" means, even though the list of sources in "Further reading" is growing by leaps and bounds. Somebody needs to read them and write a proper article. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Which paragraph is or? Entire article is or? --AmritasyaPutra^T 02:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I have removed unreferenced content. You can cleanup too. Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra^T 09:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The whole article is OR, basically. It has been synthesized by cherry picking primary sources. No secondary sources have been cited or read by the authors of this page. The whole article has to be rewritten. That is why so many Further Reading entries have been given. If you have the energy, please do it. But, no bandaids please. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to removed those suggestions for further reading. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Why the hastiness to revert? WP:FURTHER is not a dumping area. 21 books? Same authors repeated? And you prefer to keep it that way instead of a valid trimming? --AmritasyaPutra^T 06:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree with the changes of AmritasyaPutra, we don't have to list every possible article or book into further reading. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

So, why remove these books and articles? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Because we don't need every of them, Kautilya3 first said that there are many in the further reading, and when someone removed the unnecessary ones, he reverted that change when it was actually required. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

And why remove the tags? They don't say that 'the entire article has to go', as you state. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

You mean AmritasyaPutra? I haven't investigated or touched the tags, but we can probably solve that matter if more points are addressed. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I have put back the tag JJ, I had nuked a bulk of unreferenced content. I also tidied up the article. Kautilya3 above said the reason he put the tags is "The whole article is OR", "The whole article has to be rewritten". Putting OR and Too few Opinions same time is self-contradictory, but if you insist, you may put both as well. While I try to read up Hindu Nationalism: A Reader By Christophe Jaffrelot to further improve the article, specific inputs are welcome as claiming that entire article is OR and has to go is not a way forward. --AmritasyaPutra^T 06:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for putting them back, and thanks for reading sources to improve the article. I don't think Kautilya3 is saying he wants the article to be removed; he probably means it needs improvement. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks JJ for trying to improve the article. It is a pity that the page got locked while you were in the middle of it. I never understand AP's issues or why he edit wars so often. The article had lots of Further Reading entries because, I presume, people found it to be one-sided and gave other references for people to look up. This is a complicated subject. So it is not going to get fixed in a day. To answer AP's questions specificically:

• It is OR because primary sources have been cited and not scholarly opinions about them. Where opinions were cited, they were typically of the Hindutva-proponents, not third party sources.
• It has to be rewritten by taking into account scholar's opinions. The Further reading entries listed a whole bunch of good sources that the article should be taking into account.

There is clearly work to do. Edit warring isn't going to help us. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Sources & references

May I suggest to use here the sfn-tags also? It gives a quick access to find sources, like AP's Hindu Nationalism: A Reader by Christophe Jaffrelot. And what would be relevant academic sources here anyway? I'm becoming interested now. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Christophe Jaffrelot (1999), The Hindu Nationalist Movement and Indian Politics: 1925 to the 1990s, Penguin Books India
• Katharine Adeney, Lawrence Saez (eds.)(2007), Coalition Politics and Hindu Nationalism, Routledge
• Martin E. Marty, R. Scott Appleby (eds.)(1994), Fundamentalisms Observed, Volume 1, University of Chicago Press
• Andrew R. Murphy (2011), The Blackwell Companion to Religion and Violence, John Wiley & Sons
• Jyotirmaya Sharma (2011), Hindutva: Exploring the Idea of Hindu Nationalism, Penguin Books India

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Nope, sfn is not required here. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Citevar should not be casually ignored/violated. --AmritasyaPutra^T 12:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Mass revert

Mass revert diff: "we don't bring sfn style everywhere, these changes clearly require agreement". What a lousy reason to remove sourced content. At least you could have politely noticed so, and asked me to change the style of reference. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

JJ wasn't converting existing references to sfn. He was adding new sources, typically books, which need to be cited by sfn because the same book be cited many times. I don't see what the problem is. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

JJ, Unfortunately for us, "Hindutva" is not an academically important term. The academics call the concept "Hindu nationalism." It is only in India, where the leftists who dominate the discourse can't bring themselves to put "Hindu" and "nationalism" next to each other, that they have resorted to calling it "Hindutva" instead of "Hindu nationalism." So, what this article really needs to describe is the Hindutva brand of Hindu nationalism. The sources for that are hard to find. That is why the Further Reading list of page is important. Perhaps they talk about it. I don't know. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

At least I'm getting an impression of the "source" of ideas like "indigenous Aryans". What made modern people think that the world would become secularized? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this is an issue of "religion" vs "secularity." The Nazis weren't particularly religious. This is ethnic nationalism, or what is called in India "communalism". Religion, or culture, or religio-cultural history has been used to forge an ethnic identity. Why did that happen?According to Gyanendra Pandey, colonialism was the cause. But I myself think that there is an inherent "clash of civilisations" in the Hindu-Muslim relations and I believe this would have happened sooner or later no matter how the history went. But, with the British in control, things went more out of control with greater speed. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Jyotirmaya Sharma is good. That is what I have been reading to understand things. But the book only goes up to Savarkar, but we want to understand what happened after him. Note that the version of the book on Google Books Amazon is the 2003 version, which is, I think, better than the 2011 version. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Definition

The "definition" section didn't contain a definition, but it does contain quotes which serve to argue that Hindutva is not nationalistic. OR indeed, and POV-pushing. And a lack of editorial skills: where's the argument these arguments arge arguing against? The statement "Hindutva is nationalistic" is missing. I've moved these quotes to a new section. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

They do discuss the definition, I have reverted your changes because they were clearly one-sided and again distracting from the actual definition. We don't have to mention its sentiment regarding Islam as the definition or change the reference style when the current one is easier to access. Also because they were major changes, I believe that you should be proposing them here first and reach to an agreement. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it was clearly incomplete and unique. I got a sample of semi-definitions and definitions from peer reviewed journals and academic books that are much more recent than 1999, in fact, as recent as 2014. I need to analyse them in context and probably present more than one definition in use, along with their affiliation. I have reproduced in accordance with copyvio policy:

• Hindu nationalists have proposed that Hinduism is not a religion but a civilization, which they call hindutva (Hinduness). Peter L. Berger. The Political Management of Pluralism. Society, Volume 51, Issue 6, pp 602-604. Print ISSN 0147-2011. Publisher Springer US, December 2014.

• Over the following decade [1980s], “Hindutva” would become a major political force to reckon with. Srinath Raghavan. Makers of Modern Asia Edited by Guha, Ramachandra. Harvard University Press (2014). Pages: 215–243 ISBN: 9780674735781.
• Hinduism is above all a way of life and a philosophy of life. Andreea Gradinaru, Mihaela Iavorschi. The Hindu Economic System. Human & Social Studies. Research and Practice. Volume 2, Issue 2, Pages 41–58, ISSN 2285-5920, July 2013.
• ..The third criterion of Hindutva—a ‘common culture’—reflects for Savarkar the crucial importance of rituals, social rules, and language in Hinduism. Sanskrit is cited by him as the common reference point for all Indian languages and as ‘language par excellence’. Hindu Nationalism, A Reader. Edited by Jaffrelot, Christophe. Princeton University Press. 2009. Pages: 85–96.
• ..Hindutva requires you to control your sexual urges. Menon, Kalyani Devaki. Everyday Nationalism. Women of the Hindu Right in India. University of Pennsylvania Press. 2010. Pages: 131–156. ISBN: 9780812202793. --AmritasyaPutra^T 12:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Reply by JJ: The definition I offered here is very clear: "Hindutva, "Hinduness," [...] refers to the idea that Hindus are vulnerable in comparison to other "Pan-isms" such as "Pan-Islamism," and need to consolidate and strenghten their Hindu identity."

• @Blades,

• They discuss an anti-Hindutva statement which is lacking from the text;
• you mention "the definition" and "the actual definition"; where are these in the article? I'm looking forward to "the actual definition," with sources;
• Islam: This is what this source says;
• Reference style is not a reason to remove sourced info;
• "proposing them here first": if you think that sourced info can be removed with this "argument", you miss a basic policy of Wikipedia. Removing sourced info, and requesting to discuss the addition of sourced info before adding it, comes close to WP:OWN and POV-pushing. But alas, here's the discussion: Wikipedia requires WP:RS; this is RS; this is what this source says; ergo this info should not be removed;

• @ AP:

• "clearly incomplete and unique" - so, adding a definition, when there is lacking one, is "incomplete and unique"?
• Your "definitions" are not definitions:

• "Hindu nationalists have proposed" - unclear and selective;
• "“Hindutva” would become" - that's not a definition, but a description of a historical development;
• "Hinduism is above all" - that's also not a definition, but a statement about Hinduism; as quoted in this way, it's OR;
• "Hindutva requires you" - even less than a definition, but a statement about how to live.

So, I think it's clear that this version should be restored. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Last lead[20] was copied(violated copyrights), from [21] Bladesmulti (talk) 13:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Wrong source. It's from Jaffrelot, Christophe (1999), The Hindu Nationalist Movement and Indian Politics: 1925 to the 1990s, Penguin Books India. This source says "His book rests on the assumption that Hindus are vulnerable in comparison to or vis-a-vis other 'Pan-isms' such as Pan-Islamism: ["]O Hindus consolidate and strenghten Hindu nationality." So, even if this is too close to the original, a few simple quotation marks would have solved the problem. Finally some info from a serious source, and it's reverted right away. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

JJ, I disagree with you. The definitions I presented are valid. In fact, if you notice, I have better description from Jaffrelot himself from more recent book. And I have peer reviewed articles too. I would appreciate you do not find novel meaning and twist to my statements. If I did not find your 'definition' in five more recent academic books and peer reviewed articles they are indeed incomplete and unique. I am going to use them too, they are more recent, academic, and deal with the subject directly and not about a book. --AmritasyaPutra^T 16:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The "better description" by Jaffelot is part of a list of criteria; where are the other criteria? Your comment "do not find novel meaning" is strange; does it mean that only "your" "definitions" should be used? Just like your next comment, "If I did not find your 'definition' in five more recent academic books and peer reviewed articles they are indeed incomplete and unique"; that's not an argument; the only thing you're saying here is "other sources give other definitions" - which might be expected, not? Your choice of arguments is rather peculiar. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

What's more, your Jaffelot-quote is also about Savarkar's book. Some quotes:

• "Savarkar wrote this book in prison, after he had come in contact with Khilafatists whose attitude apparently convinced him — a revolutionary till then — that Muslims were the real enemies, not the British. Savarkar’s book rests on the assumption that Hindus are weak compared to Muslims." (p.85)
• "Drawing some of his inspiration from Dayananda and his followers, Savarkar defines the nation primarily along ethnic categories. For him, the Hindus descend from the Aryas, who settled in India at the dawn of history and who already formed a nation at that time. However, in Savarkar’s writings, ethnic bonds are not the only criteria of Hindutva. National identity rests for him on three pillars: geographical unity, racial features, and a common culture." (p.86)

Your choice of quotes is selective. As for the other "definitions," please explain why you think they are valid. Merely stating "The definitions I presented are valid" won't suffice. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I put ellipsis before that sentence -- I cannot paste the entire page as per our copyvio policy. Recent academic and peer reviewed definition have to be taken into consideration. That is what I said. No, it is not expected that I did not find your definition in any of the five more recent academic sources, including the author's own more recent work. He very explicitly talks about Savarkar's definition of Hindutva in this one (derived from an understanding of his book, yes), in your 'definition' he is primarily discussing about the whole book itself. The other academic references are also contextual and relevant apart from being more recent. --AmritasyaPutra^T 17:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the other definitions:

• The article by Peter L. Berger does not contain the quote you've given.
• "Makers of Modern Asia" does not seem to contain the quote you've given here. Please specify the page-number.

I'll check the other sources too, but this is troublesome, AP... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Gradinaru & Iavorschi, "Hinduism is above all a way of life and a philosophy of life." - this is the opening sentence of the abstract of this article, which is about economics, not about Hindutva.
• Jaffrelot: I've already commented on this quote, which is selective.
• Menon contains only one sentence with "sexual urges": "While Hindu nationalists associate Christians with sexual freedom, they suggest that Muslims, by permitting polygamy, cannot control their sexual urges." (p.141)

So, your "definitions" seem to be your personal fabrication. If these are not quotes, but summaries, then they're unacceptable, since they can't be verified, or where they can, are simply irrelevant. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Go check again. The quotation I gave from "The Political Management of Pluralism" Peter L. Berger is there. You can find it here also: The Many Altars of Modernity, Toward a Paradigm for Religion in a Pluralist Age, De Gruyter, 2014, Pages: 79–93, ISBN 9781614516477. And same for the quote from Makers of Modern Asia also, page is 228. Same for Menon, page 140. How are you checking? I have already commented on your fabrication and denial of more appropriate and more recent discussion by Jaffrelot. --AmritasyaPutra^T 17:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the specific page-numbers. I used Google Books for the books; the jourbal I accessed directly. Google Book sgave limited views, unfortunately. Nevertheless, your "definitions" are selective and hardly definitions; it would be better to have a straight definition from a source, instead of putting bits of quotes together. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for acknowledging your mistake. I not only dislike but strongly disapprove of your quickness to allege that I fabricated source. You can find each of the five quotes letter for letter. I must say you are trying to push me, I clearly said "I got a sample of semi-definitions and definitions from peer reviewed journals and academic books that are much more recent than 1999, in fact, as recent as 2014. I need to analyse them in context and probably present more than one definition in use, along with their affiliation". It has been clearly shown to you by me and Kautilya3 that the "definition" that you are propeling is more about the book review and not about the concept. I never said I will put bits of quotes together. What I did say I have just now repeated. It is very disruptive on your part to repeatedly pu up a strawman like this. You must stop doing this. --AmritasyaPutra^T 06:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I've been watching this discussion, and it seems to me to be getting a little esoteric; perhaps we need to take a step back to regain perspective a little? Here's one thought that occurs to me; Savarkar's definition of Hindutva is somewhat different from the conventional academic interpretation thereof. Savarkar coined the term, and NPOV policy requires reporting the academic views; ergo I feel we need to include both definitions, separately, if need be. We shouldn't attempt to reconcile them into one grand definition; that's impossible. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Y You echo my sentiments. --AmritasyaPutra^T 09:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Apologies for the term "fabrication." Google Books is not perfect. I do have access to "Society" though; it does not contain the sentence AP has given. What it does contain is the following:

"As of 1948 independent India has defined itself as a secular state, in conscious contradistinction with Pakistan, with strong legal guarantees of religious freedom. “Communalism”, the political expression of different religious and ethnic groups, has been strongly condemned. It exists nevertheless, in the powerful movement to define the state in Hindu terms (hindutva) and by a counter-movement of Islamic fundamentalism in the large Muslim minority." (p.604)

This is different from

"Hindu nationalists have proposed that Hinduism is not a religion but a civilization, which they call hindutva (Hinduness)."

Maybe the quote or phrase is in De Gruyer 2014, but it does not seem to be in this article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Comparison of definitions

The definition I offered here is very clear:

"Hindutva, "Hinduness," [...] refers to the idea that Hindus are vulnerable in comparison to other "Pan-isms" such as "Pan-Islamism," and need to consolidate and strenghten their Hindu identity."

Compare it to these two "definitions:

"Hindutva [...] is the prominent set of movements advocating Hindu nationalism in India."

and

"Hindutva ('Hindu-ness'), [is] an ideology that sought to define Indian culture in terms of Hindu values". (source: EB)

The third "definition" is an addition to the first; the second refers to the movements that promote, and isn't a definition of Hindutva an sich. The EB-definition is contradicted by the Savarkar-quote:

"Hindutva is not a word but a history. Not only the spiritual or religious history of our people as at times it is mistaken to be by being confounded with the other cognate term Hinduism, but a history in full. Hinduism is only a derivative, a fraction, a part of Hindutva. ... Hindutva embraces all the departments of thought and activity of the whole Being of our Hindu race."

The Supreme Court statement is misplaced here. It belongs to the "Criticism and support" section, or, together with the third definition and the Savarkar-quote in a section on "Development of the concept", which should make clear that "Hindutva" had a non-religious meaning for Savarkar, bit has been branded by opponents as religious fundamentalism; which may be true, given the stance of the BJP. This is, more or less, also what Ram Jethmalani is arguin in "Hindutva is a secular way of life," from which the Supreme Court-quotes were taken. Some thoughts, and some more effort than hitting the revert-button, might have been given to these defintions, before simply removing sourced info. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the term is used for multiple purposes in multiple contexts. So, it is not easy to say one thing definitively. Here is my take:

• Hindutva, as a concept, means that India is a Hindu nation. (That is what "Hinduness" is referring to, India. It was probably referring to the whole of Indian subcontinent because it was formulated before independence.) It is also important to recognize that the word "Hindu" has dual meaning,
  • first that it is the indigenous Indian culture, and
  • second that it is the Hindu religion.

The Hindutva-proponents pick and choose what they want it to mean in a given context. (cf. Arvind Sharma)

• Hindutva, as a political ideology, means that Islam and Christianity are foreign to India. What is to be done about them depends on various things. The mild version of Hindutva says that Muslims and Christians in India must own up to their Indian heritage (their "Hindutva") and thereby accept various things that they don't currently accept, e.g., vande mataram.
• Hindutva, as a political movement, essentially means Hindu supremacism, but you would be hard put to find a source that says it in those words.

I believe the wording you have taken from Jaffrelot is probably out of context. I can't see the page on the Google Books at the moment. So I have to check it when I go home. Blades/AP are right that he was probably talking about the book Hindutva, rather than the concept Hindutva. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed. Jaffrelot is talking about the book Hindutva on page 25. Kautilya3 (talk) 07:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Definition Proposal #2: ambiguity of the term "Hindu"

The "Definition"-section should also mention the ambiguity of the term Hindu, as Kautilya3 also noted: it may refer to both Hinduism as a religion, and to '(being an) Indian.' When this is made clear in this section, it also becomes clearer why there are different interprettaions/definitions of Hindutva: either focussing on Hinduism, or rejecting this focus. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't think there is this kind of ambiguity. Hindutva has always referred to cultural nationalism. But religion is part of culture. So, religious issues would crop up from time to time, and the Hindutva activists might expoloit them. They might also dress up religion as "culture" on occassion (e.g., Rama is an Indian "hero"). But note that they also dress it up as "science". (Mahabharata had test tube babies.) They don't always know where culture ends and religion begins. Sometimes, nobody knows. (Is cow protection "culture" or "religion"?) But the fundamental motivation is cultural identity, not for propagating particular relgious beliefs or to carry out religious persecution.

I think it is useful to remember Nazis. The Nazis and Jews didn't have a religious conflict. They had an ethnic conflict.

But I agree that the definition section should mention that "Hindu" means indigenous Indian. Occasionally, it might also mean the Hindu religion. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

It's funny that you mention the Nazis. In Holland, when we remember the war, it's simply "the Germans". No nuances at the 4th of may. The rest of the year, they're simply our appreciated neighbours who defend the solidity of the European economy. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't we read enough German indologists who equate the Hindu nationalists with the Nazis, including our favourite Michael Witzel? Cultural nationalism was invented by them, along with the Italian Fascists, and warmly copied by the Hindu nationalists. Golwalkar even says explicitly that the idea of nationalism then current in India was wrong, the "correct" idea being the German-Italian variety. I need to find out some time why the Americans don't understand the problems with cultural nationalism. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The Americans don't? "Political correctness" seems to be invented by them. And they had their share too, didn't they, with their warm feelings toward Afro-Americans, and related clubs like the KKK. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Americans care about human rights. They care about religious freedom. Other than that, if Hindus want to feel nationalist, they think it should be perfectly ok. The Andersen & Damle book is the most sympathetic book I have read about the RSS, and Andersen went on to work for the State Department later. Kautilya3 (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for lead

Here's a proposal for the lead:

"Hindutva, "Hinduness," is an Indian nationalistic ideology which seeks for unifying factors in the diversity of the Indian subcontinent. It argues that there is an underlying cultural unity, dating back to the Vedic people, which unifies the various people and religions of India. The concept was introduced by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar in his 1923 pamphlet Hindutva: Who is a Hindu? It is the guiding ideology of the Sangh Parivar, an umbrella of various organizations advocating Hindu nationalism in India."

The first two lines are based on the subsection on "Cultural nationalism". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Most of the part is undue. There is no identification like the cultural unity would date back to Vedic people. I also think that there is no problem with the present lead. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

"Dating back to vedic people" is sourceable. Hindutva is an ideology, not just a "set of movements." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you are missing the key term "indigenous." Only the indigenous cultures of India are attempted to be unified and other cultures ("foreign cultures") are expected to be assimilated. You can't call it "Indian nationalistic" because that term includes, by definition, all the cultures in India, both indigenous and foreign. The right description is "Hindu nationalistic" or may be just "nationalistic". I also think you are overstressing the "unification" idea. Unification may have been the motivation for introducing the concept in 1920's but those motivations are now obsolete. The Indian constitution defines "Hindu" exactly the way Savarkar wanted it and this is now universally accepted. So, that kind of need for unification doesn't exist any more. But the more important motivation for defining "Hindutva" today was to stress the separation of indigenous and foreign. That motivation continues to exist. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

So, that's also why it is important for nationalists to stress the "indigenousness" of the Vedic culture? To admit that the Vedic culture came from outside of India shakes the very foundations of the whole enterprise, doesn't it?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Jonathan (talk • contribs)

Indeed, yes. But, there are also variations on the theme. I think Aurobindo (who is normally not regarded as a "Hindu nationalist") first proposed that the Vedic people were indigenous to India. Golwalkar was responsible for implanting it in the Hindu nationalist ideology. But, even the people that accept that the Vedic people came from the outside, generally hold that the Vedic culture developed indigenously after the people settled down in India. However, the Indo-European scholars are telling us that the essentials of the Vedic culture itself were formed outside India, and it spread far and wide (as far as Syria and Wusun). That is why it becomes important to maintain now that India was the home of these people, and they spread from India to other places, ergo the Out of India theory. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Hindutva. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120224160921/http://news.boloji.com/2008/01/16277.htm to http://news.boloji.com/2008/01/16277.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150217143858/https://in.news.yahoo.com/041021/43/2hfvw.html to http://in.news.yahoo.com/041021/43/2hfvw.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150217105251/http://indianexpress.com/res/web/pIe/ie/daily/19990119/01951725.html to http://www.indianexpress.com/res/web/pIe/ie/daily/19990119/01951725.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hindutva. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060528235634/http://www.indiastar.com/rameshrao.html to http://www.indiastar.com/rameshrao.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060520001544/http://www.asianetglobal.com:8080/asianet/2004/news/detailedstory.jsp?catId=10&newsId=2 to http://www.asianetglobal.com:8080/asianet/2004/news/detailedstory.jsp?catId=10&newsId=2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hindutva. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140819141726/http://www.financialexpress.com/news/Uniform-civil-code-Article-370-back-on-BJP-agenda/317218 to http://www.financialexpress.com/news/Uniform-civil-code-Article-370-back-on-BJP-agenda/317218/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hindutva. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130428045316/http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/Mumbai/Shiv-Sena-for-PM-with-Hindutva-view/Article1-1051070.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/Mumbai/Shiv-Sena-for-PM-with-Hindutva-view/Article1-1051070.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:29, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Hindu nationalism

Can we not just define Hindutva as meaning Hindu nationalism? What would be the reasons for not doing so? Kautilya3 (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

No. Hindu nationalism has its historical origin in Shivaji, Hindutva has its in Savarkar. Again, Hindu nationalism constitutes a part of Hindutva propagated by Savarkar in 1920s.Ghatus (talk) 12:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Are there any historians that say that Shivaji was a "Hindu nationalist?" To me Hind Swaraj means Hindu Statehood, which would have been deemed to be accomplished when Indian attained independence. Hindu nationalism is a much deeper and all-inconclusive concept for which I don't see Shivaji as having been a subscriber. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

1) Many. Even "socialist" Nehru wrote in "Discovery of India" in the chapter "New Problem" under the title "Aurungzeb Puts the Clock Back. Growth of Hindu Nationalism. Shivaji" (p.291, ISBN 978-0-143-03103-1). Both Nationalist Historians( J.N. Sarkar, R.C. Majumdar) and Marxists like (Thapar & B. Chandra) as well as the Hindu Right thinkers(Savarkar etc) considered so.

2) Hindu Nationalism is like any other religious Nationalism. It focuses on more on Nationalism because Hindus constitute 80% of the nation India. So, well being of the nation is directly proportionate to the well being of Hindus and Hinduism. These terms are like camouflages. It happened many times in history and also in many nations. Ghatus (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

1) Ok, thanks. As always, more specific references that we could actually go and find would be useful. If I made the argument that "nationalism" is a modern concept that arose in Europe after the break up of the empires and it doesn't make sense to retrofit all the previous historical events into that frame, how would your historians respond? (This is not an empty argument. This is how the political scientists like Jaffrelot, Bruce Graham, Thomas Blom Hansen etc. view the phenomenon.) Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

2) As for the 80% argument, the Hindutva-proponents would respond by saying that this is not a question of the majority, but rather that the Hindu culture/religion is the original culture of the land, and they are trying to preserve and protect it. I don't see how you can brush this aside as simple majoritarianism. Even minority cultures have a right to preserve and protect their cultures. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3, your understanding seems good. I wanted to point a few things, Shivaji's hindavi swaraj and the connection of Indian Independence (1947) is completely(totally) misplaced. If you can read marathi you may find lot of relevant and very comprehensive work. The analysis on the lines of 80% or the European definition of nationalism is also misleading. How Golwalkar or Hedgewar put Hindu Nationalism can be best understood by a direct analysis of their work. Or the analysis of the subsequent leaders who claim they are only repeating it. --AmritasyaPutra^T 18:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The question I am asking is, are there differences between "Hindutva" and "Hindu nationalism" in the 20th century? The BJP web page certainly seems to say that they are the same. If they are the same, then it will help us to write this web page because there are plenty of academic sources for Hindu nationalism. There are pretty much none for "Hindutva." I think the Shivaji issue is better fought out on the Shivaji page. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

More to it than meets the eye

I have been banging on for a while that "Hindutva" means cultural nationalism, not religious nationalism. But I have missed a whole bunch of subtleties.

• Savarkar defined Hindutva, which inspired Hedgewar to form the RSS to realize the Hindu rashtra (Hindu nation) that he proposed. However, Hedgewar explicitly rejected the proposal to use the word "Hindu" in its name and called it Rashtriya (nationalist). RSS has often used the term Hindu rashtra, but not "Hindutva".
• Hindu Mahasabha used both the terms "Hindutva" and "Hindu rashtra", especially after Savarkar took control of it. But Syama Prasad Mookerjee wanted the party to be broadened to non-Hindus. When Hindu Mahasabha didn't agree, he quit. This was in 1950-51.
• Mookerjee used the term Bharatiya (Indian) to name his party and his discussions with Golwalkar explicitly equated the terms Bharatiya and Rashtriya. No "Hindutva" there. The term Bharatiya was then inherited by the BJP. There was no "Hindutva" in its ideology then. So, where did it come from?
• It turns out that the term Hindutva came back into use via the VHP, which used it as far back as 1968. After the Janata party split up (1980), Balasaheb Deoras (the-then Chief of the RSS) charged the VHP with developing a "Hindu vote bank." The VHP formulated the Ram Mandir movement and a host of other religious movements in response. These movements were adopted by the BJP only after Advani became the President (1984) and the term "Hindutva" along with them. Apparently, this was done in a famous "Palampur resolution" in 1989. [22]

So, there are two "Hindutvas", the Savarkar version which is cultural and the VHP version which is religious. The BJP adopted the latter. Since "Hindu" meant religion in 1984, not a "culture," much less the idea of "Indian-ness", this "Hindutva" seems to be a religous nationalism, not a cultural one. [Forgot to sign originally.] Kautilya3 (talk) 18:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

It appears that the RSS has also adopted the term "Hindutva," probably around the same time as the BJP did. A recent reference to it from Mohan Bhagwat here. Kautilya3 (talk) 23:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

References