Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:53, 18 February 2015

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. India: Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Indian politics workgroup (assessed as High-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Hinduism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Conservatism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

The categorisation of Hindutva under religious fundamentalism is unfair

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hindu Extremism

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

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

This page needs serious restructuring

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

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

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

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

Edit request from Atheist9, 4 August 2010

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

"Protection of caste systems

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

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

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

Edit request from 9atheist, 5 August 2010

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

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

Edit request from 9atheist, 5 August 2010

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

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

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

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

Sangh Parivar

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

Merger proposal

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

Edit request for Views on History section

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

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

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

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

Tags

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit request on Hindu and Judaism relations

Please put inside the article this text:

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

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

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

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

Citation dump

1. Sen, Amartya. The Argumentative Indian.
2. Guha, Ramachandra. India After Gandhi.
3. Hindu-Zion
4. The Hindu
5. Rediff
6. Press spotlight on Sharon's India visit,BBC
8. ' RSS slams Left for opposing Sharon's visit,Rediff

Questionable citation

The 13 March version of the text starts:

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

1. Ghanshyam Shah; Centre for Rural Studies (Lal Bahadur Shastry National Academy of Administration) (1 January 2002). Dalits And The State. Concept Publishing Company. pp. 186–. ISBN 978-81-7022-922-3. Retrieved 16 April 2012.

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

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

citizens vs. people in

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

Original research

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources & references

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

• Christophe Jaffrelot (1999), The Hindu Nationalist Movement and Indian Politics: 1925 to the 1990s, Penguin Books India
• Katharine Adeney, Lawrence Saez (eds.)(2007), Coalition Politics and Hindu Nationalism, Routledge
• Martin E. Marty, R. Scott Appleby (eds.)(1994), Fundamentalisms Observed, Volume 1, University of Chicago Press

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

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

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

What a lousy reason to remove sourced content. At least you could have politely noticed so, and asked me to change the style of reference. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Definition

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

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

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

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

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

• Over the following decade , “Hindutva” would become a major political force to reckon with. Srinath Raghavan. Makers of Modern Asia Edited by Guha, Ramachandra. Harvard University Press (2014). Pages: 215–243 ISBN: 9780674735781.
• Hinduism is above all a way of life and a philosophy of life. Andreea Gradinaru, Mihaela Iavorschi. The Hindu Economic System. Human & Social Studies. Research and Practice. Volume 2, Issue 2, Pages 41–58, ISSN 2285-5920, July 2013.
• ..The third criterion of Hindutva—a ‘common culture’—reflects for Savarkar the crucial importance of rituals, social rules, and language in Hinduism. Sanskrit is cited by him as the common reference point for all Indian languages and as ‘language par excellence’. Hindu Nationalism, A Reader. Edited by Jaffrelot, Christophe. Princeton University Press. 2009. Pages: 85–96.
• ..Hindutva requires you to control your sexual urges. Menon, Kalyani Devaki. Everyday Nationalism. Women of the Hindu Right in India. University of Pennsylvania Press. 2010. Pages: 131–156. ISBN: 9780812202793. --AmritasyaPutra 12:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

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

• @Blades,

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

• @ AP:

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

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

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class India articles
• Mid-importance India articles
• B-Class India articles of Mid-importance
• B-Class Indian politics articles
• High-importance Indian politics articles
• B-Class Indian politics articles of High-importance
• WikiProject Indian politics articles
• WikiProject India articles
• B-Class Hinduism articles
• Mid-importance Hinduism articles
• B-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• B-Class Conservatism articles
• Low-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics