Talk:Ashvamedha

Some changes on what exactly the Ashwamedha involved.
The article used to state the following when detailing the parts of the Ashwamedha:

The chief queen ritually called on the king's fellow wives for pity. The queens walked around the dead horse reciting mantras and obscene dialogue with the priests. The chief queen then had to spend a night with the dead horse and simulate sexual intercourse.

Two sources were cited, with Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans - A Reconstruction and Historical Analysis of a Proto-Language and Proto-Culture. Part I: The Text. Part II: Bibliography, Indexes - By Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, Jakobson, and Johanna (which I will call "IE and IEs" for brevity) stating that:

"The Queen was symbolically married to the dead horse[...]. The queen lay down with the dead horse and was covered with a blanket."

and the other source, Vedic India, by Louis Renous, translated by Philip Spratt, stating that:

"... the principal wife lies down beside it in a position simulating copulation..."

To better reflect the statements by these two sources, I've edited the sentence "The chief queen ritually called on the king's fellow wives for pity. The queens walked around the dead horse reciting mantras and obscene dialogue with the priests. The chief queen then had to spend a night with the dead horse and simulate sexual intercourse."

and changed it to:

"The chief queen ritually called on the king's fellow wives for pity. The queens walked around the dead horse reciting mantras and obscene dialogue with the priests.[16] The chief queen then had to lie beside the dead horse in a position simulating sexual intercourse and was covered with a blanket."

Aathish S &#124; talk &#124; contribs 10:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The chief queen did not mimic any kind of sexual position with dead horse. That is just bizarre and doesn’t make sense.
 * This is bogus as hindu history and vedic translations have been heavily manipulated by many anti hindu historians.
 * After the horse sacrifice it was offered to agni and nothing obscene happened in this ritual.
 * If I am wrong and all those disgusting rituals did happen then sorry to say but Ashwamedha is purely disgusting and unacceptable in every aspect. RajatGupta72528 (talk) 05:08, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There are no primary sources cited by the above 2 books. One was written by a French Indologist translated by the founder of Communist Party of India. How can these be the only 2 sources cited by Wikipedia ? We should look for local translations into Hindi and other Indian languages and give them as references here. Rajesh1112 (talk) 15:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

All the information here is given by wrong interpretation and ill-translation. The historians always tried to manipulate our vedic texts and we fools never raised fingure or questioned that. As a result, younger generation will read these things only and assume that we had a wrong culture and hence, the historians are successful in their plans. Vibhavkishor (talk) 12:09, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


 * , I can see why you might think that the sources are wrongly translated and interpreted. Reading them for the first time definitely surprised me as well. However, these are the few English sources that we have! If you have access to any other sources that you feel are more trustworthy, let me know. In order to change any of the statements that are already reasonably sourced, such as what the Ashwamedha procedure involved, we'll have to source it with reliable, written sources by trustworthy publishers. Again, if you can find some sources on this that you believe are trustworthy and better, don't hesitate to mention them on this talk page! Aathish S &#124; talk &#124; contribs 13:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I think that "to spend a night" should be kept, as it makes it clearer the queen spent the entire night with the horse's corpse. Chariotrider555 (talk) 16:59, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I couldn't verify that statement that the queen spent the entire night in three sources ("IE and IEs", "Vedic India", and "View of The Aśvamedha_ in the context of early South Asian socio-political development"), and so I removed it. I may have just missed that sentence though. If you can find a source that explicitly says she spent the entire night with the dead horse, then feel free to add it back. Aathish S &#124; talk &#124; contribs 17:45, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


 * "the queen had to spend one night near the dead horse". Chariotrider555 (talk) 18:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You cannot just say these are the English sources we have. India and Hinduism has been colonized. Citing only the colnoizers' texts as the only source is not only misleading but peddling the colinizer agenda. Louis Renou was a french Indologist, his French book does not cite any primary sources at all. The English translation to that was done by Philip Spratt, who was a Communist at that time and was sent to India as a Communist spy. He later founded the Communist Part of India. We all know the motivations of communists w.r.t Hinduism. It's not fair that Wikipedia cites such sources devoid of any Indian sources at all. This kind of a bile propaganda about Aswamedha Yagna has been a constant point of the Dravidian movement in Tamilnadu for the past 100 years. We all know the Dravidian ideology was formented by the missionaries like Caldwell in the 1800s. Rajesh1112 (talk) 13:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * For example, this is from the Mahabharata itself and there is no mention of any of these nonsense claims https://archive.org/details/mahabharataofkri0004unse/page/152/mode/2up?q=horse. The chapter itself is called Ashvamedha parva and I don't think there can be any text more authoritative than the Mahabhartha (except the Vedas). I have also looked into this entire chapter for any references to this Queen claims and there's none. So, Wikipedia article should be corrected ASAP from these dubious claims without any primary source @Aathish S. Rajesh1112 (talk) 09:17, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Check this link and this link. The Hindi translation also gives a word by word translation. These translations are very clear and their meaning converges with the rest of the theme of the verses. Their meaning is not remotely close to this ridiculous and malicious claims of the queen story.
 * How come all the Indian authors have no problem translating these verses while the western sources in the 1870s+ only has this problem ?
 * Are you guys now going to say that 3 different Indian authors are wrong and wikipedia only trusts the colonial western ones ?
 * Rajesh1112 (talk) 01:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Here's a source from an Indian government website with a Hindu translator. In page 999, there's descriptions that's more graphic than this article goes into.
 * Srini1999 (talk) 11:33, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You cannot just say these are the English sources we have. India and Hinduism has been colonized. Citing only the colnoizers' texts as the only source is not only misleading but peddling the colinizer agenda. Louis Renou was a french Indologist, his French book does not cite any primary sources at all. The English translation to that was done by Philip Spratt, who was a Communist at that time and was sent to India as a Communist spy. He later founded the Communist Part of India. We all know the motivations of communists w.r.t Hinduism. It's not fair that Wikipedia cites such sources devoid of any Indian sources at all. This kind of a bile propaganda about Aswamedha Yagna has been a constant point of the Dravidian movement in Tamilnadu for the past 100 years. We all know the Dravidian ideology was formented by the missionaries like Caldwell in the 1800s. Rajesh1112 (talk) 13:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Complaint
The description about Yagna looks like a mischief. People wrote lot of articals defaming other religion. Just cause there is one book and that mentions this process of yagna, doesn't make it true. I can also refer other blog from well known Hindu scholar/s (https://www.swamipurnachaitanya.com/animal-sacrifice-in-the-vedas/) which state that there was no sacrifice tradition dictated. The purpose of Ashwamedh yagna was to mark a territory and exert dominance on neighboring kingdoms. Yagna happens and after that donation is given, like few cows, elephant, horses, including yagna horse. They are not killed but donated to some other entity. Plus, this wife of king having sex with horse is also a nonsense. There is no reason that a wife of a king who is already considered as one of the highest educated people in kingdom will do this thing. There is no reason, looks like it's intentionally appended to existing verses. There should be proper research about this. unsigned
 * Added just now Johnbod (talk) 13:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There are many, many texts, several over 1,000 years old, describing and commenting on the ritual. That is the "proper research". Johnbod (talk) 13:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Which texts ? There is one book written by Louis Renou - a French guy in the 1940s. We have to trust him ? He did not cite any primary sources at all in his book. Rajesh1112 (talk) 13:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

This article has been heavily edited and mischievous statements have been added in the past few years. You cannot just say these are the English sources we have. India and Hinduism has been colonized. Citing only the colnoizers' texts as the only source is not only misleading but peddling the colonizer agenda. Louis Renou was a french Indologist, his French book does not cite any primary sources at all. The English translation to that was done by Philip Spratt, who was a Communist at that time and was sent to India as a Communist spy. He later founded the Communist Part of India. We all know the motivations of communists w.r.t Hinduism. It's not fair that Wikipedia cites such sources devoid of any Indian sources at all. This kind of a bile propaganda about Aswamedha Yagna has been a constant point of the Dravidian movement in Tamilnadu for the past 100 years. We all know the Dravidian ideology was formented by the missionaries like Caldwell in the 1800s. Rajesh1112 (talk) 03:10, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of Indian scholars, indeed the vast majority, who accept the conventional account. The many sources by Indian authors cited in the article are just the tip of the iceberg.  Johnbod (talk) 14:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The statement about the Queen and the horse is cited by 2 references - both by erstwhile translations in the late 1850s. The Indian author from Reference 33 explicitly states that there is no mention of this nonsense in the Rig Veda or any other text. It's only Pilip Spratt's translation of Louis Renou's book that has this statement. Wikipedia's standards are getting lower and lower. Rajesh1112 (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You'll like this detailed account even less (from p. 122 on). [https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Hinduism/zrk0AwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Ashvamedha+horse+queen&pg=PT223&printsec=frontcover This one is shorter and more discreet, but makes clear the main points. Here, an Indian painting of the 18th-century shows the horse being strangled. Johnbod (talk) 02:21, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * lol. Another book by "Rick F. Talbott" - someone in the US citing other sources. Where is the primary Sanskrit for all these claims ? The painting by another foreign authour does not represent the claims made about the queen etc. BTW, you seem to have a vested Interest in this topic. I wonder why is that ? Rajesh1112 (talk) 13:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Far from it. But like other articles on related topics, this needs to be defended against populist Hindu revisionism, denying proper scholarship. You are a fine one to talk about "vested interests" - ALL your very few edits have been to this page. The links above list several Sanskrit sources. Johnbod (talk) 13:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Lol. This page has been edited many more times in the recent past to add more and more foreign authors in the links. The article looked very different 5 years ago. That is not populist Hindu revisionism, that is more of a Marxist anti Hindu invasion of Wikipedia - of which I guess you are an Important member. I have given proof from the Mahabharata itself - I don't think there is any more authoritative text than that. You can keep citing some randos as scholars. Rajesh1112 (talk) 13:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * There are ZERO sanskrit sources for these claims. ZERO. Rajesh1112 (talk) 13:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * For example, this is from the Mahabharata itself and there is no mention of any of these nonsense claims https://archive.org/details/mahabharataofkri0004unse/page/152/mode/2up?q=horse. The chapter itself is called Ashvamedha parva and I don't think there can be any text more authoritative than the Mahabhartha (except the Vedas). I have also looked into this entire chapter for any references to this Queen claims and there's none. So, Wikipedia article should be corrected. Rajesh1112 (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know, Wikipedia should be based reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources (WP:PST). Additionally English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they are available and of equal quality and relevance (WP:NOENG). Chariotrider555 (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, this is what I am disputing. The secondary sources cited here don't have any reference to a primary source in English or in Sanskrit. Your link also mentions "if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page"(WP:NOENG) . I don't see this happening. All of the above defenders of the article only cite one or other secondary sources that don't have any reference to the original text at all. Also, my link above is a direct translation of the Mahabharata with a dedicated chapter on the topic of the article in English. How is this not a good reference compared to 2 books written by Foreign authors who have no connection to the Vedic culture ? I can also write some book and claim multiple things and get it published. Will it be accepted by Wikipedia ? Rajesh1112 (talk) 15:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * According to Karmakar (1949), "It is significant that the Āśvamedhikaparvan which describes the other features of Yudhiṣṭhira's Aśvamedha more or less in detail dismiss the उपसंवेशन [upasaṁvēśana] feature in just one line (उपसंवेशयन् राजंस्ततस्तां द्रुपदात्मजाम् [upasaṃvēśayan rājaṃstatastāṃ drupadātmajām]) which shows that in the times of the writer of the Āśvamedhikaparvan, at any rate, this particular feature was looked upon with abhorrence. The वाजसनेयिसंहिता [vājasanēyisaṁhitā] and the कृष्णयजुर्वेदसंहिता [kr̥ṣṇayajurvēdasaṁhitā] mention the details of this obscene ceremonial which seems to have been handed down by tradition, and which had to be gone through whether one liked it or not, as the fruit of the sacrifice can be secured by one only if one sticks religiously to the minutest details of the ritual prescribed." Chariotrider555 (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Another "article" which is behind paywall and no direct translation of the referred verses. If this is not in the Vedas nor in the Shrutis nor in the Mahabharata or the Ramayana, why is this being Insisted on citing some obscure texts and that too without a direct proof of the verses or the translation ? This whole episode seems to have started roaming the Internet after Wendy Doniger's ridiculous books of psycho-analyzing Hindusim. This same Wikipedia article was much different 5 years ago. Why are you guys so fixated on this topic ? What is your agenda ? Wikipedia doesn't seem to have this same level of 100x scrutiny against other religions. For example, the Quran article in Wikipedia doesn't go into the details of the verses used by terrorists for training and killing the Infidels. If Wikipedia cares so much about such obscure texts on Hinduism which have no relevance to today, surely you guys can spend more scrutiny on the abrahamic monotheistic faiths that cause real world harm even today. But no, Hinduism has to be treated differently because of 150 years of propaganda and colonial mentality. I am still waiting for a real proof of these claims, not some vague articles or "Interpretations". Mahabharata and Vedas are still superior sources than some other obscure texts that have no proof of being followed anytime. Rajesh1112 (talk) 12:01, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Here are more Hindi and Local sources giving the detailed explanation which are totally different than this queen story. https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/a/53454/30248. I have looked at the Hindi and the English sources and they are matching this user's explanation in the Stackexchange site. I have not yet seen any of you people's references like this: Word by word translation of the disputed texts. The above links give word by word translation and the meaning is totally different:
 * ''"Basically what happens is that- The queens circumambulate the dead horse(after it is slained) reciting mantras and make three symbolic marks on the body of the horse using a golden needle. Then the chief queen along with other royal ladies and their maidservants sits near the slained horse at a distance(i.e near the yagya kund of Vishnu where the horse will be sacrificed), offering ahuti to the fire(yajña) as it can be seen from ~Yajur veda-23.18 and praying for the welfare and prosperity of the King who is performing this yajña and his kingdom(including the whole world and people in general). After this the horse is finally sacrificed to Vishnu and simultaneously given a heavenly body. As it can been seen in the Mahabharata and Ramayana. https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m14/m14089.htm
 * One more thing to notice is that where ever the description of Ashwamedha Yagya is given in the scriptures the sanskrit word used is either "sits or resided near the dead horse" but it has been mis translated into "sleeping with the dead horse"."''
 * So, either you provide direct translations like this or remove those disputed text from the article. Enough of these arguments using western sources and "articles" that have not been peer reviewed by Indian or Hindu scholars but mainly seen from the Abrahamic lens. Rajesh1112 (talk) 19:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Why is everyone silent now ? Unable to contest the true translations anymore ? Will this be enough to update the article ? 77.215.168.203 (talk) 12:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * No! We are supposed to use secondary sources anyway, as this article does. Johnbod (talk) 13:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That's sheer agenda working there. I have provided the direct translations from the Mahabharata, the disuputed verses from the Yajurveda both in English and Hindi, the detailed explanations by the user in the Stackexchange site. All that you guys are able to do so far are peddle lies and propaganda through some foreign authors based on mistranslations and direct lies. Wikipedia is a tool for the colonisers and marxists and anti-Hindu agenda. That much is very clear now. Unless you provide more direct evidence, you guys are proving to be propagandists and liars. Rajesh1112 (talk) 13:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, who has the agenda here? The Mahabharata is only one of the primary accounts, and far from the oldest. As one of the commenters in the Stackexchange thread notes, the older English translation on the "sacred texts" site omitted several verses for reasons of prudery. That thread is interesting, with differing views, and imo on the whole supports the "conventional" account given here. Johnbod (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * LoL.. The key thing even in that thread is the lack of original translations. The supposedly omitted verses have been translated by the user I am referring to and there is documented proof of those translations. Mahabharata and the Yajur Veda are far more authoritative texts than any obscure texts that are the basis for your articles. I am also curious of your agenda here. You refute every major Hindu source in favour of one-sided portrayals. Who are you to decide on this matter ? Are you an Indian educated Sanskrit scholar ? How does so many of these proofs does not matter and only the ones you cite matter ? My sources give a word by word translation literaly of the most authoritative text - the Vedas. If at all any text is relevant to today's Hinduism or the rituals, it is the Vedas. But you guys give no Importance to that. Neither does the Mahabharata count that precisely has a full dedicated chapter called Ashvamedha Parva. If this is not agenda and propaganda, I don't know what is. Joseph Goebbels will be proud of you guys. Rajesh1112 (talk) 14:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "Original" translations are exactly what Wikipedia does not encourage as sources. What would be persuasive would be authoritative secondary sources, say publications by respected scholars. Your demand that Wikipedia editors themselves be respected scholars rather misses the point of this site. See WP:RS IAmNitpicking (talk) 18:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * They also mention "When editing articles in which the use of primary sources is a concern, in-line templates, such as and, or article templates, such as  and , may be used to mark areas of concern."
 * It's like saying that the Nazi literature has more published English sources and because the Jewish ones are in Hebrew and are not translated to English, we should only consider the Nazi literature even though the Hebrew translations literally oppose the Nazi claims. The colonial translations are the same for us: They were created to extend the colonial rule, for propaganda and to discredit our native traditions. It's shameful that you guys have this attitude towards one of the two oldest surviving civilzations. I bet that you guys don't have the same guts against the Chinese. Rajesh1112 (talk) 09:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I contest the word "against" in your message. Nobody here would seem to be anti-Indian or anti-Hindu. Please, just give a reasonably authoritative translation that disagrees with the ones that infuriate you so much. "Reasonably" here can't mean, "By Rajesh1112" or "By some guy I know." IAmNitpicking (talk) 00:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you have read the whole thread. I have given multiple translation sources Hindi and English. Also, this is from the Mahabharata itself and there is no mention of any of these nonsense claims https://archive.org/details/mahabharataofkri0004unse/page/152/mode/2up?q=horse. The chapter itself is called Ashvamedha parva.
 * Also, (WP:NOENG) also mentions "if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page". Now there is a dispute. So, why did the editors not ask for the original source for the evidence ? None of the western authors have provided any original source in their references. I have looked into all of them. The statement about the Queen and the horse is cited by 2 references - both by erstwhile translations in the late 1850s. The Indian author from Reference 33 explicitly states that there is no mention of this nonsense in the Rig Veda or any other text. It's only Pilip Spratt's translation of Louis Renou's book that has this statement. So, I ask again, when there is a dispute, Wikipedia itself has a policy to cite the original sources. Where are the original sources ? I have already provided evidences from the Yajurveda and the Mahabharata and their translations. You guys have not come up with any originals so far - all just references to foreign colonial authors with no reference to the original texts. DO you not see the problem here with your arguments ?
 * It's like referring to someone's text on Christianity that does not have any reference to the Bible or about Islam that does not refer to the Quran or the Hadiths. I can't Interpret this as anything other than an agenda driven behaviour. Rajesh1112 (talk) 11:36, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Check this link and this link. The Hindi translation also gives a word by word translation. These translations are very clear and their meaning converges with the rest of the theme of the verses. Their meaning is not remotely close to this ridiculous and malicious claims of the queen story.
 * How come all the Indian authors have no problem translating these verses while the western sources in the 1870s+ only has this problem ?
 * Are you guys now going to say that 3 different Indian authors are wrong and wikipedia only trusts the colonial western ones ?
 * Rajesh1112 (talk) 01:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, What do you classify as "Authoritative" sources ? To me, Mahabharata and the Vedas ARE the authoritative sources, not some western rando doing psychoanalysis of Hinduism or some authors publishing books in the 1800s clearly with the aim of converting Hindus and extending the colonial rule without any reference to the original texts backing their claims. It's such a low standard to accept as "Authoritative sources" Rajesh1112 (talk) 09:41, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note doubt you will be able to track down the Sanskrit original of this from the Vajasaneyi Samhita Yajurveda, pages 211-213 (but I'd avoid Hindutva sites), where the translator omits what he calls "the revolting ceremony", but says where he is leaving a gap. Johnbod (talk) 14:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, that can only be called a "Conspiracy theory". I have now found 2 more English translations of those supposedly controversial verses (23-18 to 32). Check this link and this link. The Hindi translation also gives a word by word translation. These translations are very clear and their meaning converges with the rest of the theme of the verses. Their meaning is not remotely close to this ridiculous and malicious claims of the queen story.
 * How come all the Indian authors have no problem translating these verses while the western sources in the 1870s+ only has this problem ?
 * Are you guys now going to say that 3 different Indian authors are wrong and wikipedia only trusts the colonial western ones ? Rajesh1112 (talk) 01:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The two English links you give are completely different texts - nothing to do with the Ashvamedha (or any specific ritual) at all. As Yajurveda makes clear, there are many different recensions of the texts. There's some Sanskrit for you here (an anti-Hindu site, I'm aware). All the translations are by Indian authors, you'll be pleased to hear. Johnbod (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * lol. This is getting beyond ridiculous. What are you talking about ? The whole Yajurveda is about the damn rituals. This"Agni, fire, is the soul of yajna, a direct participant. The divines perform yajna with agni. Who ever does the yajna with agni wins the sphere where agni is supreme. The same will become your sphere too, you would conquer it if you do yajna. Drink deep at the fount of knowledge and joy purified by agni."
 * After asking for published sources, now you are linking an anti Hindu blog written by a rabid Islamist without any links to the original sources ? My link itself has the same sanskrit verses and its meanings. If you cannot digest the fact that they make your claims totally bogus and expose the agenda, then there is nothing more to conclude that Wikipedia and it's moderators have an open anti Hindu agenda and you guys are exposing yourself to the public. Rajesh1112 (talk) 13:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * What nonsense! Older versions were similar, if shorter. This 2017 version is considerably more explicit:

"The horse, hornless goat, and gayal are asphyxiated. The chief queen lies down and the adhvaryu guides the horse's penis against the queen's vagina, signifying the birth of a new king. The animals are dismembered. The king ascends the throne while the Purusha Sukta is recited."

Many of the sources are older than Doniger's conventional, if rather crudely written, summary of modern scholarship, which of course annoyed Hindutva opinion when it achieved good sales, rather than staying in academic obscurity. Johnbod (talk) 13:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)


 * See my comment above with direct translations and sources in English and Hindi Rajesh1112 (talk) 20:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Why is everyone silent now ? Unable to contest the true translations anymore ? Will this be enough to update the article ? 77.215.168.203 (talk) 12:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * No - see above! Johnbod (talk) 13:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

what was ashwamedha yagna ?
,mnjk 122.173.0.14 (talk) 12:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Wrong misleading information.
The information given is misleading, and is inciting hate towards hinduism. Please correct it. 2A02:6B66:F80C:0:DCBF:2BE0:CEF1:1A88 (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)