Talk:Persecution of Hindus/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Report is missing

The report is missing and a lot of claims are made about this report. I think it should be added and the suggestive language about the report should be repaired. --Unweasel 15:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Suggested merging "Anti-Hindu" into this article

I suggest merging the Anti-Hindu article into this, as there are some significant content overlaps between the two. Opinions? --Anirvan 22:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me - the two cover similar material. Banno 23:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

No, they should be separate articles, the issues are distinct.--Vikramsingh 01:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. They should be separate. 'Persecution of Hindus' refers to enemies of the Hindu people. 'Anti-Hindu' refers to people who hate Hindus. There is a difference. The former implies the latter, though the latter does NOT necessarily imply the former.Netaji 01:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

"Hinduism" template on this page

(Moved from my talk page) `'mikka (t) 02:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I have made some edits to the article in question. I am still working on it, adding more citations and info. I am informing you as a courtesy. I have re-added the Hinduism footer that you removed. I respectfully disagree that this article has nothing to do with Hinduism. Bear in mind that the Persecution of Jews is listed in the Judaism category and, like the Jewish people, the history of our persecution is centrally important to our religious sensibilitues as well. I request you to allow me some latitude regarding this. Thanks.Netaji 23:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree with your comparison. The template in Persecution of Jews is caled "Jews and Judaism" and it covers all: jews, judaism and their history. The template in Persecution of Hindus is called "Hinduism" and hence must be confined to articles dealing with hinduism. While I understand that the topics are related, there must be order in classification. After all, everything in the world is rerlated to each other in one way or another. The "Hinduism" template is a navigation tool to navigate between the articles on the same topic, rather than to label all articles in category:Hinduism. After all, this jobe is done by the category margker itself. Such navigational templates are placed only in articles that are listed in the template. Otherwise many wikipedia articles will be littered by such templates, since a large number of articles address many topics. `'mikka (t) 02:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that's a good point. Hows about we keep it in the Hindu History category as it is now?Netaji 03:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course, "History" OK. `'mikka (t) 19:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarism

I will rewrite the sentence, meanwhile keep sentence in article and put a source notice.Bakaman _Bakatalk 23:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

why merge template?

why is there a merge template on the main page. anti-hindu is totally different from persecution of hindus. anti-hindu is like anti-jew and persecution of hindus is like persectution of jews. totally different articles. i shall remove this template if i dont see any criticism.thank you.nids 12:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Other major religions on WP have a clear distinction between articles dealing with general/philosophical criticisms (e.g. Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Judaism, Criticism of Islam) and the literal hands-on human-rights-denying persecution of adherents (e.g. Persecution of Christians, Persecution of Muslims, and Anti-Semitism). I haven't found a third category like "anti-Christian" or "anti-Islamic."

Most of the original content on the Anti-Hindu article deals with hands-on human-rights-denying persecution of Hindu adherents, and seems to duplicate this article (in worse quality, with fewer details). I think merging the two would give us a better article. -- Anirvan 22:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I think i was clear in my initial post that anti-hindu is like anti-jew and persecution of hindus is like persectution of jews. if there is any duplicacy, we can remove that, but definately no merger. we dont have articles like anti-muslim or anti-christian for they never existed.(those who thought so were killed). you can refer to articles of anti-jew and persecution of jews for details.nids 22:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I will remove template.Bakaman _Bakatalk 21:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Nidish, I'm terribly confused. Perhaps you didn't read my comment. There isn't an article called Anti-Jew, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up as a model for Anti-Hindu. You also state that there aren't any articles about criticism of Christianity or criticism of Islam, because those critics were killed; however, the articles obviously do exist.

If having split persecution/criticism articles is good enough for Christians (Persecution of Christians/Criticism of Christianity), Muslims (Persecution of Muslims/Criticism of Islam) and Jews (Anti-Semitism/Criticism of Judaism), then why should we establish an entirely separate system for Hinduism?

The scope of anti-Hindu (which isn't even a noun) is incredibly unclear, and there's substantial topical overlap with Persecution of Hindus. I suggest bringing coverage of Hinduism in line with that of other major world religions, by merging the content of any nonstandard articles into Persecution of Hindus and Criticism of Hinduism.

Bakaman, I'm sorry for not having replied to Nidhish earlier, and possibly having given you the impression that I agreed with his argument; I'll restore the template, because treating Hinduism as a special case just doesn't make case. Anirvan 02:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Anirav, there is no article anti-jew, but there is one on anti-semitism. Now come to christianity and islam. there are articles on criticism of christianity/islam, persecution of chrisitanity/islam and islamophobia/christianophobia. (Remember hinduphobia redirects to anti-Hindu.) anti-semitism or anti-hindu talks about the feelings, and persecution talks about actions. I dont know how can i make it more clear to you.--nids(♂) 03:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Anirav, we cant wait for a week for your response everytime. Please dont just come and reinsert those tags without discussion. And try reading different articles to have a feel of it, i.e. why different articles are required.--nids(♂) 18:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I think he had made his point that different articles are not required. I certainly don't see the uniqueness of the anti-Hindu article; to compare it to the article on anti-semitism is absurd. Please do not close discussion like this. "Cant wait for a week", indeed. Why not? This article isnt going towards FA status anytime soon, you know. Probably never, given the people who edit it regularly. Hornplease 03:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you feel about Islamophobia article??

And i said that a week is too much for a response. and when he came, he straightaway reinserted the template. You should provide reasons on the talk page and wait for some time(not weeks, but days) before reinserting a controversial template.--nids(♂) 05:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, I apologize for my prior delay.

Anti-Semitism and its related articles are excellent -- well-written, balanced, and not appearing to display any particular religious biases. The Islamophobia article is something entirely different -- it's a description of a very specific neologism in wide use in current political discourse, and much of the article is about the term itself, and varying opinions about it; most of the sources are from non-Muslim academic, government, news, and political sources. It also includes a wide variety of political opinions, from both advocates and critics of the concept. There's little overlap between that article and Persecution of Muslims.

You point to Christianophobia as an example to be emulated; it strikes me as a rather poorly written article, and somewhat POV. It's unfortunate if that's the best we can aspire to.

Anti-Hindu is a strange hodgepodge. About half of it discusses the persecution of Hindus (hence my suggestion to merge it with this article, which is much better written); the other half consists of undocumented statements and opinions -- all of it appearing to echo one, very specific, set of political opinions (without that point of view being made clear in the text). Anirvan 07:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I fully accept that christianophobia is poorly written article, just like anti-hindu. I accept that half of the discussions are duplicated. We can remove that and try to make a better article of it. But no way is merger a solution, even if anti-hindu is not a written properly.

I am providing a blueprint for the articles here. In persecution of hindus, we will talk about the actions, historic and contemporary. while in anti-hindu, we will talk about feelings or prejudices against hindus. As an example, the russian action of demolishing of krishna temple will come in persecution of hindus, while Witzels suggestion to government to ban hindus from cremating their dead will come in Hinduphobia or anti-Hindu. Fine.--nids(♂) 12:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Nids, do u have any evidence for Witzel's statement? ^Babub→Talk 13:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

No, i do not have reliable source. So i did not inserted it in any of the articles. I just pointed out to such statements as prejudices, which are somewhat different from persecution. If a law is passed, then its persecution, while if scholars demand for such things, it is just Hinduphobia.--nids(♂) 13:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

How does one clearly distinguish between criticism of Hinduism and "anti-Hindu"? Can you offer some concrete, verifiable examples of "anti-Hindu" that are neither critical of Hinduism, nor fundamentally linked to the persecution of Hindus? (Or does the apex of "anti-Hindu" over the past 5000 years really consist of unverified statements from a 20th/21st century American college professor?) Anirvan 17:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Historically, anti-hindu can be described as the contempt of hinduism as its practices were not strictly monotheistic. Babarnama has some reference that India was a land of kaafirs (i hope you know what kaafir means). You are not exactly persecuting, till you have laws that straightaway victimize the people.

Also, Anti-Hindu has grown recently due to, say success of Hindus. If you are in a democratic country, like say UK, you wont find persecution there, just the hatred, which can be better summed up as Hinduphobia or anti-hindu. The organisations like Dalitstan and people like Michael Witzel are better summed up as hinduphobics or anti-hindus. They arent and cant persecute Hindus. I hope i am clear enough. But it is a healthy discussion. I hope you can give some good counter-argument against my views. nids(♂) 17:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Also remember that people like Kancha Ilaiah are anti-hindus and there user pages are directed to anti-hindu. It isnt wise if we redirect anti-hindu to persecution of hindus. If he hasnt killed anyone or victimized, he is just expressing his opinion in a democratic country. He is just an anti-hindu, no way is he persecuting them.nids(♂) 18:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

If someone believes that Hindus are kafirs for not being monotheistic in a particular way, isn't that (by definition) linked to a particular theological critique of Hinduism? If Hindus suffered as a result of that theological conflict, that strikes me as persecution.

Kancha Ilaiah and Dalitstan are more promising, with the huge caveat that they seem focused on caste, and their anti-Hindu sentiment needs to seen as part of a series of lower-caste responses to the caste system, with some lower caste communities embracing a liberalized Hinduism, others rejecting it altogether, and many sitting somewhere in the middle. I could easily see anti-Hindu sentiment in Dalit nationalist movements described under Criticism of Hinduism.

There are only 4 articles in the main Wikipedia namespace that link to anti-Hindu, so I wouldn't worry too much about how people might react to redirects. We can just fix those 4 links if/when we make the change. Anirvan 20:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey I thought we had already decided on this! However, I agree that the anti-Hindu article is badly written. I will do my best to fix it up, but I need to look for some sources of info first.Anti-Hindu should discuss specific polemies and accusations made against Hindus, as well as anti-Hindu conspiracy hoaxes and claims that Hindus eat people, comparisons of Hindus with animals, claims that Hindus should be exterminated etc. Persecution already discusses some of the specific actions taken against theHindu people by anti-Hindu people/regimes etc.Netaji 01:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Anirav, can you see anti-semitism in criticism of jews.nids(♂) 05:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Nidish. Can you clarify your question? I'm not sure I understand. (Incidentally, my name is Anirvan, nor Anirav.) Thanks. Anirvan 06:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the miss-spellings. I was just saying that you cant put Anti-Hindu remarks in Criticism of Hinduism. If someone says that Hinduism is a religion of violence, than he is not criticisg hindus, nor is he persecuting them. He is just affected by a negative feeling towards hindus, i.e. Hinduphobia.nids(♂) 06:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Shall i remove the merge template, or are you still sceptical about it.nids(♂) 15:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I am removing the merge template for now. If you are not happy, discuss here instead of straightaway reinserting the template.nids(♂) 15:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Qasim doesn't really belong here

First off, my comments are limited to Qasim and the Arab period. The source for the assertions is a POV character. The quote used is being misrepresented, yes it says Hajaj was telling him Qasim to be more brutal but it was because of a military strategy, note the bottom line where he spells out why, that people will think you are weak.

Secondly the next assertion about Brahmanabad is again a misrepresentation, if one is happy to quote from the Chachnama as seen with the earlier quote, the next quote about Brahamanabad also from the Chachname which has been "paraphrased" goes so:

Those of the prisoners, who belonged to the classes of artisans, traders and common folk, were let alone, as Muhammad Kásim had extended his pardon to those people. He next came to the place of execution and in his presence ordered all the men belonging to the military classes to be beheaded with swords. It is said that about 6,000 fighting men were massacred on this occasion; some say 16,000. The rest were pardoned.

No doubt the killing happenned but it was very targeted. Generally Qasim built his army from derserters and turn coats, and he paid and rewarded them handsomely and pulled them into his administration. A person who set aside 3% of the state revenue for the Brahmins is not the one to make a point by going after the Hindus. All that had to wait for Ghazni and Turks to come on to the scene, even his successors were too weak and ruled in alliance with local powers. There are plenty of mainstream sources to attest the same. I've taken the issue up with Hkelkar at the Qasim page as well where the matter is detailed better. I propose that you remove it.--Tigeroo 21:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This is part of a broader debate regarding bin-Qasim and should be discussed at length in the article. I've been a bit busy so haven't had the opportunity to scan the refs cited there yet but I will.Hkelkar 11:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Anti-Hindu?

Should this be merged with the Anti-Hindu article? Even though the terms could indicate different things, the content in both articles is the same. --FK65 20:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

This point has been discussed before.The two articles describe two different things. The anti-Hindu article describes anti-Hindu attitudes and views. This article describes specific acts against Hindus. They may be related, but are two different topics. There is ample precedent for this wrt anti-Semitism and Persecution of Jews, as well as anti-Christian and Persecution of Christians, anti-Muslim and Persecution of Muslims.Hkelkar 20:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I beleive above, that this was discussed.Bakaman _Bakatalk 20:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Fuller Mahmud Ghazni Utbi Quote

The example used to illustrate the event is terrible, try reading the source.

Account of the Affairs of Táníshar.

It came to the ears of the Sultán, that in the country of Táníshar there were many of that pe­culiar species of elephant, which they call Silmán. The prince of this country was high amongst the ungrateful deceivers, and of exalted relations amongst the rebellious and the sinful. Therefore he was one who merited that they should give him to drink a cup of the wine of the strokes of Islám’s sword, and that by means of the flame of the onset of her champions, they should strike into his es­sence the due of wickedness, so making him to know, that to drink their turns of this cup, and their turns of this calamity is the doom of the uni­versal Kaffir people, and that as other chiefs and deceivers of India have been sharers and partakers thereof, so his face could not be free, nor his path an asylum from the equitable sword; the Sultán thought good then to design this conquest, that thus the standard of Islám might be exalted by victory, and the figures of idols might be inverted by success in war. Accordingly he marched towards Táníshar with an army which had been educated in the chamber of the sacred war, and been trained by grace from on high, and contracted friendship with sword and spear, and obtained an acquaintance with infidel’s blood, and in the windings of those marches they passed a desert so dreadful, that a bird would not fly over its atmosphere, and a star would lose its way on its expanse, a place which nothing traversed but the wind, and on which nothing cast a shade except the Sun, with­out a report of water, or a vestige of habitation. But Providence granted aid, and they came out from that idolatrous and disgusting place, and ar­rived at (the enemy’s land). And before them they found a great river, a running stream full of water, lofty mountains, and the ground impracticable stone. Now the infidel sought his aid in those mountains, and became inspirited by their en­circling assistance. The army of the Sultán passed that water by two fords, and engaged the idolatrous forces on two sides. And when the king-falcon, the sun, hung his claws upon the cur­tain of his western retirement, (the day having been matured), the men of Islám made a charge, and scattered them all about the skirt of the rocks, and they took the path of flight and preservation from the heat of that battle and onset.And as for those stamping elephants and serried monsters which constituted the point of their confidence, and their remaining force, they left them on the spot, the Sultán’s elephants went after them, and brought them all to the Sultán’s halter-place. The army spilt so much blood that the water of that river was so full, and that stream so abundantly stained with gore, that it could not be used for purification and was forbidden to drinkers, and if the darkness of the night had not prevented it, not one of these wretches would have escaped with life,— all through the blessing which is upon Islám, and the wondrous religion of Muhammád, unto which by the kind promise of Heaven victory is pledged, and for the manifestation of whose sayings, the standard of the glorious Kurán speaks plainly, “He unto whom He sent his Apostle to guide him, and the faith of truth to lighten all to religion, even although the idolaters hate it.”

• One look the language, it's not a clinical factual account, it is am embellished prosaic account.
• Two note why it was forbidden, because it had become "haram" from being tainted by blood spilt on a watery battleground.
• Three it was a straight up pitched bloody battle, so assertion mass-slaughter is stretching the towards a POV.
• This is a bad example found across internet sites and used by lazy or polemic academics--Tigeroo 21:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Well we are not talking about killing military personnel, but civilians.Hkelkar 21:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you avoid the WP:NOR here please.Hkelkar 21:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry the sources do not support the assertion of civilians, that claim is not verifiable from utbi as demonstrated above.--Tigeroo 22:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Also I have question who is Pradyumna Karan?? what are his credentials for such a sweeping statement that seems to not tally according to WP:RS, can we find a more representative fo the academic community consensus of the charecterization. I am not disagreeing with the possible excesses of Mahmud, but can we make the section a decent one.--Tigeroo 22:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Click meHkelkar 23:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Heres some more links: [1], [2],[3].Bakaman _Bakatalk 23:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, read "Minorities in a Changing World" by Milton Leon Barron p54. Expressly states the beheadings and the offerring to crows.23:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)Hkelkar

Thats great, I had found a few books by Karan as well and they seemed centered more around social analysis and geography rather than being rooted in history. He even got the date wrong for Mahmud in his book, making his assertions a lit shaky. I haven't ever heard the version of skulls before, though Milton Leon Barron is interesting, so while they and holt and co provide opposing views, they both seem a little extreme ended to me and I think it may be better unless we can ascertain a greater concensus of that view to instead of making sweeping assertions of their view is representative of the community, that we dilineate and attach their name to the particular view, i.e Holt et al say "xxx" Milton says "xxx" Karan says "xxx".--Tigeroo 22:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

That may not be such a bad idea. However, we need to confirm that the scholarly sources that we are citing here are representative of either school of thought.Hkelkar 22:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. do you mind including the page numbers for the cited books, makes it easier to thumb them because I found a reference from Saunders to Mahmud that says he linked his campaings of conquest to a jihad along side a peaceful penetration, so the matter is subtly different. Kakar Sudhir, I had read it and refrained from using it because it actual says the event was "chosen trauma" and makes no assertions or denials about the "mythology" and the charged currents surrounding the event not quite represented by the quote used to cite hundred of thousands killed.--Tigeroo 22:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I have the page numbers written in the citations. Hang on though, I'll check.Hkelkar 22:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep, page numbers are all there in the citations in the article.Hkelkar 22:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Somnath casualties

The more common estimate I have usually encountered is 50,000, (note both ealrier comment and RV comment are based soley upon the content they are cited from) of the defenders charged Mahmud's forces and were massacred (or annhilated as in crushing defeat), just trying to source them or other numbers if they exist from some reliable source. I've found an online version of Eliot's book which commentates on the entire Somnath affair, and it seems the 50,000 number comes from the one singular source and so of dubious authenticity though it seems to be the only one. "I" wonder if the number of defenders was not inflated to make Mahmud's force of 30,000 seem the more heroic especially since when attacking a fortress a) cavalry has a limited effectiveness and b) the attackers typically as a rule of thumb always significantly outnumber the defending force. Anyhow that's my commentary, and I will leave the link and source for your review and comments.--Tigeroo 10:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Nadir Shah , Akbar ,Battle of Talikota,Third battle of Panipat

This article would be incomplete without an account of-

1)Nadir shah's massacre of Hindus 2)Akbar's killing of 35000 Hindu peasants of Chittor 3)Killing of Hindus by Deccani sultans after the Battle of Talikota 4)Killing of Maratha children and women (and rape and kidnap) after third battle of Panipat by Abdali

--Johnhardcastl 08:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Book

• “Muslim League Attack on Sikhs and Hindus in the Punjab 1947”, Online Book Compiled for the SGPC by S. GURBACHAN SINGH TALIB —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.197.167.28 (talk) 02:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

We can't source to Hindu Unity since it is a "hate site", even if the book is reliable. I have replaced it with the Google Books link, which is better. Hkelkar 03:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow

I had no idea.NinaEliza 03:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

See Muslim League Attack on Sikhs and Hindus in the Punjab 1947. There is even a wikipedia article on the book, as well as the author Gurbachan Singh Talib (a Sikh Scholar). The book is reliable.Hkelkar 03:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Baseless accusations

There is not a single law which discriminates Hindus,or any one in that case. SL Buddhists respect and also worship Hindu gods..The war with the LTTE is definitely not a religious one..LTTE is secular and they have a huge number of Christians ,actually the strongest support for them comes from the Tamil Christians..So the whole paragraph is WP:POV and WP:HOAX.Immediate removal of this paragraph is highly recommended.Thanks--Iwazaki 16:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Other

Where is the section for persecution of Hindus by Hindus? Surely many Hindus have suffered due to being born on the bottom rungs of the caste ladder. What about the forced burning of brides and forcing women to wear sack cloth and shave their heads when their husbands die? MinaretDk 22:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Sources?Burning of brides was rarely forced. Shaving heads etc was Purdah, a practice more common to Muslims than Hindus. Rumpelstiltskin223 23:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, many Dalits who were persecuted debate as to whether they are Hindus or not. Persecution of Dalits is discussed at length in their articles, as are reform movements and emancipation.Rumpelstiltskin223 23:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Women started shaving there heads when their husbands died so they wouldn't raped by islamic invaders. That was also the time when sati became more widespread.--D-Boy 22:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Similar are the origins for Jauhar.nids(♂) 13:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

So the entire practice began because of Persecution of Hindus from external religions. It isn't allowed now and even then they were not forced for goodness sake. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 03:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I've heard all of these excuses before, and every time they're issued they're laughed at. Occurances of sati occur in Hindu mythology where no Muslims made appearances. Sati and the persecution of widows are all practices that go back to times before Islam, and before anyone had any interest in 'invading' the Hindu countries. I'll expand on a "Persecution of Hindus by Hindus" section when I have the time to go into it. Definitely the caste system deserves mention there (or do you figure being an untouchable was a 'choice' that the system's victims embraced?), as does occasions where Hindu communities forced women to undergo sati or join one of those places where forgotten widows are left to live out their lives. MinaretDk 05:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Laughed at by Lashkar-e-Toiba maybe, not by serious people.

The operative word here is "mythology". The actual rites of Sati and Jauhar did not begin in large scale until after the Islamic invasions. Furthermore, if Sati is to be mentioned here then Purdah should also be mentioned in Persecution of Muslims by Muslims. What about the Caste system among South Asian Muslims? Should that be mentioned under Persecution of Muslims by Muslims also? Rumpelstiltskin223 07:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The Sudras are a distinct caste, notable for how they were persecuted by the Brahmins. They would be punished if their shadow fell on a Brahmin, and could be killed from drinking off the same well as one. Their status as a persecuted people entirely rests on Hindu culture. Whether that's founded on theology or Hindu custom is irrelevant, the point is these Hindus were persecuted by Hindus. That some Dalits no longer consider themselves Hindus or argue that Dalits aren't Hindus at all doesn't take away from the fact that most Dalits are in fact Hindu. Keeping that bit of history out of here on such nonsensical grounds is lawyering. MinaretDk 16:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

That was Dalits, not Sudras. Sudra shadows were fine. Dalits debate their status as Hindus, Just ask a bunch of Dalits, not us.Rumpelstiltskin223 22:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The point is that, as long as Dalits debate about whether they are Hindu or not, we have a problem. If no such debate exists then it would be ok.Rumpelstiltskin223 07:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Dalits are not the Borg, the determination of one doesn't affect that of others. As long as some (and almost all recognize Dalits as Hindus)see themselves as Hindu, they're mentionable here. If your arguement to exclude Dalits is that they don't fall into one of the defined castes (ie that they don't have a Varna), then what you're saying is that the Dalit is too untouchable to be touched even in Wikipedia. The 'debate' on whether dalits are Hindu or not won't change the fact that those Dalits who are recognized as Hindu are in fact Hindus. By the way, the RSS considers and welcomes Dalits as Hindus, so I don't see why you would object to recognizing them. MinaretDk 23:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Then by the same logic, persecution of untouchable Dalit Muslims by Arab-descended upper caste Muslims deserve mention in Persecution of Muslims. We'll put that there too. I have references. Rumpelstiltskin223 00:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

That's probably a reasonable thing to do. Go and include it. MinaretDk 00:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You replaced all the text (everything supported with reliable sources) that I added, and replaced it with a long essay on reforms. The article is about persecution, but you deleted any mention of the actual persecution faced by the Dalits. Please stop with your lawyering and bad faith blanking of text. MinaretDk 02:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:NOT a soapbox for Islamic Fundamentalism. Please keep hatreds out of a neutral encyclopedia. I incorporated your edits and added information to contextualize the caste situation. Rumpelstiltskin223 02:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Why are you dragging Islam into this?? Please refrain from making such statements.Bless sins 03:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Islam has absolutely nothing to do with Islamic Fundamentalism. Islamic Fundamentalism is a perversion of the holy Quran and the teachings of the prophet Muhammad so it is a non-issue. the issue here is the biases of Islamic Fundamentalists and their obsession with Hindus (mostly in killing them) and Castes (despite the Muslim castes themselves). Rumpelstiltskin223 03:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Did I even say that I am a Muslim, much less anything implying I want to spread Islam or establish shariah? This is a poor comeback for your failing to justify your editing. MinaretDk 03:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia

The section on Saudi Arabia shouldn't exist. There are no Hindus that are residents of Saudi Arabia. The only Hindus that exist, are citizens of India (and other countries) who are living in Saudi Arabia under a working contract that they agreed to when they voluntarily left thier own country and chose to go to Saudi Arabia. They are not forced to live under anything, and can go back to their rightful country (of origin) if they don't like the conditions of a country that is not theirs in the first place.Bless sins 20:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Same thing for Muslims in America yet Persecution of Muslims has long section on it.Facts supercede personal perspectives.Rumpelstiltskin223 22:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Muslims in America are either citizens, or landed immigrants. they are not temporary workers under the agreement that they there only on a temporary contract and must leave sooner or later. For example forcing refugees of a neighbouring country to go back to their country is not persecution. But forcing your own people (or citiziens) to leave is persecution.Bless sins 23:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Where is the wikipedia rule that attests to your claim that the persecution of Hindus in SA are not allowed here? We are talking about persecution of Hindus here regardless of legal status, mentionable by WP:Verifiability. All else is WP:NOR.Rumpelstiltskin223 00:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC). Also, many Muslims in USA are not citizens but visitors like under worker visa. Many are members of CAIR and their complaints are mentioned in Persecution of Muslims based on CAIR reports.Rumpelstiltskin223 00:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, what source do you have that says the actions of the Saudi government are indeed classified as "persecution". Remember the burden of evidence lies on you (since you are arguing on the side of inclusion) and not me.Bless sins 15:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Based on the fact that Hindus are being denied their right to practice their religion.Rumpelstiltskin223 23:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, this article is not titled "Denial of right to practice one's religion", rather it is titled that "Persecution of...". Saudi Arabia is a country that has no Hindus. How can Hindus be persecuted if they don't exist?? Any Hindus that are there are only visitors or temporary workers. Once again please find a source that says there is "persecution" [of Hindus] in Saudi Arabia.Bless sins 13:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

What right? Is there international laws guaranteeing the right to religious practice? If not, is there Saudi law that guarantees that right? The answer to both is no. I find it disagreeable, but I can't claim that it's wrong for a state to declare an official religion and make it the only religion on the nation. No right is universally acknowledged that is violated by maintaining a law of 'one official religion'. Now who made the observation that this imagined right was denied? If it was you or some other WP editor, that's original research. MinaretDk 01:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I"m not sure I fully understand your argument. Are you saying that because Islam is the official state religion of Saudi Arabia, that they are justified in persecuting Hindus and threffore do not need mentioning here? What about the section in Persecution of Christians where persecution of them in Saudi Arabia is detailed? What about Persecution of Jews? Rumpelstiltskin223 01:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, by this logic, the attacks on Muslim students from Islamic countries in the United States do not count as persecution, since those Muslims are not US citizens, yet article involving the attack on Bahai student in a university in Iran are toned as a persecution of Muslims (even though the student in question wasn't even a Muslim, but was mistaken for one).Rumpelstiltskin223 01:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

If the U.S. denied freedom of religion to International Muslim students (but did grant complete freedom to Muslim citizens), then yes, that is not an example of persecution. But attacks are something different. If Hindus were are attacked [physically] by mainstream Saudis (or the Saudi gov.t) then that would be persecution.Bless sins 13:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

"The US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), an advisory panel, last month urged the US government to impose sanctions on Saudi Arabia, as well as Vietnam and Eritrea, for violating religious rights.Last year the US State Department for the first time named ally Saudi Arabia, as well as Eritrea and Vietnam, "countries of particular concern" in its annual report on religious freedom. A list that previously included China,Iran, Myanmar, North Korea and Sudan."[4] so yes, I would consider that many notable governments consider religious freedom to be universal.Rumpelstiltskin223 01:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Rumpelstiltskin223, I'm still waiting for you to show me a source that says Hindus are bieng "persecuted" in Saudi Arabia.Bless sins 02:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

See above, ten get a dictionary. Rumpelstiltskin223 10:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

That's basically WP:OR. Our job in wikipedia is to report persecution not to establish that such and such is commiting acts of persecution. If a scholar says that Saudis are persecuting Hindus then quote him/her. Else, I'll remove the section.Bless sins 23:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Here [5]. The Fletcher library at Arizona State University lists this incident under "persecution".Rumpelstiltskin223 23:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Instead of wasting time bickering over this, why don't you help me expand Islam in Myanmar and Persecution of Muslims#Persecution in Myanmar? there is a lot of info on the web and nobody seems to have written anything about it on wikipedia. Rumpelstiltskin223 00:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

That's so not the answer to my question. WP:RS says "Items that are signed are more reliable than unsigned articles because it tells whether an expert wrote it and took responsibility for it". The link you have provided to me above suggests a list of examples of persecution, can you tell me who is the scholar compiled this list?? Bless sins 01:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

In fact the list contains a lot of rubbish. Under Hindu it says "Afghanistan and Bangladesh." What is that supposed to mean? No explanation, no details, no examples. An actual scholar would never compile something so misleading and empty. Again, this is so not a scholarly source. Bless sins 01:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Explanation is obvious. The persecution of Hindus in Afghanistan under Taliban (forcing Hindus to wear yellow badge like Nazis did to Jews) and Bangladesh (forced conversions, rape, pogroms etc.) are so well-known and so well-reported by human rights groups that their reffing it would be redundant.Rumpelstiltskin223 03:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Now you are grasping at straws. When you have to concoct a different WP:NOR argument each time a report is sourced then you have a problem with objectivity. If you have any questions regarding the validity of an academic reference then it is best that you set up a WP:MEDCAB so that a fresh perspective from someone who has not been involved in this article can end this dispute. As it is, I think you are biased against Hindus and I'm sure you think I am biased against Muslims so best to call a mediator to the dispute. I will agree to any medcab request you file.Rumpelstiltskin223 03:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is another paper written by academic John Marshall (a contributor to the National Review) article in freedom house (an org that documents religious persecution)[6]

so clearly freedom house regards this incident as persecution.Rumpelstiltskin223 04:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Apart from you uncivil behaviour (attacks on Islam and me), thanks for the link just provided. I'll include it in the article.Bless sins 21:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for providing a reliable source. Can you also provide a reliable source (sometime in the next week or two) that the follwoing is also an example of persecution: "Hindus receive 1/16 of the amount a male Muslim receives".Bless sins 21:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Blanking is VANDALISM

From WP:Vandalism: Blanking Removing all or significant parts of pages or replacing entire established pages with one's own version without first gaining consensus both constitute vandalism. Sometimes important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary. However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary. An example of blanking edits that could be legitimate would be edits that blank all or part of a biography of a living person. Wikipedia is especially concerned about providing accurate and non-biased information on the living, and this may be effort to remove inaccurate or biased material. Due to the possibility of unexplained good-faith content removal, template:test1a or template:blank, as appropriate, should normally be used as initial warnings for ordinary content removals not involving any circumstances that would merit stronger warnings.

Using a pretext like "Human Rights Watch is anti-hindu" doesn't justify blanking entire swaths of text, including other sourced material. Human Rights Watch is referred to by many organizations, including the UN and state governments. Whether you feel their view on an incident is biased or not doesn't take away from it being a reliable source. Since the sentences on their view of Devdasi is attributed to them (ie "according to HRW"), there is no reasonable justification for blanking that text.MinaretDk 00:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It's clear they were misinformed, there are numerous sources which are against them. You can't just present it as a modern debate when it isn't. The paragraph was misleading, it sounded like it was a problem that some people are trying to defend, when the HRW was in the wrong. — Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 00:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR. You making the determination that they are wrong is meaningless insofar as Wikipedia is concerned. If you have reliable sources that back your claim, present them. MinaretDk 00:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

What do you call the 10 sources that are presented in that very paragraph. Please read Wikipedia:Undue weight. I respect your additions of what you believe is true, but it is against Wikipedia policy for such a paragraph in that wording to be in the article. Let's maintain good faith in this discussion. — Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 01:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

So while Human Rights Watch is so unreliable a source that it doesn't merit inclusion, "hinduwebsite.com" is the cream of the crop? I included the UN's take on the devdasi system, which mirror's HRW's statements. MinaretDk 02:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry did you take the time to read WP:Undue weight ? Let's talk about pedophilia and Mohammed shall we? Or purdah? Or slavery? while were at it. Devadasis were not common in India in the first place, and the practice of devadasi-ing was hardly sanctioned by religious scripture . Bakaman 03:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I produced sources from the United Nations website condemning Devadasi practice going on NOW, what more do you want? This is a flimsy excuse to delete content. Your other comments don't deserve a response. MinaretDk 03:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry BhaiSaab I wasnt aware that I was a sock of rumpelstiltskin.Bakaman 03:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Ari Gadha'r baccha, ami BhaiSaab na. BhaiSaab shaheb ekjpon Pakistani, Ami Bangali. Thor user page bole thui naki Bangla'r project'e, Bangla bujos? Na beakkol'er mothon edit koros je subjecte thui kicchu janos na? Bangali'r and Pakistani's parthokko bujish na? MinaretDk 03:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring the sockpuppetry comments. I am insulted by the implication provided in that paragraph that Devadasi is somehow a religious practice sanctioned by scriptures. That paragraph blatantly says its a religious practice and implies that it's an actual part of Hinduism to have these Dalit people who you can commit crimes on. That's simply false. If you don't mean to imply such things please ATLEAST change the wording of that paragraph. — Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 03:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

That isn't an implication, that's a direct quote from a UN document, the source is available to you. The fact of the matter is that the caste system and devadasi is part of Hindu culture and history. I'm a Muslim, and I readily acknowlege problems in Islamic history. Muslims have done terrible things, and some still do terrible things. Same with every religion. What I cannot accept is followers of a religion, or extremist religious nationalism as is in this case, using Wikipedia to censor history and wash away things that have once happened or are happening. I'm open to any mediation to deal with this problem here. MinaretDk 04:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Both systems are not sanctioned by Hindu scriptures. The Manusmriti refers to the system of varnas but not the hereditary caste system. So they are not religiously-sanctioned actions and are not done in the name of religion. And now it's there's even more "undue weight", with one long paragraph on how Hinduism is a religion that supports mistreating people and then two sentences on how this is not the case. — Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 04:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This article isn't about religion, it's about persecution. Whether an atrocity is founded in scripture or practice doesn't matter. Anyway, in most religions, scripture doesn't necessarily dictate religious practice, that's not even the case with religions that have more literalist approaches to religious life, such as Islam. Many things Muslims do as a practice of religion are outside of the Qur'an. I imagine the same is true for Hinduism. Anyway, we don't have the authority to go into that level of analysis. If we had to contrast what a source says regarding what's 'religiously sanctioned', against actual scripture, we'd be engaging in original research. We'd be pretending that we're religious scholars. I found a reliable source that said something, and I edited accordingly.

Because of all the wikilawyering here, I'm having to almost quote my sources without violation copyright. The source called it 'religiously sanctioned', and that's the phrase I used. I'm open to any mediation, btw, if mediation leads to enforceable actions and presumes that WP policy actually matters. MinaretDk 04:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

No it doesnt matter because as the son of a donkey I'm obviously editing like a moron on pages I know nothing about.Bakaman 04:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Haha.."son of a donkey" is actually just a euphamism for 'idiot' in Bengali. I'm just confirming that I'm Bengali and not Paki, as per your repeated allegations that I am someone else.After this I don't feel I owe you any apologies. MinaretDk 04:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Admins seem to believe you are Bhaisaab and have extended Bhaisaab's ban...too bad...I guess since these edits were supported by only a user who had a proved anti-Hindu prejudice. This discussion rules in the favour of his opposers? — Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 06:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Btw, ghadha ka bachcha means the same thing across North India. — Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 07:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

mendelsohn

Page 40-41.Bakaman 01:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Please ban fundamentalist muslims from atleast this article. - anandks007

Please read WP:CIVIL. Don't suggest banning a particular religious group (fundamentalist or not). Talk pages are for making constructive comments, not ridiculous ones.Bless sins 19:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Persecution of Dalits

It is thought that the section titled "persecution of dalits" is not relevant to this articel for the following reason:

• The article is about the religious persecution of hindus. Religious persecution is defined as a systematic mistreatment of an individual or group due to their religious affiliation. It is understood that such mistreatment needs to be carried out by an individual or group not having the same religious affiliation. Hence, the mistreatment of dalits, who were orinigally all hindus, by upper class hindus does not qualify as religious persecution.

Hence, removing the said section.

Geetesh 08:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Good. Needs to be on a different page. Shruti14 ( talk • contribs ) 17:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hornplease is systematically censoring articles about Hinduism and removing mention of atrocities committed by muslims against hindus

Please read the definition of vandalism at WP:VAND. An accusation of vandalism when material has been removed with an explanation framed in terms of WP policy is a violation of WP:AGF. I suggest you do not do it again. Hornplease 18:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you are trying to censor information in this article on Hindu Temples - What Happened to Them as well as in Muslim conquest in the Indian subcontinent.

Atulsnischal 19:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:AGF. I do not wish to censor information, but we do not link to large numbers of fringe publications. Please read the Voice of India page for details; note that all these articles on VOI books were started by accounts with no purpose but starting those pages, probably paid by the press in question. Wikipedia is not the location for the promotion of fringe perspectives. The Muslim conquest is a vast topic, and these perspectives are those of a tiny minority of scholars. Thus they do not belong in that article. And as for the Goel book, there are links to other Goel book articles. There is no need for linking individually to several different articles on the VOI website: this has been done for purposes of search engine optimization of that website. Please do not reinstate the links. Hornplease 19:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

What you are infact doing as visible to me is that you are systematically censoring and removing mention from wikipedia of atrocities committed against Hindus by Muslims and providing all bogus reasons for doing so. I am sure it is evident by now to many editors of wikipedia and administrators. Kindly do not censor articles please, I dont want to argue with you anymore. Atulsnischal 19:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion continues on user talkpage. User reminded of WP:MULTI. Hornplease 19:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. However, we try to keep it free of partisan sources and fluff. Please read the policies I have linked to here and in my last statement. You have not addressed my concerns, and are instead leveling accusations; that is unacceptable behaviour. If you cannot justify your continued reversions except with speculation about my motives, then those reversions are also unacceptable. Argument is your only option. Please also do not leave multiple messages. Hornplease 19:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Note: the entire above section has been copied from somewhere else.

I have no idea what's going on with this guy. I've just told him about forum spamming, and yet he leaves multiple copies on my talkpage, a couple of article talkpages, his own talkpage and now this noticeboard and the India noticeboard. Its impossible.

In any case, he seems to have moved on from being an SPA at Karan Singh and Hari Singh as well as other articles related to the royal house of Kashmir and Mayo College (and earlier, about some Indian wildlife mailing list) to vaguely accusing me of covering up atrocities of one sort or another. I seem to have irritated him by reverting large amounts of fanglish on the Karan Singh page. SOmeone else please handle the guy, since he thinks I'm the devil. Hornplease 00:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hornplease is censoring articles about Hinduism and removing mention of atrocities committed by muslims against hindus

Please track Hornplease, among many other continuously he has now censored Anti-Hindu and put up Destruction of Idol Temples for deletion in 5 days time.

• He has put this tag on Destruction of Idol Temples and put up for deletion in 5 days time.

{{subst:prod|OR as written}}

Atulsnischal 22:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Error Observed

Under the capion The Mughal Empire Guru Teghbahadur is wrongly mentioned as 'tenth' guru. He was, actually, the ninth one.

Demerickston 15:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC) ==Logical Fallacy== Not withstanding the veracity of the details presented in the article,it is puzzling how a small muslim minority managed to "mass murder" the hindu majority for a period of eight hundred years. It is logical to understand that Germans who were "Majority" gave power to Hitler which resulted in the genocide of Jews who were a small "Minority".History is replete with similar incidents of Majority persecuting Minorities,but the Muslim rule in India not only seems unique but altogether baffles comprehension.

There are also incidents where an entire population being murdered by a ruthless army as in the case of capture of Bagdhad during Mongols invasion.These are cases of "Invasions" where a fierce foregin army came , ransacked the city , looted their possesions and vanished.However the Indian scenario is very different , the Muslim rulers who came to power by military conquest actually ruled the very same subjects whom they are acussed of mass murdering.

This is not to say that rulers dont murder and presecute their own subjects,but they would never dare to presecute the "Majority Religious community" that too on religious grounds

Unlike modern times where weapons of mass destructions and other sophisticated arsenal forms the backbone of military, the strength of pre modern army is mostly determined by the count of their soldiers.Given this fact the Majority Hindus could have easily overthrown the minority muslim army if they considered them to be "Mass Murderers".That too to say this Hindu Persecution lasted for eight centuries is simply a "mystery".

We also have to note that British came to India not as Invaders , but as BusinessMen who want to want to do trade in the prosperous Indian market.An indication that Mugal rule had a thriving economy until its demise.The British who initially managed to rule through proxy administrators couldnt stand the heat of freedom struggle when they were considered as occupiers.We should also note how the power of British modern army with their then sophisticated Guns s played crucial role in subdueing the Indian majority.The British who faced a mass revolt of Majority Indians are not accused of Mass rape,child abuse and Mass murder of Hindus, where as Muslim rulers who were never subjected to such opposition from the subjects were accused of all this.

Ishango is confused,...

There are people (is a person) who are (is) POV pushing, concerning the part of this article which concerns Hindu is Trinidad and Tobago. They are, in a word, lying, when it comes to relating the relationship of Hindus in Trinidad and Tobago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishango (talk • contribs) 20:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ishango again

Within Trinidad and Tobago, all Religions and Religious denominations are protected by the constitution. For example, if you are a Seventh-Day Adventist, your children can attend a school that caters for Seventh-Day Adventist.In religious and non-religious schools, religious personnel visit respective adherents to their particular faith for Religious Instruction on a regular basis. This definitely applies for Hindus, since there are several schools which are for children who are Hindu. There are also two for Teens; One for Boys, another for Girls. In Trinidad you would find Hindus within all the professions. Trinidad and Tobago is one of the few countries which celebrate a Hindu festival(Divali) and Indian Arrival day as Public Holidays.I must also add that Both hoildays were accorded such a status supposedly by a party which largely is based upon the support of Afro-Trinidadians (The PNM). It is true that, in Colonial days, Hindus were discriminated against in the Colonial days, but so were all other people. Hindus were never singled out as far as discrimination is concerned. This is just POV-pushing by some people who have an axe to grind. I think, politically that that is okay, but for those who do not know anything about Trinidad, these people are mischievously and maliciously putting into these people's minds that people are beating up Hindus because they are Hindu. Hindus were never lynched nor forced to sit at the back of the bus nor dispersed while praying or beaten for praying, neither prevented from attending schools or other public places, nor worshiping in public places in Trinidad. Their temples were neither destroyed nor threatened to be destroyed within Trinidad and Tobago.They never had to hide to practice their religion and were protected by the State in practicing their Religion. Hindus are allowed to marry, own property and are funded by the State to pratice their Religious culture. In short, persecution of Hindus in Trinidad and Tobago is, by all practical means, non existent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.108.11.128 (talk) 05:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Not according to the sources cited. In the final analysis, sources are what counts.70.112.73.74 17:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced addition

This edit introduces unsourced material, which could possibly be OR.[7]

This is not in accordance with WP:V.Bless sins (talk) 08:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Bhutan

"The Hindus of Nepalese origin have been living in Bhutan since the nineteenth century.[63] On a 1980 census, the Bhutanese Druk autocracy found a significant population of ethnic Nepalese (mostly Hindus) which they interpreted as a danger to the Druk domination.[64] The monarch imprisoned a Brahmin democratic movement leader Tek Nath Rizal and forced the Hindus "to observe dress codes and etiquette characteristic of Northern Bhutanese, under threat of punishment".[64] The Hindus were then tortured and expelled from the nation. Approximately 103,000 of these refugees including Hindus, Kirats etc are living in Nepal,[65] which was the only Hindu nation left when they were exiled."

The whole paragraph is WP:SYN. The article is about Persecution of Hindus, i,e. Religious persecution. The people were mistreated because they were refugees and forigners, not because of their religious affiliation. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It is important to firstly note that Hinduism does not just refer to religion but also culture, therefore "persecution" applies more than "religious persecution". Most persecution of Hindus in India has occurred from clear xenophobia, as is seen in Muslim-Hindu conflicts but also with incompatibility with beliefs, such as exclusive and non-exclusive religions, and culture/ethnicity, such as Nepali Hindus of whom are persecuted by Bhutanese Tibetan Buddhists of which there couldn't be a more relevant example of persecution. Why is the onus on me to justify keeping information in the article, shouldn't the onus be on you to justify removal.KBN (talk) 11:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Cite please, in the Bhutan case, to a few [[WP:|reliable sources]]. How do we know it was because they were Hindu and not because they were Nepali? Relata refero (talk) 11:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

"It is important to firstly note that Hinduism does not just refer to religion but also culture, therefore "persecution" applies more than "religious persecution" - this is confusing. As you clearly see the definition of "Persecution of Hindus" from the article itself that "Persecution of Hindus refers to the religious persecution inflicted upon Hindus". It is original research when you find that "Most persecution of Hindus in India has occurred from clear xenophobia". It happens due to religious intolerance. Xenophobia refers to "a fear or contempt of that which is foreign or unknown, especially of strangers or foreign peoples". Xenophobia is a type of discrimination, but it has no relation with religion. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, it was still a persecution of Hindus as Nepali Hindus (Hindu culture) differ from the Bhutanese religion and culture, and it can be reasoned that any Hindu community migrating to Bhutan would face the same persecution in the place of Nepali Hindus. It would be unrealistic to assume that different religious beliefs had nothing to do with the persecution.KBN (talk) 12:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, here's an advocacy group from a different religion claiming persecution. Note that they say that Hindus aren't. Whatever, all such claims are unreliable, and only serve to demonstrate that we need reliable sources.

The point is that all this discussion is irrelevant unless reliable sources are provided that religion is the motivating factor. What if it were Bhutanese Hindus? Common sense or no, we don't make this sort of judgment. Relata refero (talk) 12:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There are sources already, and inclusionist philosophy is valid on WP, why not add that Christians are persecuted in Bhutan to the relevant article.KBN (talk) 12:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Those sources do not state what is needed to include information on this page. I am not interested in adding non-RSes to this or to any other page. Relata refero (talk) 12:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Marad massacre in Kerala

Marad massacre is a very weak candidate to make an argument that Hindus are systematically "persecuted" there. See Wiki definition for religious persecution. Marad incident doesn't qualify any of the criteria. Marad massacre was a one time incident and was supposedly a retaliation for another incident where Muslims were also killed. Though revenge killing by itself doesn't exclude the possibility of a "persecution", there is no systematic and continuous assault on Hindus in Marad by any group - something which is needed to call it a persecution. If there was a persecution, then why there are no news about that? On the other hand, Muslims lived in that area had been given collective punishment by some group of Hindus and authorities. Many of them are in prison without being charged and are not given bail. They and even their relatives are not able to go back to their homes or shops in that area. But this topic is not a subject for here, though this could qualify for a topic under "Persecution of Muslims". Zencv (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It should be removed but it is part of a documented pattern of radicalization and communalization of Malayalis across religious lines.Bakaman 04:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Bakas exactly right with that one and add political parties and supporters to the communal mix, anyway this is one of the rare publicized incidents of many that occur in Kerala every year. This event was also influential to Hindus and politicians. I could start adding dozens more, though it is sourced by Haindavakeralam and would be considered biased.KBN (talk) 06:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Baka's opinion. So I would strongly say it should be removed, unless someone else says otherwise.KBN - there are violences against all religious groups, unfortunately. But then they can be documented in another appropriate place if you want, with proper citations. eg: Marad incident itself is an its own article, which I think should be categorized under "Religious/communal violence", not under persecution. One cannot change the definion of a well defined term just because one feel victimized, be it Muslims or Hindus. Had Muslims living in that region started an organized campaign against Hindus who had nothing to do with that incident, then I would have been tempted to call it a "Persecution".Zencv (talk) 09:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Tipu Sultan

For the Malabar campaigns, please do not produce unreliable sources or books published in 1883. Find more recent sources, and bring the specific quotes here for discussion so we can be certain of our represntation of them. Relata refero (talk) 10:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

How can sources that are closer to the incident be unreliable?. I am not in favor of requesting you or Otolemurs permission to include sourced statements specifically to topics that concern anti-Hinduism, which I notice. I am from Malabar and written and oral culture of my area addresses Tipu and Haidars excesses quite well.KBN (talk) 11:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no, you are absolutely wrong there. Read WP:RS and WP:PSTS. Relata refero (talk) 11:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

KBM, it is requested that you find reliable secondary sources that are on the topic of "persecution". Usually we want academic journals, books published by university presses, or other sources that have undergone reasonable fact-checking.Bless sins (talk) 03:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

All those edit-warring to keep HD Sharma in, please complete the following sentence: "This book, 'published' by a non-academic press and written by a librarian, is a reliable source on history because...." --Relata refero (disp.) 11:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible partisan source?

Is this RS? The website states they are partisan and their goal is to provide Conservative, Honest News and Commentary and they are pro-America and pro Judeo-Christian. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The site aggregates sources like AP, but seems to selectively pick which articles they link to. Pakistan Dawn has a similar article concerning these occurrences, which should be used.Bakaman 23:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Temple beneath Babri Masjid claim

I'm not sure why this is included in the article. The two sources are not particularly reliable (is rediff known for its fact checking?) and the rediff article is rather vague on what the structure was beneath the masjid. Clearly, anyone reading the article in full, will be left with the impression that there is a tenth century structure beneath the masjid but that the purpose of this structure is unclear and whether or not it was being used when the masjid was constructed is also unclear. Regardless, even if a temple exists under the masjid, there is no evidence that this involves persecution of Hindus. For one thing, we don't know how the land was given to the masjid. Perhaps it was a gift or it was legitimately purchased or seized by the Mughals by force. Even in the third case, it does not follow that the act can be classified as 'persecution of hindus'. Finally, do note that 16th century India and the practice of Hinduism hardly resembles the India and the practice of Hinduism today.

If you feel that the account should be included, please provide (1) at least one reliable source about the existence of a temple and that the temple was in use at the time the mosque was constructed; (2) some evidence that the temple was seized; (3) some evidence that the temple was seized as a deliberate part of a program to persecute Hindus (rather than an arbitrary land seizure to construct a mosque). --Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 00:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Not only that the sources are weak, this is completely irrelevant to the article. It was added once I removed the POV weasel word "it is believed that...". Lack of any edit summary and unwillingness to discuss says everything Zencv ^{Lets discuss} 08:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Lead section and section following the lead are biased

The lead section gives the impression that Hindus have been relentlessly and ruthlessly targeted and persecuted by every Islamic ruler of the Indian subcontinent. While it is true that several rulers persecuted various Indian peoples, this persecution was not targeted specifically at Hindus. Even Muslims were the target of this persecution, brought about by various political climates and wars. The lead section needs to be changed to a present a less Hindu-centric statement of the oppression, and the impression of relentless oppression needs to be removed as well.

The second section begins with the statement that "The Muslim conquest of the Indian subcontinent led to widespread carnage because Muslims regarded the Hindus as infidels and therefore slaughtered and converted millions of Hindus." This extremely biased and untrue opinion is then backed up by quoting from the writings of three anti-Muslim authors. The whole section needs to be reworded to present the works of the three authors as opinion, and for the sake of neutrality, a mixed bag of authors should be quoted representing a variety of opinon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.124.15 (talk) 02:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This whole entry really needs to be ruthlessly redacted for NPOV. It is not so much that it's claims are factually false, but the entries relating to the Islamic conquests and Muslim rule are historiographically one-sided and the conclusions tenuous in the extreme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.220.6 (talk) 09:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Persecution of hindus by Nizam state of Hyderabad

I saw a program in TV about history of Nizam state and that also enlighnted information about forcible conversion of hindus under Nizam's rule in Hyderabad state. Can you add information about forcible conversions of hindus in to islam that happened through out the islamic history of India? Kumarsarma (talk) 13:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Longest and Largest Holocaust

The massacre and slaughter of Hindus has been going on since the raids of Ghazni and Ghori till today. The holocaust of Jews was inconspicuous compared to the killings of hundred of millions of Hindus for about a millennium. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.141.12.195 (talk) 10:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Hundred of million of hindus during Ghazni times? It is unbelievable. India didn't had greater than 130 million total population during the era of mughal empire. Kumarsarma (talk) 07:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

"Persecution"

I wanted to remind everyone of this. Unless an action, or view, or law (etc.) is specifically labeled as "persecution" (by a reliable source), it should not be in this article. This article is about persecution of Hindus, not unfair acts against them, or anything that is not persecution.

To be "persecution" it must be called "persecution" by a reliable source (preferably multiple ones).

This is an accordance with consensus on Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/Archive_34#Persecution. Thanks.Bless sins (talk) 14:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Per above, I will be removing the following sources, as their use here is inappropriate:[8], [9].Bless sins (talk) 03:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• In addition, this source [10], while highly reliable, doesn't seem to be claiming any persecution of Hindus.Can someone clarify?Bless sins (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Unreliable sources?

This source [11] seems to be unauthored and thus unreliable. It is published on tripod.com, not a website with reputation for accuracy. Can someone please verify the reliability of the source. It is bieng used to source half a paragraph or so worth of info.Bless sins (talk) 21:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right. I've removed the text that this citation supports. Go ahead and remove items that appear unwarranted and are supported by dubious (or no) sources. (But do drop a note on the talk page!) --RegentsPark (Maida Hill Tunnel) 21:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Needs a total rewrite

A secular account of the persecution and ethnic cleansing against Hindus is greatly needed, however it should be written from a neutral point of view. Things like "it is sad that" and various metaphors and analogies throughout the article need to go, and more history and worldly information needs to be included. User:LucaviX

Here's some for you:

http://hinduwebsite.com/history/holocaust.htm

Also, you can link to Wikipedia articles on Aurangzeb, the greatest tyrant in Indian history who created a military industrial complex centered around the slaughter of hindus. However, given the fact that most wikipedia moderators are westerners, I doubt that they would extend the courtesy of the truth to a hindu.

Also, I find it interesting that any article vilifying the haters of hinduism and exposing their agenda of destroying us is tagged as "disputed NPOV", but similar articles about the persecution of Jews and Christians with the same obvious biases are praised and displayed proudly by wikipedia moderators. It seems NPOV does not apply to the white man, only for us "Mud people".

Subhash Bose

I changed the tag of the article from Factual dispute to cleanup requirement. I did this because the factual accuracy of the persecution of Hindus is well documented by the CIA world human rights report (Google for it & look up Bangladesh). It is true, that the article is not of good quality and needs to be changed. I'm working on a draft with bibiliography and will post it soon. USer: Subhash Bose

Let us face the facts even the archaelogists know that there was systematic persecution of Hindus by muslims under various dynasties, no one can forget what happened to Vijaynagar Empire after the battle of talikkota,it is historicaly recorded by historians at that time and through excavations on what muslims did to hindus,its funny people are trying to put it under the carpet...i cannot think for what reason.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.79.168 (talk) 11:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC) 

So Shri Krishna is an 'evil demon'?

Calling Shri Krishna an "evil demon" is a misinformation campaign. I was being polite. It's actually blatant defamation. How'd you like it when Noam Chomsky calls the Bible "The most genocidal book in History"? Netaji 19:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not misinformation campaign. It is a general attitude of any monoteistic religion towards what they perceive "pagan gods", possibly mixed with ignorance. Although religious disputes are very often mixed with political issues, let us not mix them in wikipedia. Also, mixing of Hindus and Krishnaites, especially hare-krishnaites is not a good idea either. I don't know how Hare Krishnna behaves in India or internationally, but in Russia it is run by a bunch of crooks embezzling psychicaly unstable people off money and property and making them peddlers of krishnaite literature thus making certain people rich. (Similar things happen with Christian sects as well, by the way, and persecution of such crooks is not called "discrimination") `'mikka (t) 20:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Sahib, you are referring to ISKON which IS an org of wierdos, granted. However, there are millions of legitimate worshippers of Shri Krishna in Hinduism. Defaming Shri Krishna is equivalent to defaming the entire Vaishnavite section of the Hindu Dharma, ergo, ignorance or not, it's defamation at worst, misinformation at best. Plus, this orthodox dude did not single out ISKON, he attacked Krishna. That's like Jyllands-Posden for Hindus (though we're not rioting over this). I mean, what if I called Christ a 'demon' because of the wierdness of the Jehovah's Witnesses?Netaji 22:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

In my text above I included the phrase "possibly mixed with ignorance". I have no idea who in Russia wanted the temple. (Actually, I know now; see Hinduism in Russia. Actually, it says that the temple is being constructed.) I don't know whether "true" Hindus approached the Russian Church for dialog. I don't know what kind of land plot was promised to them. If it was state-owned land, then let them shut up. The whole issue is murky and probably dshould be covered in more detail in the relevant articles, Hinduism in Russia, Buddhism in Russia, etc., where all details must be covered, covering all points of view. By the way, it was 2 years ago. What's heard about the issue today?

I am 100% sure that there is no national hatred towards India and Hindus, neither on personal, nor on state level. Traditionally India was always respected in Russia and its culture admired. It is a pity that some crooks spoil this image. `'mikka (t) 22:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure that the Russians say the same thing about the Jewish people as well. Yet, anti-semitism in Russia and the region has become so bad that East-European Jews are emmigrating to USA and Israel in droves (90% of Ben-Gurion University faculty is Russian Jews, and 90% of the Physics Department of Texas A&M Universsity is also Russian Jews, and they told me this). I'm very sorry if this hurts your feelings (which is not my intention), but Russia has had a poor history of religious tolerance compared to Western European and American countries. Stalin executed quite a few Jews, and Soviets demolished mosques and madrassas in Kazakhstan. Even after the collapse of USSR there has been anti-semitism and racism in many parts of Russia, coupled with the rise of Neo-Nazism in Urban areas (odd, since Nazis hated Slavic people quite badly). The Orthodox bishop's attack on Shri Krishna is merely a reflection of the general intolerance, and the pogroms against Hindus are on their way...

I posted what info I found on the web. I don't know about the plight of Hindus in Russia as yet, since media will be in Russian (which I can't read). Hindus are not a nationality, they are a religion (and an ethnicity, though muslims will probably not like me for saying that). Given India's former relations with USSR, I'm sure there is positive feelings for India the NATION. However, as far as Hinduism is concerned, there is no positive feeling. Communist ideologues in Russia such as Leon Trotsky have constantly demonized, defamed, misrepresented and hated Hindus, and that has leaked into the intolerance of some elements in the Russian Orthodox church. This screed of Shri Krishna being "demonic" is a typical tactic carried out by white supremacist missionaries in India as a campaign of cultural genocide against Hindus, and I'm sure that, since the Bishop must be a well-educated man, he is not ignorant of the subject of Shri Krishna. He has clearly distorted Hindu scripture deliberately so as to malign Hindus in general, and THAT is misinformation and defamation. It is not brought out BY ignorance, it is meant TO promulgate ignorance. There is a difference, see? If he just criticized ISKON members that would be a different issue.Netaji 23:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I agree with this move. Move the details to Hinduism in Russia and keep summary here. That's OK. Thanks.Netaji 23:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Im a christian,and i dont see why krishna must be called like that. Both Religions have good ethics,and can work very well together to the greater good . And i bet many muslins feel the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.41.245.137 (talk) 16:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Persecution of Hindus in USA?

Of course, there isn't a single instance of wholesale government sponsored persecution of Hindus. But I thought it would be appropriate to include a small introduction and wiki link to the page on "Dot Busters". It is also pertinent to mention in this context, the noisy disruption of Hindu prayers in the Nevada senate by members of the American Family Association in the month of May 2007. komarla_10 31 May 2009

Pakistan

You cannot take the religious statistics of Pakistan when it included Bangladesh and then compare it to the religious statistics when it did not include Bangladesh. It is like comparing India's statistics before it included Pakistan and Bangladesh and then comparing it when it did not include them. In 1951, Hindus constituted 22 percentage of the Pakistan (Pakistan and Bangladesh) population; most of the Hindus were concentrated in East Pakistan (future Bangladesh). In West Pakistan future Pakistan the Hindus constituted less than 2 percent of the population, by 1998 the share of Hindus were down to around 1.7 percentage. AlphaGamma1991 (talk) 02:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Stats on Pakistan

Removing it. In 1951 Pakistan also had Bangladesh and that's why such a high % is quoted.--Iball (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Goyalamit, 16 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

The following paragraph in article needs deletion. It was clearly added by someone with an agenda against the topic of the section. It is a Trojan Horse where the person is trying to insert supposed persecution of Muslims in the section that is about Persecution of Hindus!

It also must be said that there can be no estimate of official death toll of Muslims at the hands of the Marathas and Peshwas of the Maratha Empire and the Sikhs of the Sikh Empire who may have butchered Muslims in the millions when power was in their hands but nobody even mentions the atrocities they might have done,It has also been said by many commentators that the problem of caste was the reason why people converted to Islam so the point that Islam spread by the sword is not valid as people of lower castes embraced egalitarian Islam as a way to escape from the Hindu caste structure,it is for this reason that how people converted to Islam has become a matter of controversy,many say it was done at point of sword while others say it occurred due to caste differences and also say that most Muslim rulers including Akbar the great were extremely tolerant towards Hindus and they have also said that the conversion controversy is Hindu Nationalist propaganda to spread hatred towards Islam.

Goyalamit (talk) 09:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done, removing unsourced POV violation. Thanks for your request. -- gtdp ^(T)/_(C) 18:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

stop victimising hindus

This article is trying to victimise our people making it look like we were innocent goats killed by invadersd... this is an insult to all those warriors who fought for the defense of our religion.. who kept a record of who died at whose hands back then.a war was going on between two ideas stop making it look like hindus have suffered because we have also made those who opposed us suffer so why is that not mentioned the hindus who left hinduism did so as they thought thier caste would go away but it did not when hindus are not loyal to thier own caste and hurt and persecute people of thier own caste then how can they talk of persecution im a brahmin but muslims are best friends of mine so stop this hate filled campaign against them....coz it may lead to civil war.JahaalChakravarti (talk) 10:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Your edit has been reversed. This has already been discussed on this page, and your edits are clearly in violation of Wikipedia neutrality policies. Furthermore, you deleted a bunch of reference data, such as ISBNs and what-not, for no apparent reason. Finally, your paragraph is both opinion, rather than historical fact, and is NOT about the topic (Persecution of Hindus). Bryonmorrigan (talk) 15:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

my edits are not in violation of wikipedia's neutrality policy as they are cited and are needed to make this article nuetral by making people realise that we hindus are not victims but we can also victimise others if necessary.JahaalChakravarti (talk) 13:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

They do NOT belong on this page, just as descriptions of The Inquisition or other Christian atrocities against non-Christians have no place on Persecution of Christians. Go put it on Persecution of Muslims if you like, but it has NO BUSINESS on this page. Furthermore, why do you keep deleting other information on the page in regards to references? If you wish to make an edits, then you need to learn how to do them without messing up the rest of the page. Reverted. Again. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 14:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Contemporary persecution: Republic of India

Hi all,

This section uses the words Hindu & Hinduism to mean Brahmin & Brahmanism. This is classical brahmin chameleonism. This paragraph need to be removed from this article. Otherwise, it would mean hindus persecuting hindus. Most of indians have a very big beef with the brahmins and their poisonus brahmanism parading as hinduism and this topic can be dealt elsewhere.

Regards, Vpal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vpal (talk • contribs) 12:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no beef against anyone in general!Thisthat2011 (talk) 12:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Travesty of Truth

(moved from article page) Wikipedia has a mechanism to scan topics and tag them as "unverifiable matetrial" , based on the number of references the article cites.How ever various ways exist to fool this mechanism.

Many articles in wikipedia are infact exmaples of How you can entirely distort a truth despite producing genuine refereneces.One such example article is Persecution of Hindus

The article has lots of quotes injected at various places in the artciles, but a careful reader can observe that the quotes are the author's own words, which follows a genuine reference having nothing to do with the quotation , but still gives an aura of authenticity to the quotation.

Example-1 In the very first passage the author quotes historian Will Durant, which is followed up by a reference to a article in Kashmir Herald written by a rather unknown Koenraad, but the placment of the quotation gives an impression that Will Durant himself has said this.

Example -2 The author says “ The massacres perpetuated by Muslims in India are unparalleled in history, bigger than the Holocaust of the Jews by the Nazis; or the massacre of the Armenians by the Turks; more extensive even than the slaughter of the South American native populations by the invading Spanish and Portuguese. ”

to support this claim , the author immediatly places a reference

As Braudel put it: "The levies it had to pay were so crushing that one catastrophic harvest was enough to unleash famines and epidemics capable of killing a million people at a time. Appalling poverty was the constant counterpart of the conquerors' opulence."

The above quotation refers to how a poor harvest could unleash famine,however the placement of this reference , next to the author's own words seems to lend credibility to a totally unfounded allegation of the article author which is - massacre of Hindus in India.

The readers can see this pattern through out this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.196.77 (talk • contribs)

The paragraph quoted from William Durant's book "The Story of Civilization: Our Oriental Heritage" is made up whole-cloth.

This is what the passage really says:

The Mohammedan Conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precarious thing, whose delicate complex of order and liberty, culture and peace may at any time be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within. The Hindus had allowed their strength to be wasted in internal division and war; they had adopted religions like Buddhism and Jainism, which unnerved them for the tasks of life; they had failed to organize their forces for the protection of their frontiers and their capitals, their wealth and their freedom, from the hordes of Scythians, Huns, Afghans and Turks hovering about India's boundaries and waiting for national weakness to let them in. For four hundred years (600-I 000 A.D.) India invited conquest; and at last it came.

Page 459.

The book can be downloaded in the pdf format here: http://www.archive.org/details/StoryOfCiv01_OurOrientalHeritage Here's a scan of the page: http://i.imgur.com/xTztn.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainakalhan (talk • contribs) 09:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Rainakalhan (talk) 09:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Followers.one, 5 June 2011

Indians are held together by a common Sanskrit-Urdu culture”

Supreme Court judge Markandey Katju on Sunday attributed simmering Hindu-Muslim tensions to a deliberate rewriting of history to project Muslim rulers as intolerant and bigoted, whereas ample evidence existed to show the reverse was true.

The judge also said that Indians were held together by a common Sanskrit-Urdu culture which guaranteed that India would always remain secular.

Justice Katju said the myth-making against Muslim rulers, which was a post-1857 British project, had been internalised in India over the years. Thus, Mahmud Ghazni's destruction of the Somnath temple was known but not the fact that Tipu Sultan gave an annual grant to 156 Hindu temples. The judge, who delivered the valedictory address at a conference held to mark the silver jubilee of the Institute of Objective Studies, buttressed his arguments with examples quoted from D.N. Pande's History in the Service of Imperialism.

Dr. Pande, who summarised his conclusions in a lecture to members of the Rajya Sabha in 1977, had said: “Thus under a definite policy the Indian history textbooks were so falsified and distorted as to give an impression that the medieval period of Indian history was full of atrocities committed by Muslim rulers on their Hindu subjects and the Hindus had to suffer terrible indignities under Islamic rule.”

Justice Katju said Dr. Pande came upon the truth about Tipu Sultan in 1928 while verifying a contention — made in a history textbook authored by Dr. Har Prashad Shastri, the then head of the Sanskrit Department in Calcutta University — that during Tipu's rule 3,000 Brahmins had committed suicide to escape conversion to Islam. The only authentication Dr. Shastri could provide was that the reference was contained in the Mysore Gazetteer. But the Gazetteer contained no such reference.

Further research by Dr. Pande showed not only that Tipu paid annual grants to 156 temples, but that he enjoyed cordial relations with the Shankaracharya of Sringeri Math to whom he had addressed at least 30 letters. Dr. Shastri's book, which was in use at the time in high schools across India, was later de-prescribed. But the unsubstantiated allegation continued to masquerade as a fact in history books written later.

Justice Katju said the secular-plural character of India was guaranteed both by the Indian Constitution and the unmatched diversity of the Indian population. The judge attributed the diversity to the fact of India being a land of old immigrants, dating back to 10,000 years (Justice Katju and fellow judge Gyan Sudha Misra first propounded this thesis in a judgment, excerpts from which were carried as an op-ed article in The Hindu edition dated January 12, 2011). The diversity, reflected in the wide range of religions, castes, languages and physical attributes found among the descendants, led the founding fathers to draft a Constitution with strong federal features. “Diversity is our asset and our guarantee for staying secular,” said Justice Katju.

Earlier, a resolution passed at the conference urged the government to forthwith set up an Equal Opportunity Commission as recommended by the Rajinder Sachar Committee.

The resolution said: “The conference resolves that inclusive growth is not possible without equal opportunities being given to all sections of society, particularly minorities and other marginalised communities.”

Followers.one (talk) 10:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

This is why politicians should have absolutely no say whatsoever in regards to historical matters. Leave history to the historians. The historical record of Islamic intolerance and atrocities are well documented, by both Indian and non-Indian scholars, regardless of what politicians or judges wish to believe. Faking the historical record does not promote diversity or pluralism, but rather rewards the tyrants of the past. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 13:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 18:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

Please revert this vandalism [12]. It can be mentioned that the 1950s Pakistan included modern Bangladesh, but the fact cannot be reverted altogether. 117.201.249.145 (talk) 07:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Editor that made the change mentioned why above. I would suggest first discussing it with them.Jnorton7558 (talk) 06:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The following information is factually 100% correct and with sources. Add it:

In 1951, Hindus constituted 22 percentage of the Pakistani population (that includes the modern day Bangladesh); Today, the share of Hindus are down to 1.7 percent in Pakistan, and 9.2 percent in Bangladesh (In 1951, Bangladesh alone had 22% Hindu population)

117.201.242.171 (talk) 15:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Done Jnorton7558 (talk) 09:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Kashmir child.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Kashmir child.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files missing permission as of 5 January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

I have made some edit which are reverted back, i have mentioned the reason too. There is a gross mismatch between the so called reference and the article. please look at this.

1)Non Hindus are given special rights in Indian Constitution(Article 21-32) 2)North East India subsection:Non Hindus unable to perform Durga Puja LOL, only Hindus perform Durga puja 3)Kerala Section: Love Jihad is allegedly supposed by Muslims against non Muslims. Hindus are 56% of total population Just look at the so called references and the article, there is a heavy mismatch 117.200.130.55 (talk) 09:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)Hrushi Moreover the article is on persecution of Hindus not Muslim or Christian persecution 117.200.130.55 (talk) 09:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)Hrushi

"paving way for government ban on non-Hindu institutes and places of worship." Non Hindu places are not banned. India is still secular Spiritual seeker was seeking Vedic Knowledge and was jailed 117.200.130.55 (talk) 09:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)Hrushi

Working on it, looks like some vandal replaced the words Hindu with Non-Hindus. Point out any more errors you find in the page, will correct them.WBRSin (talk) 09:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Untitled section

Though have heard about it not much references.npov definately contested. Calvinkrishy 10:29, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC) source news sites http://us.rediff.com/news/2005/aug/13guest1.htm

People are again drive by removing dispute tags without proper discussion. Please resolve the discussion here. Chach Nameh and other sources that are disputed in academic circles or quoting other papers that make conclusions is not proper quotation. BigBoreV8 (talk) 03:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

==Timur== This section has very little historical fact behind it and I have edited it to remove some of the quotes without reference. It should be noted that Timur killed Muslims as well as Hindus in his campaigns, including the one in Delhi. This has been highlighted by Justin Marozzi in his book "Tamerlane: Sword of Islam and Conqueror of the World". BigBoreV8 (talk) 04:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

NPOV is contested on historical history of persecution, not current persecution which I agree with --at least in Pakistan. BigBoreV8 (talk) 03:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Many of this this documents are wrong & misguiding readers, e.g. in Kerala “ Love Jihad” doesn’t exist, its only created by some fascist Hindu organization to make trouble in to peaceful life in Kerala. Please check police investigation reports on it. So all this stories about Tippu Sultan & other rulers are baseless — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sajan1970 (talk • contribs) 11:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

--POV-- This article is absolutely biased, is the farthest thing from neutral and utilized sophistry and ambiguity to put its point across. For example, Nadir Shah killed both Hindus and Muslims. The article alleges 800 years of genocide when it never existed. There is no proof of mass conversions as Hindu fundamentalists like to talk about in an thinly disguised attempt to talk about how all of India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, etc. should be Hindu - a clear point of view that is allied to their best interests. There were pockets of discrimination against Hindus as there were against Muslims and Sikhs. Muslims are currently the poorest ethic group in India and are subject to continuous violence, torture, rape and murder by Hindu fundamentalists who have not gotten over being conquered a millennium ago. the Gujurat riots are a great example. I dispute the neutrality of this article and believe all sources should be checked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigBoreV8 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

--POV Discussion --

I have seen enough comments on this pages point of view and links to articles that in themselves are points of view and take away from scholarly debate on the issues contained herein. Where there is enough evidence to demonstrate discrimination against Hindus, the way it is presented in this article is deliberately ambiguous with poor references to in itself opinionated third party material that is part of a larger debate, however only one side is presented as fact, when it fact is is a minuscule part of the overall argument (from one side).

Link on Muhammed Bin Qasim: http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/e-books/unpublished_manuscripts/historical_interaction/pt1/history_cultures_04.html#n5 BigBoreV8 (talk) 02:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

POV tag

I just tagged this article for POV, for the following reasons;

1) The figure of 80 million deaths in the lead. This is:

a)Referenced, but to a source that has received criticism, which is not presented here. Furthermore, further down the article says there are no official estimates of the death toll.

b) The entire population of the Mughal empire at its height was 175 million; of the Tughlaq empire, 70 million. So the figure of 80 million Hindus killed becomes even less believable. Again, if a controversial source is presented, its critique must be, as well.

2) The figures for the death toll at the hands of Timur are references TO HIS AUTOBIOGRAPHY. If there is a less reliable source, it is hard to think of such. It is more than likely that he inflated the number of people he killed; killing "kafirs" would be a matter of pride.

3) The coverage of the Babri Masjid controversy is remarkably skewed; the opposition is not presented at all.

4) The article makes only a passing mention of the tolerance towards Hindus of the other Mughal emperors besides Aurangzeb.

5) The section on the nizam, apart from being written in incredibly POV language, is referenced to a self-published source, not an academic one. Again, definitely not RS.

6) The coverage of partition is also rather biased. Hindus were killed, in large numbers, obviously I'm not denying that. But there is a fundamental difference between equal numbers of Hindus and Muslims slaughtering each other, and Hindus being exclusively persecuted. The article neglects to make this clear. Persecution and violence are subtly different.

7) The section on the republic of India is also problematic. The statement abotu ruling parties in general is unsourced. Only one of the sources about Tamil Nadu state that the parties are anti-hindu, and that is a blog, therefore not RS.

I could go on in this vein for quite a while, but that would be pointless. All I'm saying is that these issues should be fixed before the tag is removed. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Population of these regions was above 70 million - 100 million during Maurya Dynasty, which is like 300 BCE.. And during mughal empire it had only 175 million? So obvious that at least 80 million were killed. Rest is completely not coherent neither obvious, when you dispute the neutrality. One source is from wordpress(which you can remove) But other 2 sources are heavily reliable. If there's a conflict and both were killed, point is that who started the conflict and how many were killed in that. The similar incidents are also cited for Persecution of Muslims, so? Bladesmulti (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Nothing is "obvious," apart from the fact that you are a self appointed authority on the subject. All I am saying is this; the figure of 80 million is way, way larger than any epidemic, war, or genocide previously recorded; even world war 2 was only 60 million deaths, across four continents. Given this, the figure needs much better sourcing. As of now, it has only one ref. Moreover, the criticism of that ref have not been mentioned. As for the other sources; they say that leaders in Tamil Nadu have made anti-hindu statements, which is not the same thing. And you have responded to three of the points I made. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Because it seemed that only 3 points could be argued. Its certainly proven to be correct that 80 million is actual figure, it is used by Ali Sina as well, the bigger question will be that why the population not even doubled in 1800 years(300 BCE - 1500 AD), when it would go 3 times higher(1947-2014)?

What is wrong with the babri masjid? Except that it was plagiarized, like many other worship places.

Not all incidents include the persecution of both hindus and muslims. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

BM it seems to me as though you are deliberately being obtuse. Please go read WP:NPOV. Wikipedia cannot state that something has been "proved" except in the case of overwhelming evidence. You don't have that. The criticism of the study MUST be presented, and the lead is not the place for that. If you are not interested in cleaning it up, I will do it myself, but the tags will remain until they can be removed by consensus. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully, this page is not about criticism, but whatever related to the persecution. If its historical, it cannot be further argued. Unless you got some source that says "no, 80 million is wrong figure", Which I doubt. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

You still refuse to discuss any of the other points. And of course I have sources. Try Simon Digby and Irfan Habib, for starters. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

What they wrote? And like I said, that you are treating it like its some criticism, when criticism can be derived even from the primary theories. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Fringe Claim

Fringe claims have recently been added to the introduction. KS Lal seems to be the only one who seems to be making the "80 million" claim, and is obviously disputed by other historians on the matter such as Simon Digby - an authority on pre-Mughal India. To add balance it must be made clear that there is only one source claiming this number, and is disputed by reliable historians and is by no means universally accepted view of Muslim rule in India. StuffandTruth (talk) 12:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Where did Simon Digby claimed that 80 million is a wrong figure? Apart from KS lal, this figure is also used by Ali Sina, no one seems to be defeating him on his debate for years now. Also the population of Indian subcontinent was over 50 million - 100 million during 300 BCE, but during 16th century it was 100 million - 175 million. Obviously because there was large genocide. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Simon Digby - a reference has been supplied where he contested the figure. Bizarrely you have quoted using "Ali Sina"? He's not a scholar or historian (which institution of learning does he belong to? What qualifications does he have to speak on historical matters? Where are his views universally accepted in academia?) so he's irrelevant here. Hence not a reliable source. You clasify that as a genocide, but genocide has to fit a particular set of conditions. No historian has ever claimed it was genocide. Genghis Khans invasions killed an estimated 40 million it has been claimed. What's important is the source and quality of reference. StuffandTruth (talk) 12:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any source at all. Can you link that here? the books published by Oxford University uses K.S. Lal figure, So why you cant? You are now contradicting your own isolated claim that "only KS lal use such figure". Bladesmulti (talk) 13:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

(Sigh). What is this then --> "Simon Digby, review in Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 38, No. 1. (1975), pp. 176–177". It does not need to be published in a book. He did it in a journal. So please stop being disruptive. Again the source you provide with is quoting Lal, and is not an independent estimate. So like them we make clear who is making the claim and who disputes it. Show us where it is universally accepted? StuffandTruth (talk) 13:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

It is reliable estimate, that's about it. If it was K.S. Lal the first to collect all records and calculate them. He will be credited for it. You are like saying that "Alexander Graham Bell was not inventor of phone, that is fringe, no one else claim to be inventor of phone, except him". Read WP:I just don't like it, fits here. Since you have provided no link of that journal from where you have discovered the claim by Simon Digby, it should be removed instead, it is not verified, neither can discovered any sources that says so. Since he was so "orientalist", "historian", like you suggest, he must had more than 1(unknown) source for disputing such a widely accepted figure. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

"It is reliable estimate, that's about it". If that is what you claim then why is it that no historian has ever thought of replicating it and why is it that his view is not universally accepted? The fact is I'm trying to include both views of both historians, unlike you (and it's laughable you even consider Ali Sina a historian or scholar when he is known for his virulently Islamophobic views). Its you that doesn't want the inclusion of Simon Digby (because you don't like it). Further, your analogies make no sense. Lastly references do not need to be hyper linked. Where is the policy on that? Simon Digby's piece is easily found in any university which stocks journals (ie Cambridge, Oxford where he was based and numerous other universities). They are so easily available anyone could verify them. Another historian has also disputed the works of KS Lal. This includes Irfan Habib. StuffandTruth (talk) 13:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Never called Ali sina a historian. But that he also use the estimate. It seems like you are fabricating source, since there is 0 mention of such dispute by Simon Digby anywhere. And there are no historians who have disputed the figure of K.S. Lal. Irfan habib only criticized him, not his work or estimate. He claims that K.S. Lal was from "RSS" which is obviously WP:FRINGE, now. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

You most certainly insinuated Ali Sina was a reliable source. Your claims are getting ridiculous. The reference is there, and it is verifiable. There is no more to be stated on the matter. StuffandTruth (talk) 13:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

When I did? Quote me. The reference doesn't seem to be verifiable, probably someone made it up and you got convinced. Because if he had criticized there would be even a single source which would cite Lal being criticized by him. But there is none, we got multiple for Habib though, but they are highly unrelated. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I already told you how to verify it. Your tirade is getting tiresome. StuffandTruth (talk) 13:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

First of all coming with a baseless claim like "Fringe claim", and "Only k.s lal refer to this figure", later getting debunked, because there are many scholars who uses the same figure. And failing to verify the fabricated source which can be WP:OR, and then edit warring not only here, but also on Growth of Muslim Population in Medieval India, for this original research or fabrication... What you will call it? Bladesmulti (talk) 13:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

You've claimed Digby's piece does not exist and you've stated it was 100% fact that it was fabricated (doing mass deletions on other articles without evidence). Yet here they are. I've more than proven you are a disruptive, disingenuous editor who has an agenda. Need I kick your ass more? Here is the source (hyperlinked): Digby, Simon (1975). Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies. University of London. Vol. 38, No. 1. (1975), pp. 176–177. You'll notice at his conclusion he says the sources of KS Lal appear so poor that they appear "wilful, if not fantastic". StuffandTruth (talk) 14:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

His book might be interesting, but he is not a Historian, only a historian can dispute another historian. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

It's in a journal. And yes, he is a historian. Your bullshit is getting very tiresome and is on the verge of trolling. StuffandTruth (talk) 14:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Writer, and Historian, 2 different things. Other than that, he hasn't presented any figure of himself, neither he can present any of his own figure or research, which makes him less credible for disputing a figure that is accepted by number of Historians. Probably that is why the reference is limited, limited to himself. You haven't read WP:OR carefully. There needs to be multiple sources for a information, that you are claiming. Don't add primary sources, if he hasn't been referred by multiple scholars for the similar concept. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Also the current source is just re-print of what he wrote. Issue in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. You can explain. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Blademulti it seems you editing style is a problem across wikipedia. i come here and find you edit warring over if the man can be called a historian. You gonna fight over that!!!! By God, I am a historian, it is not like being a nuclear physicist in Quark theory. But you doing this kind of thing is not good for wikipedia. Can you please review this type of editing and STOP!--Inayity (talk) 17:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

That is not even the whole point. You are basically claiming that anyone can be regarded as historian. I mean seriously? Bladesmulti (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

These sources contradicts you:

1. Obviously a historian (Indian Express Obituary).
2. Digby, Simon (1975). Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies. University of London. Vol. 38, No. 1. (1975), pp. 176–177. StuffandTruth (talk) 18:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Only a article heading by Sweta Dutta doesn't make him historian.

Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals.

Right now it is hard to figure out whether the "80 million" is about Hindus or all indians, although it mostly seem to be of Indian. It is also hard to figure if Digby is disputing the number or not. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

For anyone interested on RS of Digby: [13] StuffandTruth (talk) 19:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Pradyumna Prasad Karan

Where does he say whatever he is saying ? Can't find any proper source Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Persecution by Muslim Invaders

Does all that crap really belong in this article? Invasions by foreign forces do not really fall under persecution, does it? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The case is different here, the Invasion was accompanied by Persecution so it does belong.-sarvajna (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Not really seeing that at all, looting, rape and general mayhem was part and parcel of things back then, did these guys invade for booty, or to persecute Hindus? Going along the lines the article are then the Vikings persecuted Christians. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

More importantly, a lot of the sources (like Durant, for instance) refer to violence in the course of battle. Now obviously Hindus were killed in battle, but that does not count as persecution. So even without getting into the debate about booty vs persecution, we should definitely remove stuff referring to battle casualties. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Invasions included persecution as well, a well-known example being that by Ghengis Khan and the Mongol invasions in West Asia. Now Muhammed of Ghori, Muhammed of Ghazni and Timur were involved in the destruction of temples and killing of 'infidels' which amounts to religious persecution. So it is not crap. Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 08:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Plundering and putting temples to the torch is not persecution, it is the well known tradition of "kill, rape and pillage". Unless these guys invaded for the sole purpose of killing people due to their religion, then none of these invasions are persecution. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I see, it should be made sure, whether the aim was to convert/promote religion. Or simply plunder. For example, greek's invasion is not regarded as religious persecution, for Indian subcontinent. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

If the destruction of places and objects of worship (which brings a stop to the worship of a faith) do not amount to religious persecution then what else is. Mahmud Ghazni's repeated invasions of South Asia brought about the decline in the Hindu civilisation and his capture of Punjab paved the way for Muslim dynasties to take over the Hindus for the first time. The Hindus are called 'polytheistic' and 'idolatrous' by monotheists but still they are a religion. I suppose one would empathise better by understanding what religion means to different beliefs. Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 10:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The claims of what really amounts to religious persecution is disputed. However unsourced material needs to be challenged. Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 11:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

No, if a temple or monastery or church is torched and plundered by an invading force that is not religious persecution, it is invaders doing what invaders have always done, how many of the sources in those sections actually call these attacks persecution? If none of them do, well then the article is a prime example of OR. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Many ' similar persecution articles ' speak of the destruction of religious places (not necessarily temples, churches or monasteries), libraries, holy sites, etc., by invading forces and they have documented references. Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 14:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I do not care about other articles, we are discussing this one, so how many of the sources say these invasions were persecution? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter whether you care about other articles or not, one article can be written by taking other articles as reference. There is nothing wrong in that.-sarvajna (talk) 15:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

It does matter. That's the whole fucking point. Otherwise this article is a rehash of the military conquest of India by Muslims. StuffandTruth (talk) 15:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

That's why we have two sections : Medieval and Modern. The Medieval (until around 1800 in India) section includes the Europeans as well so its not just about Muslim dynasties. And some of them are not conquests or even invasions. India was ruled by a number of Hindu kingdoms. The Muslims enter the scene and one king invades the dominion of another.

There is a distinction made between the Buddhist rulers of Afghanistan and Hindu rulers of Afghanistan. The father of Mahmud of Ghazni, Sabuktigin, defeated and drove out the Hindu king of Afghanistan Jayapala. The latter and his descendants are driven out of Punjab as well by Mahmud of Ghazni. Now there is material which claim that the Hindu Kush mountains (that Hindu Kush is the Persian for 'Hindu killer') was where many Hindus were killed, they were probably correct, but we can only use stuff among them that is reliable not all of it. Mahmud of Ghazni came to rule part of Punjab. He attacks Somnath temple and for Hindus its a very major event, not just some idol being broken. There are accounts of Greeks attacking Persia and destroying their library and this is 'barbaric'. There are accounts of Chenghis Khan also doing something similar against the Muslims and that is barbaric. According to sources, invaders like Timur clearly stated hatred for the 'idolatrous' Hindus and that Timur and others made slaves of Hindus. It goes on and on and on. Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

We need sources saying that the invasions were because of hatred of Hindus, not simply after what occurred. If sources do not confirm this then we can't add the invasions in. Dehumanising and plunder are a part of what occurred after the invasions and could be termed as persecution (most probably) and should be included. That's the difference. On another note, should the destruction of the Buddha statues by the Taliban in the 2000s be mentioned? If I am not mistaken isn't Buddhism an offshoot or evolution of Hinduism? Or does that go too far (no one was killed in this incident). Or is it out of the scope with the article? My guess would be the latter, that it perhaps does not warrant a mention. What do you think? StuffandTruth (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, Does destruction of important holy sites amount to persecution or not, especially of a faith that is practised actively in the region at that time - for instance the Jewish Synagogue of Jerusalem? The 2006 al-Askari Mosque (Iraqi Mosque) bombing ? What can they be called if not persecution ? Can Mahmud Ghazni be called an invader or not - he after all became the ruler of Punjab. From what Alberuni states it was bad for the Hindus. Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The trouble is we need to define what persecution means. That should be at the top of the article, whether it is deliberate destruction owing to hatred of the Hindus or just the casualty of pillaging and conquering by Muslim conquerors? We need sources to say it was done in the name of persecution otherwise it will be classed as original research and the article then would be at risk of deletion. The scope of the article needs to kept to persecution. My own community has a history of making claims of persecution when none such happened. There are claims that the 1984 Golden Temple attack (Operation Bluestar) was a deliberate act of persecution by the Hindus. But evidence suggests otherwise. It was just a military engagement between the state and Bhinderwale. There was no persecution. Similarly the military engagement may have lead to temple destruction in medieval India etc etc... but is that a result of persecution or empire building? StuffandTruth (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Right, I am going to go ahead and remove the lot as OR. Feel free to restore it once sources are found which actually say these acts were persecution. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Go ahead please. StuffandTruth (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Timur is an invader but sources claim that he held hatred against Hindus. Mahmud of Ghazni was the ruler of Punjab as well so he was not just an invader. Claims about him are disputed. Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Sources please. It's better to start from scratch too. So Darkness Shines should just remove sections that are totally irreparable in their current state. Don't worry. We'll build a quality article. So please gather any and all relevant sources for inclusion. StuffandTruth (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes I think I'm done from my side; I have included the relevant sources that was required for the bits that I have contributed. Now up to Darkness Shines for our article's quality. Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 18:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Brilliant. I'll try and review your work. Any problems there are and I'll let you know. StuffandTruth (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC) Thanks again! Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Medieval

Removed Medieval. Because K.S. lal's figure were about population of Indians, not about Hindus, all historians, critics, regards them as "decrease of Indians", not "hindus". So it has been removed.

The section was itself copied+pasted from the lead. It made not much sense. It didn't worked greatly as a description for whole article either. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Now because StuffandTruth has reverted it back. I would like to have opinion from Sarvajna, Darkness Shines, Kanga Roo in the Zoo. And anyone else who is involved. That the "Medieval" section should be added? Since the reliable historians, and even less recognized critics, regard them as "decrease of Indians", not "decrease of Hindus". Bladesmulti (talk) 15:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

You're keeping in Lal in other sections whilst again deleting Digby's piece. You've not even bothered to discuss it. Again, can you stop with the canvassing? I'm sure you're well aware by now (this is your third warning) not to notify editors as you've just done above. You are well aware that the Wiki system notifies users if their name is wikilinked. I'm reporting this too. StuffandTruth (talk) 15:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Simon_Digby You read it? Bladesmulti (talk) 15:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes I did. Did you? Either remove all mention of Lal or keep both Digby and Lal. But you're specifically targeting Digby alone, once again. Frankly both are worth a mention and should be included. StuffandTruth (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Remove both. Both are unrelated to this article. Because this is not Persecution of Indians, but Persecution of Hindus. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, the whole article needs to divided into two sections: Medieval and Modern, because the context is different in both the time periods.

Secondly I find that historian Lal is mentioned at least twice in different paragraphs.

Thirdly both of you are fighting over whether we need to keep Lal and Digby. Lal seems controversial and needs some other source to support what he says otherwise I feel its okay to have both Lal and Digby mentioned, we can have both sides of the argument shown then. Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

In Digby's piece he mentions another historian that's commented on Lal's work (see the last paragraph on page 177). I do think both should be mentioned as Lal is a respected historian but his methods on population decline are controversial and prone to criticism. If the section is divided Lal should be mentioned as I'm sure others mention him like the Hindutva movement in India. In relation to the other author, Will Durant, Lal seems to be particularly mentionable there and so does Digby since they talk about the invasion and of population decline, massacres etc. StuffandTruth (talk) 16:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

StuffandTruth, I can agree, but the Neutrality issues are raised by other editor, only because they mentions 80 million figure twice. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Quoting you, "As per Negationism in India: Concealing the Record of Islam, it has been cited, that the estimates by K.S. Lal refers to the 80 million death of Hindus though" Which seems to be the case.[14] Dougweller (talk) 17:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Christs sake Doug, you really using Elst as a source? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the direction this discussion is taking, I would suggest purging both Lal and Digby from the article. Lal, because of concerns of relevance and of WP:FRINGE, Digby because without Lal Digby is irrelevant. We can sort the rest out after that. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, makes sense. Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yet another edit conflict, I'm getting them all over the place. Darkness Shines, no, Bladesmulti was using Elst as a source but I'm not surprised that you don't want to use him. He was however at one point using (from memory) Francois Gautier using Elst in an ambiguous way and I plead guilty to changing that to a direct quote from Elst which seemed the best thing to do. I don't like Elst but I'm not sure if that's a reason not to use him if attributed. I'm happy not to use him if that's what people agree. But we need to make sure that Lal is not specifically referring to Muslims persecuting Hindus before we remove him (and Digby). And Bladesmulti needs to make up his mind if Lal is or isn't referring to Hindus. Dougweller (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I obviously thought that the figure was related to the death of Hindus, because it was given on this page. However, anyone who has used these figures, only says that "decrease of Indians", see[15], [16](in the end of the page). Bladesmulti (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion both should be included in some kind of format. See my talkpage for suggestions on inclusion. StuffandTruth (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I've changed opinion User:Vanamonde93 has persuaded me otherwise. StuffandTruth (talk) 18:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Bladesmulti's first source, that he says doesn't mention Hindus, clearly says "Even if Prof Lal's figures are exaggerated, the Hindu victims of Islam certainly outnumber the Jewish victims of Nazism. (I'll note that the source's statement about Mosques doesn't match other statements). Dougweller (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Persecution of Hindus/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

This article is the true account of the history of persecution of Hindus througout the world. Hindus are persecuted in the past and the present in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Africa, Asia and US & Europe due to intolerance of Muslim and Christian faith against Hindu religion and culture. Hindu religion preaches non-violence and vegetarianism, on the contrary both Islam and chiristanity preaches the opposite. So we can say thatit is difference in the ideology and philosphy which has much to do with the persecution. Islamic and European Invasion in India has much to do with the persecution of Hindus in the past. In the modern times Hindus are persecuted in the western countries mainly due to negative potrayel by the western media and the vested interests like the anti-migration lobby etc. Similarly they are persecuted in Islamic countries due to intolerance against foreign religion and misconception surrounding it. The article should be rated as B class on quality scale --Himhifi 03:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC) This article is quite poor: not inasmuch as it is factually inaccurate, but it is one-sided, and makes no allowances at all for historiographical debate on the key issues, especially with regard to Muslim rule in India. It makes assertions which are highly controversial (e.g., that conversions to Islam were largely coerced and violent), and does not make any allowances for the wide range of scholarly debate on these questions. At the very least, there ought to be a separate section on the historiography of the Muslim conquests and Mughal rule. I suggest this article should be rated C class or lower for the time being. 131.111.220.6 (talk) 09:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC) The first phrase alone ("The Muslim conquest of the Indian subcontinent led to widespread carnage because Muslims regarded the Hindus as infidels and therefore slaughtered and converted millions of Hindus") disqualifies the article. This article needs to be completely rewritten from a neutral point of view. 88.19.139.189 (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC) This article seriously lacks substance and contradicts the established notions of history in such a great degree that it becomes difficult to refute it. Where does one start? Almost every incident mentioned has a different context that has been perverted here. A cursory glance at the thousand years of Indian history reveals how hollow the claims in this article are. Further, the sources cited are among the most unreliable ones. For instance, rediff has long been known to cater to the views of the Hindu Right, accepting it as a source is simply unacceptable. Since, it is radically opposed to findings of the mainstream scholars around the world and historical evidences still with us, this article should be removed. Danishctc (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 14:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 21:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)