Talk:Hindu Rashtra

problems
Two things about this page: (1) It still has NPOV problems. Any inexperienced editors should look at Zionism, for example. Observe the way that neutrality is observed. In addition, the eidtors own arguments should not be state. Only report arguments that you can cite as coming from other sources.

(2) I still dont see why we have Hindu Nationalism, Hindu Rashtra and Hindutva, all making the same arguments. They should be merged, or at least, if they deserve three diffrent articles, they should be sufficiently separate. Hornplease 04:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. The article on Hindutva should be made on par with the excellent article on Zionism. However, the article on Zionism does detail the Zionist point of view in detail. Criticism of Zionism (anti-Zionism) is a separate article. I believe that the Hidnutva point of view should be expanded, and criticism of Hindutva (with the Hindutva response) should be kept with the anti-Hindu article. (Netaji 08:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC))

Problems with recent edit
The following sentences have been removed, and shoudln't. This is so because the section "Response to the Criticism of the Hindu Rashtra" is supposed to present the exact point of view of Hindutva advocates. It is important to state that these are opinions of certain members of the Hindutva movement. If one mentions that these are their POV, then the section is NPOV. I believe that I have done so. Plus, I've cited references to the hindutva website that prove that the folowing are part of their charter:


 * Whenever muslims invaded Hindu territory in the past, Hindus were forcibly converted at spear-point (and *later at gunpoint). Thiose Hindus who refused to convert were slaughtered, (the most heinous case of such *an act being the Bahmani Sultanates annual genocide of 80,000 Hindus). However, there existed no system to *repatrite converts back to Hinduism (as Hindus do not practice forced conversions) so they remained muslims *even after Hindus pushed invading Islamic armies back. Thus, preponents of the Hindu Rashtra point out that *the muslims of India today, are, point of fact, Hindus who simply are unaware of their Hindu heritage . As *for Christians, the ethnic genocide perpetrated by Christians against Hindus in states like Tripura by the *Christian National Liberation Front of Tripura are well documented, and the


 * However, caste-based politics and discrimination is presently an agenda of the left wing Congress Party, *not the right as is commonly perceived. Caste based quotas for Dalits, preferential treatment to *Muslims and Christians over Hindus, nd turning a blind eye to the genocide of Hindus in Kashmir and *Bangladesh in recent times is believed by members of the religious right in India as part of a deliberate *and malicious campaign by a liberal Indian element to eliminate Hindu society in favor of foreigh religiosu *elements, plunging India into an ethnic civil war along the lines of Zimbabwe.

NB: The Christianization of Zimbabwe is a fact, and a legit example in this case.


 * Furthermore, they contend that, since the global collapse of communism as a world power, most societies *in the world have shifted to mainstream religion, and have turned to the Persecution of Hindus (a *global minority) to bolster their ethnic solidarity, much like the evolution of anti-semitism in Muslim *and European societies. This is precisely the problem which Hindutva and the Hindu Rashtra means to *resolve. Many muslims still believe they enjoy the feudal status they did during the Mughal Empire and *have committed hate-crimes and perpetrated atrocities against Hindus. They advocate that hindus, generally *known for their tolerance and pluralism, have retaliated against muslims in self-defense

What I will do is change the tone a little to indicate scholarly detachment on my part., but these statements need to stay, so I'll put them back. If you have questions, please put them up here FIRST & I'll read them tomorrow (Netaji 08:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC))

Fact template
Anwar saadat (talk • contribs • [ page moves ] • block user • [ block log ]) has added some dozens of fact templates to the article and in the same edit he makes deletions and adds strong POV. Don't do this in the same edit. He has made worse examples of this behaviour in the Babri Mosque article. --Msiev 08:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge
I agree with the merge. The "Hindu nationalists" themselves don't know what this is.--Babub→ Talk 11:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)