| Revision as of 18:47, 18 February 2015 editKautilya3 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers86,307 editsm →Comparison of definitions← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 18:29, 4 December 2024 edit undo2409:40e0:33:a4e0:fd13:745:994e:7ad1 (talk)No edit summary |
| (613 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
{{Calm}} |
|
{{Calm}} |
|
|
{{Indian English}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject India|class=B|importance=mid|politics=yes|politics-importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B| |
|
{{WikiProject Hinduism|class=B|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject India|importance=Top|politics=yes|politics-importance=Top|assess-date=July 2020}} |
|
{{WikiProject Politics|class=B|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Conservatism|class=B|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=High|social=yes|modern=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Hinduism|importance=Top}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Controversial-issues}} |
|
{{Controversial-issues}} |
|
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|ipa}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{Aan}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|
|counter = 3 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Hindutva/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Rquest for deletion or reviewing of certain articles == |
|
== 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. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 ]. "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 ] 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. --] <small>]</small> 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.] (]) 08:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Hindu Extremism== |
|
|
need a separate page for hindu extremism and hindu terrorism --] (]) 19:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)--] (]) 19:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::There is no such thing as "Hindu Terrorism" in a scholarly sense, and the page ] already exists anyways. If you look at the talk page for "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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 05:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
it has been tagged for merging for ages. |
|
|
This article is simply a ] of ]. We should finally sit down and do the merger properly. --] <small>]</small> 07:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Well, when I said it needs restructuring, I did'nt mean it was a ]. The ] 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? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 03:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Edit request from Atheist9, 4 August 2010 == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{tlf|editsemiprotected}} |
|
|
<!-- Begin request --> |
|
|
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." |
|
|
|
|
|
<!-- End request --> |
|
|
] (]) 07:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:EP --> There is no indication what change is suggested, nor any explanation as to why the existing version is contradicted by the above statement. ] (]) 12:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Edit request from 9atheist, 5 August 2010 == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{tn|editsemiprotected}} |
|
|
<!-- Begin request --> |
|
|
Hindutva wishes to remove caste system. |
|
|
http://www.savarkar.org/en/social-reforms/abolition-caste-0 |
|
|
<!-- End request --> |
|
|
] (]) 04:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Not a ]; please show e.g. newspaper. To appeal, use ]. {{notdone}} <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">]]</span></small> 02:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Edit request from 9atheist, 5 August 2010 == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{tn|editsemiprotected}} |
|
|
<!-- Begin request --> |
|
|
The term 'Hindutva' has been coined by savarkar. He did express his wish to abolish caste system. |
|
|
|
|
|
<!-- End request --> |
|
|
] (]) 04:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Requests to edit semi-protected articles must be accompanied by reference(s) to ]. |
|
|
{{notdone}} <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">]]</span></small> 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.] (]) 09:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)wogsinheat |
|
|
|
|
|
== Merger proposal == |
|
|
{{hat}} |
|
|
Hindu Taliban is a POV title and a ]. As the term refers to the Hindutva movement I propose it be merged or redirected here. ] (]) 22:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' - per nom. '']'' is IMHO a contravention of ]. The whole freaking thing is just based on speculations and fictitious allegations by one person. There is no such thing as ′Hindu Taliban′ in the real world and Misplaced Pages is not a repository of neologisms. ]] <span class="plainlinks"></span> 07:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' as Hindu Taliban is a separate term and an independent article is needed to discuss it's uses and history. Merging information from that article into here will be inappropriate, as a major portion of this article will then be discussing the term 'Hindu Taliban' whereas this article itself is focused on the Hindutva movement. ''']''' (]) 17:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::Please explain then why the majority of the content in the "Hindu Taliban" article currently discusses Hindutva? "Hindu Taliban" is a POV title, a very poorly source ], and as it currently stands is a POVFORK of this article. ] (]) 17:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::: It is not up to you to decide what 'title' constitutes POV and what doesn't. The only thing that matters here is the coverage and usage of the term in ]. You're comment on POV is hardly relevant. Besides, once I expand information on the term using the many sources that I can currently access, it will need an article anyway. So this merger discussion is both futile and pointless. ''']''' (]) 12:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::] "When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources, Misplaced Pages generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title (subject to the other naming criteria)." As the majority of content in the other article is about Hindutva then that is obviously the more common name. ] "A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject" "Hindu Taliban" is a ] for Hindutva, so it is not I who is deciding anything, it is policy and guidelines. ] (]) 14:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::In fact, as soon as the article is unprotected I shall be nominating it for deletion as a POV fork per "Some refer to hindutva supporters as a “Hindu Taliban.”" ''India: A Global Studies Handbook'' p126. ] (]) 14:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: Per ]: '''"A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own''' so neither POVTITLE or CFORK have much relevance because the issue here is expanding the article with the huge number of ] that discuss the term. And there is no shortage of WP:RS. And this article clearly cannot afford to hold so much content, because it is a general article on Hindutva, not on Hindu Taliban which is a term. So whatever way you look at it, your argument does not hold much water. ''']''' (]) 16:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::You can present the sources which discuss the neo in depth at the AFD. ] (]) 17:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Per WP:NOTDICDEF as well {{smiley}} ] (]) 17:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::: The term is just a personal opinion of the writer & is not widely used.Can you give more sources which would prove that the term is widely used.] (]) 04:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' The term is not widely used to warrant its inclusion in an encyclopedia. If at all its a biased term, merely a personal usage term by the person who wrote that article in New york times or whatever. Moreover as a Hindu I find it as derogatory. If the article cant be removed it should be merged with other articles on the so called Hindutva movement. ] (]) 03:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''': the topic of both articles is the same, as "Hindu Talibans" refers to the supporters of Hindutva. Only, "Hindu Talibans" is a derogative, and therefore non-neutral POV term. Therefore, the non-neutral article "Hindu Taliban" (]) should be merged into the neutral ]. It can be mentioned in the latter that some sources use the term "Hindu Talibans" to criticise extremist Hindutva supporters.--] (]) 16:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''':Hindu Taliban is not an official title,Just speculations and allegations.Taliban represents themselves as a group as they titled.Definitely merged.Indian government have no problem with these words to vow minority votes and to hide islamic terrorism.Hindutwa is not even fundamentalist term as they are nationalist first,They never spread hate against others religions but their only aim is to provide a path for the followers.Their target are traitors(who live in india and support others) not people of other religions and there is nothing wrong with that.And a simple question to the opposer."Who is Tunku Varadarajan," to decide that?] <sup>]</sup> 21:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
{{hab}} |
|
|
*'''Procedural close'''; ] 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 ] to restore it for merger. ] (]) 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.] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 17:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::], 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. ] (]) 17:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::] 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? -] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. -- ] 15:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
{{od}} 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 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. ] (]) 14:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::You have not answered any points I made. ] (]) 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 . 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.-] (]) 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.<ref>{{cite book|last=Sen|first=Amartya|title=The Argumentative Indian}}</ref> <ref>{{cite book|last=Guha|first=Ramachandra|title=India After Gandhi}}</ref> 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 19:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::], 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.-] (]) 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 ] State of ], including ] himself, who supported Israel during its formation.<ref></ref> RSS is the most pro-Israel group in India at present and actively praised the efforts of ] when he visited India <ref></ref><ref></ref>. R.S.S spokesperson Ram Madhav recently expressed support for Israel (when the ] Marxists and ] in India routinely attack Israel and Jews and have, in fact, accused Israel and ] of "fascistic" inclinations as well<ref>,''BBC''</ref><ref></ref>) when he said: |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>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.<ref>,'''Rediff''</ref></blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
I have found this deleted text by a pov warrior while perusing a wikipedia . Thank you.--] (]) 17:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::The content as presented above is properly removed as being POV. Try re-writing with less spin. -- ] 18:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Citation dump== |
|
|
<references/> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would be really thankfull if you give a second view of the 2nd and 3rd paragraph of intorduction. These are the typicall western@ media's stereotypical lines and would really promote of the rewritting of the article by an <b>INDIAN</b> or atleast of <b>INDIAN ORIGIN</b>. <Br> |
|
==Questionable citation== |
|
|
|
Thank you<br> |
|
The 13 March version of the text starts: |
|
|
|
Regards<br> ] (]) 10:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
:'''Hindutva''' (]: हिन्दुत्व, "Hinduness"), a word coined by ] in his 1923 pamphlet '']'', is the set of movements advocating ]. Members of the movement are called ''Hindutvavadi''s.<ref name="ShahAdministration)2002">{{cite book|author1=Ghanshyam Shah|author2=Centre for Rural Studies (Lal Bahadur Shastry National Academy of Administration)|title=Dalits And The State|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=J1gnfSo29mAC&pg=PA186|accessdate=16 April 2012|date=1 January 2002|publisher=Concept Publishing Company|isbn=978-81-7022-922-3|pages=186–}}</ref> |
|
|
<references/> |
|
|
I have checked the book and I cannot see how it supports either the first or the second sentences.--] (]) 20:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:I have removed the citation from the article and replaced it with a fact tag.--] (]) 23:14, 28 March 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:To @], |
|
== citizens vs. people in == |
|
|
|
:Dear I also wrote the same on your talk page and i am writting here but i want to add something, there may be many people on wikipedia and yes they have different views but on the basis of such an abstract fact you can't justify for the 2<sup>nd</sup> Paragraph as it misleads the reader by first telling extrememly megative things about it and saying that some believe that. I would be really happy if you unrevertef my changes. ] (]) 17:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:Sometimes "megative things" are just simple matters of fact. Misplaced Pages appeals to general consensus. You might feel differently, but Misplaced Pages is not an ideological battleground. It's an ]. The article about Hindutva is unkind because, to quote Dan Olson, "the facts are just, prima facia, unkind". Hindutva is a ] ideology, which means it supports things the average world citizen would likely find upsetting. Documenting these things as they are - ] - is not ideological per se, it's standard procedure ] ]. ] and ] are things anyone with knowledge of political history can recognize as part of a ], ]. |
|
|
:There's precious little space for debate when we are dealing with definitions as given. |
|
|
:Best regards, |
|
|
:] (]) 20:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Needs work to make it less partisan == |
|
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.] (]) 15:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This article is partisan because of selective sourcing, despite the ] policy. For example, Deen Dayal Upadhyaya, the leading ideologue of modern Hindutva <ref> The Hindu Nation, by M K Raghavendra, pp. 161-167 https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/hindu-nation-9789390358380/ </ref> and the inspiration for Modi, is nowhere mentioned. Statements by current RSS leadership that expand Hindutva to include anyone living in India<ref> RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat's Views on Hindutva, https://indianexpress.com/article/india/shiv-sena-rss-hindutva-6901147/</ref> are ignored. Secondary sources related to these statements are available, but ignored. All relevant sides must be presented to justify the ] label. |
|
== Original research == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have tagged this article for ]. 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. ] (]) 21:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
A section called "dissenting views" or "rebuttals to fascism", or similar wording should be added, unless the partisanship is deliberate. I can submit draft content if this is approved. ] (]) 20:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
: Which paragraph is or? Entire article is or? --]<sup>]</sup> 02:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:: I have removed unreferenced content. You can cleanup too. Thank you. --]<sup>]</sup> 09:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::: The whole article is OR, basically. It has been ] 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. ] (]) 10:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I don't see a reason to removed those suggestions for further reading. ] -] 06:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Why the hastiness to revert? ] is not a dumping area. 21 books? Same authors repeated? And you prefer to keep it that way instead of a valid trimming? ] --]<sup>]</sup> 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. ] (]) 06:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
{{od}} |
|
|
So, why remove ''these'' books and articles? ] -] 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. ] (]) 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. ] -] 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. ] (]) 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. --]<sup>]</sup> 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, ] -] 07:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::: Thanks JJ for trying to improve the article. It is a pity that the page got locked while you were in the middle of it. I never understand AP's issues or why he edit wars so often. The article had lots of Further Reading entries because, I presume, people found it to be one-sided and gave other references for people to look up. This is a complicated subject. So it is not going to get fixed in a day. To answer AP's questions specificically: |
|
|
::::::* It is OR because ''primary'' sources have been cited and not scholarly opinions about them. Where opinions were cited, they were typically of the Hindutva-proponents, not third party sources. |
|
|
::::::* It has to be rewritten by taking into account scholar's opinions. The Further reading entries listed a whole bunch of good sources that the article should be taking into account. |
|
|
:::::: There is clearly work to do. Edit warring isn't going to help us. ] (]) 18:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:] There are multiple sources given in the article. Just because you do not like them, doesn't mean it's partisanal in nature. Which sources or opinions provided here are "partisanal" to you? |
|
== Sources & references == |
|
|
|
:NPOV is not violated just because undue weight is not given to Hindutva politician's views. It's well established procedure to not include overtly biased opinions in WP articles, especially in the main sections. |
|
|
:I do believe that such dissenting views should be included under a separate subheading. You should submit a draft on it if you want to. ] (]) 10:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Misplaced Pages is written by summarising ] sources, scholarly sources when available. The OP is citing ], which is a policy, but they do not seem to have actually read the policy.-- ] (]) 15:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::There is ], especially Western (Global North) and Left-Liberal bias. A prima facie investigation on the authors of the secondary and primary sources in this article confirms such biases, especially the western bias. @] may have misinterpretated such biases with the non-applicability of the NPOV policy, which in itself is mostly followed but a systemic study will show the policy itself favors the biases involved just like most other policies. This contention shouldn't be ignored nor their views be dismissed based on personal assumptions about the user. |
|
|
:::Hindutva is a very India based topic and it's sad to see that Indian based secondary or primary sources are not present in an adequate quantity. Hopefully the situation will improve. ] (]) 17:13, 1 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{reflist-talk}} |
|
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. ] -] 07:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Keep The redirect as well == |
|
* Christophe Jaffrelot (1999), '''', Penguin Books India |
|
|
* Katharine Adeney, Lawrence Saez (eds.)(2007), '''', Routledge |
|
|
* Martin E. Marty, R. Scott Appleby (eds.)(1994), , University of Chicago Press |
|
|
] -] 10:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::Nope, sfn is not required here. ] (]) 11:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::: ] should not be casually ignored/violated. --]<sup>]</sup> 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. ] -] 13:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: JJ wasn't converting existing references to sfn. He was adding new sources, typically books, which need to be cited by sfn because the same book be cited many times. I don't see what the problem is. ] (]) 18:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hindutva should be kept redirected to Hindutva Politics, if there’s any problem lets have discussion over it, I’m sure others will agree to it. ] (]) 21:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Definition == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I'm not so sure others will agree. I've reverted the move. The concise "Hindutva" is commonly used by reliable sources, and it generally refers unambiguously to this topic. The article does briefly discuss a historical alternate usage. ] (] / ]) 22:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
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. ] -] 09:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::I agree, to the sources but title should definitely be changed because Hindutva refers to religion not just politics, and the whole article is about Hindtuva Politics I suggest there needs to be discussion. Because I came to this article via search on google so I’m felt quiet miss directed. Why not have discussion? ] (]) 22:15, 20 May 2024 (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. ] (]) 11:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2024 == |
|
:: 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: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Hindutva|answered=yes}} |
|
::* ''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. |
|
|
|
In the ''Tertiary sources'' sub-section of the ''Definition'' section, there is a sentence which reads, {{Tq|Modern politicians have attempted to play down the racial and anti-Muslim aspects of Hindutva, stressing the inclusiveness of the Indian identity; but the term has Fascist undertones."}} but the source used doesn't say anything like that, so please remove the sentence. ] (]) 15:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:This whole article seems to have been written with an intention of maligning Hindutva (POV as Misplaced Pages says). Someone should go through the sources to see if the sources really say what is mentioned in this article.-] (]) 16:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{not done}} I've confirmed that this exact quote appears in the source. Note that the neutral point of view policy requires specifically that the information in sources should be described neutrally. If most academic sources say that there are racist or violent elements to Hindutva, then there's not much Misplaced Pages can do about until the academic consensus changes. ] (]) 20:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Removal of text == |
|
::* ''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. --]<sup>]</sup> 12:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{u|EarthDude}}, {{u|Bsskchaitanya}}, {{u|Dāsānudāsa}} and {{u|DaxServer}}, {{u|Vanamonde93}} has reverted some text with these edits: , and . Please find and add the necessary sources and add all that back with sources.-] (]) 13:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::'''Reply by JJ:''' The definition I offered here is very clear: ''"Hindutva, "Hinduness," refers to the idea that Hindus are vulnerable in comparison to other "Pan-isms" such as "Pan-Islamism," and need to consolidate and strenghten their Hindu identity."'' |
|
|
:::* @Blades, |
|
|
::::* They discuss an anti-Hindutva statement which is lacking from the text; |
|
|
::::* you mention "the definition" and "the actual definition"; where are these in the article? I'm looking forward to "the actual definition," ''with'' sources; |
|
|
::::* Islam: This is what this source says; |
|
|
::::* Reference style is not a reason to remove sourced info; |
|
|
::::* "proposing them here first": if you think that sourced info can be removed with this "argument", you miss a basic policy of Misplaced Pages. Removing sourced info, and requesting to discuss the addition of sourced info before adding it, comes close to ] and POV-pushing. But alas, here's the discussion: Misplaced Pages requires ]; this is RS; this is what this source says; ergo this info should not be removed; |
|
|
:::* @ AP: |
|
|
::::* "clearly incomplete and unique" - so, adding a definition, when there is lacking one, is "incomplete and unique"? |
|
|
::::* Your "definitions" are not definitions: |
|
|
:::::* ''"Hindu nationalists have proposed"'' - unclear and selective; |
|
|
:::::* ''"“Hindutva” would become"'' - that's not a definition, but a description of a historical development; |
|
|
:::::* ''"Hinduism is above all"'' - that's also not a definition, but a statement about Hinduism; as quoted in this way, it's OR; |
|
|
:::::* ''"Hindutva requires you"'' - even less than a definition, but a statement about how to live. |
|
|
::: So, I think it's clear that should be restored. ] -] 13:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
{{od}} |
|
|
Last lead was copied(violated copyrights), from ] (]) 13:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:Wrong source. It's from Jaffrelot, Christophe (1999), ''The Hindu Nationalist Movement and Indian Politics: 1925 to the 1990s'', Penguin Books India. This source says ''"His book rests on the assumption that Hindus are vulnerable in comparison to or ''vis-a-vis'' other 'Pan-isms' such as Pan-Islamism: O Hindus consolidate and strenghten Hindu nationality."'' So, even if this is too close to the original, a few simple quotation marks would have solved the problem. Finally some info from a serious source, and it's reverted right away. ] -] 14:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:: JJ, I disagree with you. The definitions I presented are valid. In fact, if you notice, I have better description from Jaffrelot himself from more recent book. And I have peer reviewed articles too. I would appreciate you do not find novel meaning and twist to my statements. If I did not find your 'definition' in five more recent academic books and peer reviewed articles they are indeed incomplete and unique. I am going to use them too, they are more recent, academic, and deal with the subject directly and not about a book. --]<sup>]</sup> 16:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The "better description" by Jaffelot is part of a list of criteria; where are the other criteria? Your comment "do not find novel meaning" is strange; does it mean that only "your" "definitions" should be used? Just like your next comment, ''"If I did not find your 'definition' in five more recent academic books and peer reviewed articles they are indeed incomplete and unique"''; that's not an argument; the only thing you're saying here is "other sources give other definitions" - which might be expected, not? Your choice of arguments is rather peculiar. ] -] 17:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::What's more, your Jaffelot-quote is ''also'' about Savarkar's book. : |
|
|
:::::* ''"Savarkar wrote this book in prison, after he had come in contact with Khilafatists whose attitude apparently convinced him — a revolutionary till then — that Muslims were the real enemies, not the British. Savarkar’s book rests on the assumption that Hindus are weak compared to Muslims." (p.85)'' |
|
|
:::::* ''"Drawing some of his inspiration from Dayananda and his followers, Savarkar defines the nation primarily along ethnic categories. For him, the Hindus descend from the Aryas, who settled in India at the dawn of history and who already formed a nation at that time. However, in Savarkar’s writings, ethnic bonds are not the only criteria of Hindutva. National identity rests for him on three pillars: geographical unity, racial features, and a common culture." (p.86)'' |
|
|
::::Your choice of quotes is selective. As for the other "definitions," please explain why you think they are valid. Merely stating "The definitions I presented are valid" won't suffice. ] -] 17:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: I put ellipsis before that sentence -- I cannot paste the entire page as per our copyvio policy. Recent academic and peer reviewed definition have to be taken into consideration. That is what I said. No, it is ''not'' expected that I did not find your definition in any of the five more recent academic sources, including the author's own more recent work. He very explicitly talks about Savarkar's definition of Hindutva in this one (derived from an understanding of his book, yes), in your 'definition' he is primarily discussing about the whole book itself. The other academic references are also contextual and relevant apart from being more recent. --]<sup>]</sup> 17:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
{{od}} |
|
|
Regarding the other definitions: |
|
|
* The article by Peter L. Berger does not contain the quote you've given. |
|
|
* "Makers of Modern Asia" does not seem to contain the quote you've given here. Please specify the page-number. |
|
|
I'll check the other sources too, but this is troublesome, AP... ] -] 17:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
* Gradinaru & Iavorschi, ''"Hinduism is above all a way of life and a philosophy of life."'' - this is the opening sentence of the abstract of this article, which is about economics, not about Hindutva. |
|
|
* Jaffrelot: I've already commented on this quote, which is selective. |
|
|
* Menon contains only one sentence with "sexual urges": ''"While Hindu nationalists associate Christians with sexual freedom, they suggest that Muslims, by permitting polygamy, cannot control their sexual urges." (p.141)'' |
|
|
So, your "definitions" seem to be your personal fabrication. If these are not quotes, but summaries, then they're unacceptable, since they can't be verified, or where they can, are simply irrelevant. ] -] 17:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Go check again. The quotation I gave from "The Political Management of Pluralism" Peter L. Berger is there. You can find it here also: The Many Altars of Modernity, Toward a Paradigm for Religion in a Pluralist Age, De Gruyter, 2014, Pages: 79–93, ISBN 9781614516477. And same for the quote from Makers of Modern Asia also, page is 228. I have already commented on your fabrication and denial of more appropriate and more recent discussion by Jaffrelot. --]<sup>]</sup> 17:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:The first of those were added by the User Bsskchaitanya.-] (]) 14:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Comparison of definitions == |
|
|
|
::In the second revert, Vanamonde has removed the bit of text, "integrating it with the rest of the country" but the source cited was already saying that.-] (]) 14:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
The definition I offered here is very clear: |
|
|
|
:::In the third revert, Vanamonde has removed the bit of text, "as excavations proved that a temple existed there previously" but the source cited was already saying that.-] (]) 14:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
:''"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."'' |
|
|
|
::I do agree that first edit in this matter was done by me. There are enough sources that mention about the opinion of the Indian Supreme Court related to the definition of Hindutva. I felt that the lede of the article may misguide any neutral reader who is unaware of history of modern India and its politics gets misled by the notion that Hindutva is some fascist agenda. It is important to mention the opinion of the Supreme Court of India on this matter. Perhaps we may discuss on this to achieve ]. ] is a senior editor and I am of opinion that it is good heed that person's advice in this matter while achieving consensus. ] (]) 20:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
Compare it to these two "definitions: |
|
|
|
*Please read ], ] and ]. You need to demonstrated that the content you added is ], and you need to obtain consensus for its inclusion, without calling specific editors here because you know they will support you. The sourcing you provided is not good enough. ] (]) 22:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
:''"Hindutva is the prominent set of movements advocating Hindu nationalism in India."'' |
|
|
|
::{{re|Bsskchaitanya}}, please bring up more reliable sources for what you want this article to convey.-] (]) 17:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
and |
|
|
|
:::{{re|Vanamonde93}} In your second revert, you have removed the bit of text, "integrating it with the rest of the country" but the source cited was already saying that.-] (]) 13:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
:''"Hindutva ('Hindu-ness'), an ideology that sought to define Indian culture in terms of Hindu values". (source: EB)'' |
|
|
|
:::In your third revert, you have removed the bit of text, "as excavations proved that a temple existed there previously" but the source cited was already saying that.-] (]) 13:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
The third "definition" is an addition to the first; the second refers to the movements that ''promote'', and isn't a definition of Hindutva an sich. The EB-definition is contradicted by the Savarkar-quote: |
|
|
|
::::It is not enough for a single source to say something; for us to present an assertion as fact, it needs to reflect the preponderance of reliable sources. High-quality sources do not uniformly support either of your claims. ] (]) 00:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
:''"Hindutva is not a word but a history. Not only the spiritual or religious history of our people as at times it is mistaken to be by being confounded with the other cognate term Hinduism, but a history in full. Hinduism is only a derivative, a fraction, a part of Hindutva. ... Hindutva embraces all the departments of thought and activity of the whole Being of our Hindu race."'' |
|
|
The Supreme Court statement is misplaced here. It belongs to the "Criticism and support" section, or, together with the third definition and the Savarkar-quote in a section on "Development of the concept", which should make clear that "Hindutva" had a non-religious meaning for Savarkar, bit has been branded by opponents as religious fundamentalism; which may be true, given the stance of the BJP. This is, more or less, also what Ram Jethmalani is arguin in "Hindutva is a secular way of life," from which the Supreme Court-quotes were taken. Some thoughts, and some more effort than hitting the revert-button, might have been given to these defintions, before simply removing sourced info. ] -] 14:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
: Unfortunately, the term is used for multiple purposes in multiple contexts. So, it is not easy to say one thing definitively. Here is my take: |
|
|
:* Hindutva, as a concept, means that ''India is a Hindu nation''. (That is what "Hinduness" is referring to, ''India''. It was probably referring to the whole of Indian subcontinent because it was formulated before independence.) It is also important to recognize that the word "Hindu" has dual meaning, |
|
|
:** first that it is the ''indigenous'' Indian ''culture'', and |
|
|
:** second that it is the ''Hindu religion''. |
|
|
:: The Hindutva-proponents pick and choose what they want it to mean in a given context. (cf. Arvind Sharma) |
|
|
:* Hindutva, as a political ideology, means that ''Islam and Christianity are foreign to India''. What is to be done about them depends on various things. The mild version of Hindutva says that Muslims and Christians in India must own up to their Indian heritage (their "Hindutva") and thereby accept various things that they don't currently accept, e.g., '']''. |
|
|
:* Hindutva, as a political movement, essentially means ''Hindu supremacism'', but you would be hard put to find a source that says it in those words. |
|
|
: I believe the wording you have taken from Jaffrelot is probably out of context. I can't see the page on the Google Books at the moment. So I have to check it when I go home. Blades/AP are right that he was probably talking about the book Hindutva, rather than the concept Hindutva. ] (]) 18:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
I would be really thankfull if you give a second view of the 2nd and 3rd paragraph of intorduction. These are the typicall western@ media's stereotypical lines and would really promote of the rewritting of the article by an INDIAN or atleast of INDIAN ORIGIN.
Thank you
Regards
Yamantakks (talk) 10:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
A section called "dissenting views" or "rebuttals to fascism", or similar wording should be added, unless the partisanship is deliberate. I can submit draft content if this is approved. Sooku (talk) 20:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Hindutva should be kept redirected to Hindutva Politics, if there’s any problem lets have discussion over it, I’m sure others will agree to it. EntrepreneurPedia (talk) 21:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Not done I've confirmed that this exact quote appears in the source. Note that the neutral point of view policy requires specifically that the information in sources should be described neutrally. If most academic sources say that there are racist or violent elements to Hindutva, then there's not much Misplaced Pages can do about until the academic consensus changes. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)