Talk:Hindutva/Archive 3

Hindutva and Fascism
I believe Hindutva to be a Fascist ideology, it can be plainly seen by their beliefs and positions, they fit perfectly within the characterisation of a Fascist ideology, not surprising due to the fact that it was a brain child of organisations which were directly inspired by Nazi Germany which was a fascist regime itself.

What are our thoughts on the matter, should this article be added to the Fascist Category? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.75.41.49 (talk) 18:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid personal opinions matter very little in this context: what we need is a consensus among reliable sources that Hindutva is a fascist movement. I am fairly familiar with this literature: while several sources do make an analogy, the label is certainly not used often enough for this category, at least at this point in time. Vanamonde (talk) 04:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Undertaking a major cleanup.
The article is a bunch of original research, I am going to boldly cleanup the article. -- Gian ❯❯ Talk 12:13, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I am done with one round of removing fluff. Will continue. -- Gian ❯❯ Talk 15:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Can't find Naipaul's view on Hindutva
The article in the last line mentions Naipaul's view on Hindutva, I can't find the same in his book. Shall remove after a few days if no one can provide page number for it.

Link to the book.

IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Review comments, May 2019 update discussions
Talk page watchers: I have reviewed this article's edit history, the talk page archive, and the current version of this sensitive, controversial topic. The article properly cites a few scholarly sources and is reasonable in some places, but in many places it is weak, unsourced, relies on non-WP:RS or simply misrepresents the source. A few additions have been from flyby WP:SPA accounts, such as edits in late 2007 which added strange content/misinformation. The article can be significantly improved if it seeks and summarizes the peer-reviewed scholarly sources far more (such as Professor Sharma's scholarly paper on Hindutva in the Numen etc), and if it covers the history of when, where, why, how this started, what it is to the various sides, the controversies, the different sides per our NPOV and other content guidelines. I will start the update in the coming weeks, embedding quotes from scholarly sources where appropriate. The extant version before May 2019 update can be found here. Any suggestions and comments before and during my updates would be most welcome. I see you have edited/watched this article, and would appreciate your collaborative comments and critical cross-checks as and when I begin editing this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:43, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Go ahead! Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  03:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, please! El_C 04:00, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No objections from me. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The last time I edited this article seems to have been in 2015 (this version). I thought I understood then what "Hindutva" meant, but now I think I don't. I need to look at Arvind Sharma's article again, but I don't believe it captures what is meant by the term in the current day parlance. I think the average journalist's use of "Hindutva" is basically the ideology of RSS and the Sangh Parivar. So, as that ideology changes, the meaning of "Hindtuva" changes with it. So what we need are political science sources, not of religious studies. There is no point beating on about Savarkar and Golwalkar. They are not relevant any more, except for historical curiosity. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 05:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the 2015 version is a lot better than what it is now. I don't mind going back to it. We don't need this to be a very long article. It is just a buzz word now. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 05:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Political science terminology
The way I see it, until Savarkar's publication of Hindutva, there were several strands of Hindu nationalism. But, after its publication, the Hindutva strand basically washed out all others. So, Jaffrelot (following B. D. Graham before him) uses only "Hindu nationalism" for the ideology, not "Hindutva". For the other forms of Hindu nationalism still relevant, Graham coined the term "Hindu traditionalism". This would have been the ideology of the Lal-Bal-Pal combine which was represented at the time of independence by Sardar Patel in Congress and Shyama Prasad Mukherjee in Hindu Mahasabha. But both of them died within a few years of independence, and the RSS took control of whatever was left and marginalised Hindu traditionalism. Thus Hindutva became the only game in town.

But what is this "Hindutva"? That India was a "Hindu nation". The meaning of "Hindu" was deliberately left ambiguous (either "Indic" culture or follower of Hinduism). That is what gives the RSS the flexibility to change the ideology depending on the vagaries of circumstance. For the Ayodhya campaign, "Hindu" means Hinduism. For the Muslim Rashtriya Manch, it means Indic culture. So, the RSS can have it both ways. (That is why Savarkar today is irrelevant.)

The second part, "nation" is also now ambiguous. If the RSS could have had its way after independence, it would have wanted India to be a Hindu Republic. But now it is too late to do anything of the sort. And it suits the BJP to claim that secularism itself is a facet of Hinduness. So, in effect, the BJP has become a "Hindu traditionalist" party, except for some doses of Hindu chauvinism here and there.

So it is pointless to look for the real meaning of "Hindutva". It has changed a lot, and it will probably continue to change. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:38, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Kautilya3: I intend to summarize all this and more in coming weeks (I may be slow, but expect to be done in or before June). Please feel free to jump in meanwhile and revise/add and restore appropriate parts of the 2015 version plus the rest. WBG: The views of Professor Klostermaier and those like him are a side, his views appear in a peer-reviewed scholarly source, and our NPOV guidelines require us to "not take sides, but summarize the sides". Yes, we can, should and will summarize criticism of Klostermaier's views in the appropriate section. There is neither a need nor appropriateness in censoring his peer-reviewed scholarly views. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:05, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, I notice that you have already started editing. Good thing I checked the history, because I was going to delete it as POV. Let me repeat what I said a bit more explicitly. Hindutva is a political idea. So what the religious studies scholars say about it is completely irrelevant. Note in particular that Muslim Rashtriya Manch is a Hindutva organisation. This should put paid to any theory that Hindutva is about Hinduism. I really dislike the new section that you have added because it adds more confusion to an idea that is already confusing. Nothing should go before Savarkar's definition. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * And, note also that Mookerjee thought "Hindutva" would be confusing and so he used "Bharatiyata" to mean the same thing. There is no "Hindu" in Bharatiyata. That is a yet another vindication of my point. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

But RSS and BJP don't live in a Humpty Dumpty world. They might mean whatever they want to mean. But people might understand whatever they want to understand. So, OED's claim that it means "Hindu hegemony" might be right. But note that this is once again, to be explicated by political scientists, sociologists etc., not by religious studies scholars. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I merged your section split above to avoid multiple threads and discussions. First, the scholarly sources I added are secondary or tertiary articles/reviews. These cite political scientists as well (see Sharma's pp. 30–36). I was planning to add more political scientists-based scholarship summary paragraphs. But, before we do so, please clarify if you mean this article should be presented exclusively from contemporary politics perspective and as a political idea, and do you mean wikipedia should suppress all scholarship about its history, the changes in its meaning and contextual scope with time, etc? Why so, given NPOV and other guidelines? We can't censor all the peer-reviewed scholarly articles by many of the most respected scholars of South Asian studies and Hinduism. You mention Muslim Rashtriya Manch above, but the old (pre-May 1 2019) version does not mention that, nor provide a source. We should.
 * If your concern is the sequence of presentation, I am open to suggestions. How about the following order of sections:
 * Nomenclature and definitions starting with Savarkar, and then others.
 * History
 * Contemporary usage
 * Beliefs and causes / Concepts
 * Organizations
 * Criticism and apologetics
 * While we discuss, I urge you to go through the cited sources and do a cleanup. There is no point in restoring deadlinks and cites that fail verification. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm too busy to get deeply into this at the moment, but here's a couple of suggestions. First, begin by dumping the bad material, or at the very least marking it with hidden comments or flagging it here. Second, don't try to create a structure and then fit stuff into it. Article structures should emerge from the material; otherwise, it's easy to slip into giving specific items undue weight. The nomenclature and the history of the term are good places to start, but after that, I would recommend exploring the sources treating the role of Hindutva as a political philosophy and as an ideology behind specific social movements; that's where the meat of the literature is. The rest of the stuff will fall into place once these core issues have been explored. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The trouble is that this article is quite a key article. It is linked from hundreds of others. And it is supposedly the ideology of India's ruling party, which comes up in the news all the time. And most people that come here genuinely want to know what this term means. And they want to know what it means in the present day, not in Savarkar's time. We also need to remember that there was a long break between Savarkar and VHP, in between which the term wasn't used at all. It was found to be confusing, quite rightly. Perhaps it was also thought undesirable or inappropriate, e.g., by substituting Hindutva by Rashtriyatva (Hedgewar) or by Bharatiyata (Mookerji). The religious scholars you are citing are entirely oblivious of all these things. Not a single one of the varied definitions you have added went anywhere near "nationalism", which was the fundamental motivation for all these proponents. So they are just barking up the wrong trees. I think all this text is inferior to what already existed, and is simply clouding the whole enterprise.
 * Remember also that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion and scholarship must be right for the topic. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:28, 2 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I understand you, but I disagree with you. The historical aspects of this subject are the roots, the context, and are related to/intertwined with the current political ideology. Not because I say so or you say so or you feel otherwise, but because that is what the mainstream scholarly sources are stating. However, if you believe that it is otherwise, can clean up plus improve this article with better, high-quality reliable sources, then our option is to have two articles, per WP:VNOTSTUFF, which does suggest "presented instead in a different article" option. Perhaps, one on Hindutva (political ideology) or Hindutva (politics) or something, while the content in the mainstream scholarship, as published in the dozens of peer-reviewed scholarly papers and book chapters on Hindutva can go in a different article. At the moment, I would prefer that you let the article get cleaned up, incrementally improve, and help it grow collaboratively as Vanamonde93 states above. I would also prefer that we try to show the links, the evolution in the Hindutva concept, and the relationships/differences of the past and the contemporary political ideology. In a few weeks, or sooner, if the article gets big enough or for other appropriate community-agreed guidelines for article WP:SPINOFF, we can split it into two. Would either the two-articles or the split-later approach be acceptable? If not, why? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * K3: I did not address your substantive comments. I am trying to focus on developing a consensus approach to improving this, as you write, a "key article". To avoid any innocent misunderstanding, please do note that what you write above does not reflect my few recent edits, because I did include upfront, "According to the Encyclopædia Britannica, Savarkar described "Hindutva ('Hindu-ness') as an ideology wherein the Indian culture is "a manifestation of Hindu values", and this ideology has over time become a "major tenet of Hindu nationalist ideology".[8]" Plus more, and more was coming on the nationalism-aspect. The scholars do cover the nationalism aspects extensively, fwiw. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:03, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, you made one mention, I grant you. But the first paragraph went by without any mention of "nationalism". And even the second paragraph says "over time it became a major Hindu nationalist ideology". If Bratannica used "over time" it was probably for the "major" aspect, and since it was being put in an article on BJP, not on Hindutva. Any notion that Savarkar was simply searching for "identity" is not credible. By then, every man, woman and child in India took part in half-dozen or more census exercises, where they had to declare their religion. So, if anybody didn't have an identity originally, they definitely had one now.
 * Savarkar defined Hindutva with the explicit purpose of making it the foundation for Hindu nationalism. His book is quite clear about that. No "over time" business there.
 * And, as for history, you can't expect me to take seriously history as understood by religious studies scholars? Knowledgeable scholars say:
 * I think Arvind Sharma is also wrong to claim that the "ethnic streak" of "Hindu" arose only in the 20th century. We have worked on the Hindu article, and we know well how old the idea is. In fact, Savarkar's Hindu ethnicity was the original idea of "Hindu". It was only the British that turned it into a religion.
 * But all this talk of ethnicity and identity is again barking up the wrong tree. The purpose of "Hindutva" was to serve as a brand name (a "mantra" apparently) for Hindu nationalism, which had been already around for a hundred years. In fact, as soon as the British came and started demolishing Muslim regimes, Hindus started asserting their identity as well as religiosity. Even Meenakshi Jain has documented that. So, once again, I maintain that the religious studies scholars don't know what they are talking about. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * But all this talk of ethnicity and identity is again barking up the wrong tree. The purpose of "Hindutva" was to serve as a brand name (a "mantra" apparently) for Hindu nationalism, which had been already around for a hundred years. In fact, as soon as the British came and started demolishing Muslim regimes, Hindus started asserting their identity as well as religiosity. Even Meenakshi Jain has documented that. So, once again, I maintain that the religious studies scholars don't know what they are talking about. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

My plan would be to move all of that into the history section, and start fresh / rework the definitions section. Once again, I will skip your comments about Professor Sharma, religious studies scholars, etc. Let us focus on my two questions above: Would either the two-articles or the split-later approach be acceptable? If not, why? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:58, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You can't possibly have two articles on the same topic. That would be WP:POVFORK. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * And if you want to write about Savarkar's ideology, there is already an article for it: Hindutva: Who is a Hindu? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:33, 2 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Lets go with the second option. We can always split the article or re-arrange sections. You have valid concerns, and the better approach would be to summarize all sides, plus include whatever you find in scholarly sources about those valid concerns in the criticism/apologetics section, or wherever appropriate. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:46, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That is fine, as long as we follow WP:DUE and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. As a compromise, I will accept certain amount of bloat, hoping that we will be able to cut it back to size after the dust settles.
 * On another note, can you please give precise page numbers in the citations. Huge page ranges for little statements shouldn't be necessary. Please feel free to use . -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:03, 2 May 2019 (UTC)


 * K3: Yes, that is typically my style. In certain cases, I include specific pages but also mention pages where the context is, and include specific footnotes. But, do note, as I clean up this article, I am finding the old version has too many "throw the website link / book" cites, the entire Sharma paper was cited e.g., etc. Don't blame these on me please, :-). I will try to fix these too, over the coming weeks. Sure, we can trim the bloat when appropriate. The harv and sfn will probably be the dressing-up thing to do down the road. Thanks, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Yeah, citing journal papers wholesale used to be common practice in 2015. We have moved on from that now. (And the technology has improved too: we now have two-layered citation pop-ups.)
 * Giving a large page-range would be fine if you are summarising it. But since you say you want to closely match the text in the source, it would be good to know which text. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 06:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Decline and resurgence
, the "Decline and resurgence" section is also headed in the wrong direction. The "decline" was entirely true for Hindu Mahasabha. In fact, you might say it died. But the RSS was perfectly fine. The ban hurt them financially (and it took them some 10–20 years pay off the debts incurred), but their membership did not suffer. They continued to grow after the ban. They refrained openly challenging the government (which they were prone to do earlier). But that is about it.

The Jan Sangh (the first incarnation of BJP) was established after the ban. So there was nothing there to "decline". In fact, the Jan Sangh also grew year on year pretty much continuously. There was never any decline. (Some people notice a "decline" after the break up of the Janata party, but that is also misleading. The vote share of BJP after Janata was higher than what it was before Janata.) I will check to see what Frykenberg actually says.

Note also that it was not Nehru that banned the RSS, it was Sardar Patel. And the Hindu Mahasabha was never banned. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I didn't add that Hindu Mahasabha was banned. On who banned RSS, should we say Nehru government, instead of Nehru or Patel? Per page 47 of Vernon Hewitt (Politics, Univ of Bristol), "[..] Jaffrelot notes that Nehru's decision to ban it [RSS] in the wake of Gandhi's murder lay in his firm conviction that it was [...]"; per page 36 of Nicholas Gier, "[...] then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru banned the RSS". Other sources are stating something similar. Perhaps you have the procedure in mind? I welcome you to edit that subsection. I am also open to rewording the sub-title, I hesitated in using the word "Decline".
 * Your other comments are helpful, but please note that as I read the sources, I am trying to keep the focus on Hindutva topic and am trying to avoid WP:Coatracking by digressing into tangential subtopics. If you have a source for your other comments, such as "the ban hurt them financially, but their membership did not suffer", please share. I will read it and see if we can improve that section further.
 * I also welcome you to expand / trim / revise the section you tagged last week for NPOV, based on the currently cited sources and with additional scholarly sources in order to improve it and make it more NPOV. I am sure you will note that I have already significantly modified that sub-section since you tagged it. Or, if you prefer, you can identify additional sources here. I will locate them. Read them. Summarize them. Please keep the feedback and critical comments coming. I appreciate your collaborative review, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:48, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


 * No, you didn't say that Mahasabha was banned. But it needs to be said that it wasn't banned. It was after all the principal organisation with official Hindutva ideology. It was also the agent behind the Gandhi assassination. So, we can confidently assert that the Nehru government was not warring with Hindutva.
 * The RSS was banned because it was what we now call a militant organisation. It was very secretive, and it had carried out a lot of killings as part of partition violence and was continuing to advocate killings as of January 1948. And frankly it didn't recognize the Union government. (For Golwalkar, "independence" wouldn't be achieved until Hindu Rashtra was established. The Nehru government was merely a successor to the British government, which would be fought in exactly the same way.) I am sure Nehru would have been most vocal advocate of the ban, but it would have been a Cabinet decision (with Mookerjee as a participant), and Sardar Patel's implementation. It is fine for Jaffrelot to attribute all the agency to Nehru in a political science theorist's way, but we can't say that on Wikipedia.
 * And, the ban was lifted when Golwalkar agreed to Patel's terms halfway. He had to have a constitution and elections for office bearers etc. He also agreed not to participate in electoral politics, but it was a toothless promise because RSS loaned out its officials to go and work for political parties and other organisations. And, now we have had two RSS pracharaks as Prime Ministers and countless others in other positions.
 * So, frankly, nothing really happened to the RSS as a result of the ban, except a debt which took a while to pay off. And that was apparently a good enough a deterrent for RSS not to cross the line, at least until 1980s. How was it able to cross the line in the 1980s? It could because it had grown its strength precisely during the period that you labelled as its "decline".
 * For membership figures see p.43 of this report. (It is rumoured that the author worked for the CIA. He could get figures that normal scholars couldn't.)
 * On the other hand, RSS seems to have lost a lot of pracharaks during the 1950s, so much so that it imposed a freeze on loaning functionaries to affiliate organisations. This freeze ended in 1962. So it did have some kind of slump. I don't think this had a lot do with the ban, but rather the fact that, with independence, the situation had changed. Many people were also disillusioned with Golwalkar who had remained aloof from the independence movement. Some people that quit at this stage went public, writing books or articles about the RSS. So, the RSS had to reinvent itself after the ban was lifted, which it managed to do. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Kautilya3: The Jean Curran source was published in 1951, and provides some interesting data. Curran states, "these are approximate figures only, and must be viewed with considerable caution". His figures (p. 43):
 * Pre-ban (1948) RSS members + associate members + sympathizers: 5,000,000
 * July 1949 (at the time the ban was lifted): 100,000
 * March 1951: 600,000 primary RSS members
 * March 1951: well over 2,000,000 primary members + junior members + close supporters
 * Page 44 gives a table by each state (1951 state boundaries, some of these states were re-org later)
 * Total Indian population (1951): 361 million (Source: their census, not Curran)
 * That is generally consistent with what Sharma, Hewitt, plus others are stating. Instead of "Decline and resurgence", should we change the subtitle to "Falling recruitment and resurgence", the change would have support in the Curran source (p. 43)? Do you have a source for their 1960s memberships trends? By "their", I mean "preferably all or the most significant Hindutva organizations". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The key figures for me are 400,000–500,000 swayamsevaks before the ban, and 600,000 swayamsevaks in March 1951. This shows that there was no overall loss of membership. (Some members might have left, but they also got new members. They might have needed to work hard for it, but they managed.) The so-called "supporters" declined from 5 million to 2 million according to Curran. But those are vague estimates, and we have no idea who was included and who wasn't. I would ignore those. It is also not clear to me how Curran is taking into account the new initiatives such as the trade union (BMS) and the students union (ABVP). They didn't have any ban, and they continued to grow during this period. So, overall, there was no decline. There were "hard times", but that is about it.
 * But, more importantly, the RSS came to be recognized as a 'patriotic organisation'. There was no broad support for a permanent ban, and the Nehru government would have faced a back lash if it banned it indefinitely. There was support for the RSS in all sections of the society, including a lot from within Congress itself. So, in the long run, the RSS benefited from the ban. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The big picture that needs to be understood is that the RSS is not here to make a splash here and there, but rather to stay for eternity. Its goal of Hindu Rashtra is achieved only when the whole of India becomes the RSS! So, its main work continues to be low-key grassroots organisation ("sanghatanist paradigm") and every splash that occurs is only used towards strengthening that basic programme. The scholars who look for splashes are missing the forest for the woods. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:20, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The big picture that needs to be understood is that the RSS is not here to make a splash here and there, but rather to stay for eternity. Its goal of Hindu Rashtra is achieved only when the whole of India becomes the RSS! So, its main work continues to be low-key grassroots organisation ("sanghatanist paradigm") and every splash that occurs is only used towards strengthening that basic programme. The scholars who look for splashes are missing the forest for the woods. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:20, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Kautilya3: For 1949, the Curran source is stating "100,000". That is notable. That confirms a slump between 1948 and 1951. Please note that the sentence you tagged as dubious is attributed, has multiple sources, and I can embed a quote from the source if you wish. I would welcome a short summary from you, either from the Curran source or another, that improves the NPOV balance of that paragraph and addresses your "dubious-tagged" concern. Any other scholarly source(s) you want to summarize, or would like me to summarize, in that sub-section? I am going to hold off the further expansion for a little while, and focus on addressing the two sub-sections you have tagged since I have the relevant sources piled up on my desk. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * K3: I have the Saffron Brotherhood book published in 1987 by Andersen & Damle on my desk. Its chapters 3 and 4 has related discussion. Would summarizing a bit from it address your concerns? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The 100,000 figure is given for the day the ban was lifted (which was in 1949, not 1951) and the wording indicates that it was a pure guess. So, no reliance can be placed upon it. The RSS wasn't allowed to conduct any shakhas for 18 months and somebody guessed that 100,000 out of the original 400-500,000 would have still retained their commitment. But within another 18 months, they were able to get back the original numbers and even exceed them. So, I have no idea where you see a "slump".
 * Anderson & Damle has a lot of detailed factual information, for which it is a good source. But the authors relied too much on insider information, and they tend to be rather too sympathetic to the RSS. I checked yesterday what they said about the "decline", and it seemed to be insider information. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a solid review of the earlier work. I have read the 2018 version in more details and it is a sheer hagiography. &#x222F; WBG converse 15:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't see how this section can be rescued, given that the very first sentence of Frykenberg passage you cited contradicts it. Arvind Sharma says "Savarkar's vision" (which I can't understand from his paper) lay moribund. It says nothing about the RSS. The RSS vision is "Hindu Rashtra". That is what it has been from day 1 and it has never changed, never became "moribund". I personally find "Hindu Rashtra" much clearer than "Hindutva". But if the scholars want to identify "Hindu Rashtra" and "Hindutva", they can't say that either became moribund. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that as originally added, it reads "politically moribund". I have added a bit more from the source in the embedded quote, and some clarifying language to the main text. If it still looks odd to you, I am fine with you rewording it, or expanding it, or trimming it, or removing it. The article will be better if it has an appropriate summary on Hindutva history between 1947 and 1975 from the scholarly sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * (ps to your other comment above) On Anderson & Damle, agreed. There has been some falling out between the two lately, per a Damle interview that has been published. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Large, distorting, edits with laconic edit summaries
On a controversial page such as this, we cannot have 7.7 KB of text be added in one edit accompanied by an edit summary that pushes ellipsis beyond the tolerance of natural language ("rearrange, expand, add sources"). The edits have to be transparent, with explicit edit summaries, and made in such size at one time as to be comprehensible to neutral editors who might be monitoring the page for introduction of POV content. Already there are issues, as I see it. In the very edit, linked above, Anthony Parel has been summarized in the "Definitions" section as: "' According to Anthony Parel – a Political Scientist, the term 'Hindu' in Hindutva, from an ethnic nationalism perspective, has referred to 'people beyond the Indus river', whose identity is recognized by their ethnic origin (race), a special relationship to India as a holy land, and belonging to a culture – 'an ensemble of mythologies, legends, epics, philosophy, art, architecture, laws, rites, feasts and festivals'."

What Parel says on that page is: "'Hindutva, Who Is a Hindu? is in part an analysis of India's past from the point of view of Hindu ethnic nationalism, and in part a manifesto for future action. India of the past was the creation of a racially superior people, the Aryans. They came to be known to the outside world as Hindus, the people beyond the Indus River. Their identity was created by their race (jati) and their culture (sanskriti). 'All Hindus claim to have in their veins the blood of the mighty race incorporated with and descended from the Vedic fathers.'[42] They created a culture — an ensemble of mythologies, legends, epic stories, philosophy, art and architecture, laws and rites, feasts and festivals.[43] They have a special relationship to India: India is to them both a fatherland and a holy land. Only those who can claim India in this way can possess Hindutva. This automatically excludes Indian Muslims, Christians, Parsis, and Jews, for their holy land lies elsewhere. But it includes Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs. There is a subtle effort here to erase the distinct identities of these last groups, and to absorb them into the Hindu fold, something at least the Buddhists and the Sikhs have vigorously denounced. Savarkar was particularly hard on historical Buddhism and Islam. His complaint against Buddhism was that it made India militarily weak, and a helpless prey of foreign invaders. Its 'mealy mouthed formulas of ahimsa [non-violence],' its 'mumbo-jumbo' of universal brotherhood, and its exchange of 'the sword for the rosary' robbed India of its national virility.' As for Islam, the day Mohammad of Ghazni crossed the Indus, a 'conflict of life and death began.'[45] The hatred towards this particular foe ought to unite all those who possess Hindutva.' (pages 42–43, footnotes Parel's)"

Can someone explain to me by what principles of precis writing in the English language, and by what Wikipedia principles of neutral point of view and due weight, does the first paragraph become a summary of the second, especially when introduced under the rubric of "Definitions?" This is not the only example. The recent history of this article is littered with large, distorting, edits with minimal edit summaries.

I would like to state clearly and unequivocally that the article be returned to its version of 30 April 2019. The edits should then be made in digestible sizes, incorporating the input of and, who are competent editors in matters of Indian history. I would include and, but I'm not sure how much time they have. I don't have time for this either, but it is clearly headed in a wrong, dangerous, direction. Best, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I don't have much time for this at the moment; but if the first paragraph above was in fact intended as a summary of the second, then I am not happy with it. There's some serious if unintentional misrepresentation taking place. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, this is part of why I dislike the "Hindutva" terminology. It allows endless posturing about Hindutva–the concept, and brushing under the carpet of Hindutva–the ideology. But the ideology is what matters. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * ^^(+1). This watchlist bug is getting hell annoying and I have no clue as to the updates that's happening over the pages, I watchlist. I will take a detailed look tomorrow but I can't see as to how anyone can reasonably write the first mentioned paragraph as a summary of the second. &#x222F; WBG converse 18:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Please see the discussion above about context matters, the proposed sections, what should go into this article and other related articles, etc. This is not an article on Savarkar, nor an article on Hindutva: Who Is a Hindu?, for each of which we already have a separate article. Please note that we are discussing the definition section. The section already has the OED definition etc. The section needs clarification on what the term "Hindu" in Hindutva meant and means, per Parel and other scholarly sources. While weighing what should go into the "definition" section, I chose to keep it short and simple (I suggest we keep it that way). As originally added, I did include a refn note on Buddhist and Sikh views on that, from Parel, but again per context matters. The other parts from Parel quoted above are important and should be summarized in this article. That summary, along with much from many more scholars, I intended to add to a "Criticism and apologetics" section later this month. See my May 1 2019 comment above. Of course, there are many alternate ways to organize the content and as always, I am open to suggestions and input. We are far from a complete article. The work is in progress. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid it is not so much a definition section, as just one tertiary source, followed by text sourced to a large collection of secondary sources which give highly selective views of Hindutva, most of which, in my view, steer the reader away from the term's more commonly known, widely written about, less than benign, aspects. In a controversial topic such as this, it is very critical that the article early on summarize what the tertiary sources say about "Hindutva." For tertiary sources, "can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight." In the next hour or so, I will attempt to do so by splitting the section into (a) tertiary sources (and I mean ones that have individual entries for "Hindutva," not Handbooks or Companions, which have long articles that just happen to mention Hindutva, and which in effect, can become secondary sources,) (b) Secondary sources (which I likely won't touch) and (c) Savarkar, which too I won't touch. The tertiary sources section will not have any discussion of Savarkar's own contribution (geography, race/blood/fatherland, holy land etc). Again, I believe this is of paramount importance for orienting the reader. I'm afraid too short and too simple is very problematic. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  11:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've done what I could. Flat out of time now.  I've removed all the secondary sources from the definitions section; it is important for a reader to see the definitions as they are, in the spectrum they come in the tertiary sources, without interpretations, some of which in any case are indigestible at an early stage of an article's development.  Please distribute that text in more relevant later sections.  Best,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Religion
I find the phrasing "de-emphasizes religion and incorporates all Indian religions" to be an oxymoron. The first use of "religion" is in the sense of theology. The second use of "religion" is in the sense of identity/culture. Combining the two in one phrase is totally confusing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Kautiya3: Normally "all Indian religions" would mean all religions that originated in India. I don't know why you want to interpret that as identity, culture and whatnot. I'm assuming you didn't write those words.Sooku (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2020
Udhsh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.21.66.112 (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Sinn Fein
please change ((Sinn Fein)) to ((Sinn Féin)) 2601:541:4500:1760:A40F:42D2:1444:A4DF (talk) 19:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done MadGuy7023 (talk) 19:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Simple English article needs attention (especially re: NPOV)
The corresponding Simple English article for Hindutva is quite barebones, and what little is there read much like propaganda (at least until my few recent edits). It could definitely use elaboration, better citations, and potentially significant rephrasing to make it less biased/non-NPOV. V2Blast (talk) 09:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The definition of Hindutva from the perspective of different "Hindutva organizations" requires more details.
The definition of Hindutva from the perspective of different "Hindutva organizations", like RSS, is insufficient and too short as compared to other definition categories. It requires more details to provide a complete picture and balanced representation.

The definition of Hindutva from RSS perspective is as following: "a Hindu is a person who has been born and brought up in Hindustan, and 'Hindu' is not a religion, it's a way of life". (source: https://zeenews.india.com/news/india/what-is-rss-definition-of-hindu-and-hindu-rashtra-muslim-man-answers_1837568.html) The way of hindu life has some key principles, and one of them is "believing in one's own faith and respecting that of others". For example, most of the Indian peoples who believe in Ram and Krishna worship these gods, i.e., Ram and Krishna, but when they encounter a deity or picture of Guru Govind Singh Ji or Mahatma Budhh, they give them a due respect, even if they do not worship them. Therefore, RSS discards hindutva as a way of worship and believs that all Muslim, Sikh, Christian, Jain faith believers and a atheist can be a Hindu". Another example of this principle is how Charvaka was treated in India. Inspite of the fact that Charvaka was a atheist and rejected contemporary ritualism and supernaturalism, he is commonly regarded as Rishi (scholar) by the other theist Rishi (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charvaka). So, who ever believes in these key principles can be a Hindu irrespective of what 'way of worship' or religion he follows.

KillerBoy 21:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhanudaysharma (talk • contribs)


 * No, the principle on which Wikipedia is based is to use WP:SECONDARY sources, generally scholarly sources, to discuss such matters. What the organisations say about themselves can almost never be used. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)]]

Suggested revision to introduction
I suggest a revision from "The Hindutva movement has been described as "almost fascist in the classical sense", adhering to a disputed concept of homogenised majority and cultural hegemony.[4] Some dispute the fascist label, and suggest Hindutva has been an extreme form of "conservatism" or "ethnic absolutism".[5]" to

The Hindutva movement has been described as fascist, adhering to a disputed concept of homogenised majority and cultural hegemony by its opponents.[4] Others dispute the fascist label, and suggest Hindutva has been an extreme form of "conservatism" or "ethnic absolutism".[5]

For [4] other scholars who share the view of it being fascist can be grouped together in one grouped citation. Currently the quotation relies on the view of one individual. This phrasing makes the lead more neutral.

TSAray (talk) 17:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It does not make the content more neutral. Your proposal equates scholars studying Hindutva to its opponents. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * That is a fair point, instead of opponents "by some scholars". The reality is that the given quote is only the opinion of one scholar who also happens to be a Marxist and hence, carries some bias. TSAray (talk) 06:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, the link between Hindutva and fascism is made by hundreds, if not thousands, of sources, and so that qualification would be meaningless. "Has been described" is quite sufficient; that is, in any case, a less weaselly qualification than "some scholars". If the description was common to all sources, then we wouldn't qualify it at all. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2020
In the title section, replace the following text: The Hindutva movement has been described as "almost fascist in the classical sense", adhering to a disputed concept of homogenised majority and cultural hegemony.[4] Some dispute the fascist label, and suggest Hindutva has been an extreme form of "conservatism" or "ethnic absolutism".[5]

with the following text: Savarkar used the term "Hindutva" to describe an ethnic, cultural and political identity of those who consider India to be the land in which their ancestors lived, as well as the land in which their religion originated. Rchandraswiki (talk) 01:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * ❌. Please establish a consensus for this change before making such an edit request. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 01:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2020
The Hindutva movement has been described as "almost fascist in the classical sense", adhering to a disputed concept of homogenised majority and cultural hegemony.[4] Some dispute the fascist label, and suggest Hindutva has been an extreme form of "conservatism" or "ethnic absolutism".[5] Not Sherlock (talk) 15:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC) 'Hindutva' in itself, as coined by Veer Savarkar does not mean supremacy in any form whatsoever. It means a feeling of being 'Hindu' which is a geographical term used for people living east of the 'Sindh' river sharing a feeling of love for your land and celebrating each others differences and coming together as a family. The famous Indian lawyer, Ram Jethmalani calls it the 'elixr' of the Indian Constitution. It has recently been propagated by some individuals to be 'facist' in nature without understanding that the term was coined by Savarkar in 1923before the rise of the eastern ideology of Fascism which tries to dictate people and cause a rift between them, very much, unlike what 'Hindutva' stands for.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Please establish a consensus for this change before making such an edit request. Galendalia Talk to me CVU Graduate 16:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hindutva is a belief, it should not be judged in an article
Very clearly, Hindutva is a belief. It is not a phenomenon, a policy, a process or a crime, which must be judged. The article however labels Hindutva as fascist with Nazi Undertones. Clearly, this article has heavy bias. Sources provided ar National Herald, a newspaper affiliated with the dynastic Congress Party, which is completely against the RSS and BJP. It is bound to write against Hindutva. It should not be cited. Then papers critical of Hinduism and Hindutva are cited. One can never publish a paper in a favor of an iddeology, only critisism papers are accapeted. be it critiscism of Islam, Hinduism, Christianity, Taoism, Buddhism. Third a court statement, or rather a part of argument of a lawyer and judge has been cited. Very cleaerly these are personal opinions, they should not be considered as 'facts' supporting the articles content

Please. All the admins and moderators are requested to look into this matter. please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parlebourbon3 (talk • contribs) 07:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:Verifiability and WP:NPOV for how Wikipedia pages are written. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I know how articles are written on wikipedia. It's just that this article completely disregards Hindutva. The sources cited are critical of Hindutva and not even one, source which believes hindutva is good has been cited. The sources as well as the article can make a person unfamiliar to Hinudtva, believe that it is fascist, supremasist, aggresive and conservative. However that is what exactly Hindutva isn't. What this article potrays is often what is painted by the prejudiced 'intellectuals' and the biased media. And no, I am not defending Hindutva, neither I am attacking wikipedia. I am just saying that this article starts with a prejudice, labelling it as fascist, with Nazi Undertones. This is clearly a violation of Wikipedia Policy. An article, critical of Homeopathy is possible, since it is a part of scientific claims. However Hindutva on the other hand is an ideology in itself and should not be mentioned with a prejudice. True, it may have its disadvantages, but which ideology doesn't? DOes that mean that each and every ideology's page is biased against it? No. Then why Hindutva? WHy make an exception here? That is what I am saying. This is my personal opinion. I am not attacking any person here. I am just conveying my 2 cents to the administrators.Parlebourbon3 (talk) 09:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * RSS was inspired from the Hitler’s Nazism and Mussolini’s Fascism. The ideology advocates for Hindu supremacy. You are indeed right about the Homeopathy article, since it disproving it’s efficacy is scientifically done. However, this page does not attempt to “disregard” Hindutva. Hindutva was not inspired from Indic texts, it was inspired by Fascism, as has been cited several times in the article. Please read the article and check it’s citations before claiming that it is a violation of Wikipedia’s policy.182.69.187.42 (talk) 04:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Collapsed per WP:NOTFORUM. Mathglot (talk) 23:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

RfC addition of in-text attribution
"and as "almost fascist in the classical sense", adhering to a disputed concept of homogenised majority and cultural hegemony"

While I am not asking for the removal of Hindutva fascism. I want to imply that there should be a text-attribution for Prabhat Patnaik which quotes the statement correctly. Text-attribution "According to Marxist Economist Prabhat Patnaik" is highly required here before his quote. Wikipedia do not have a policy which restrict marxists to comment on Right wind issue, while I wholeheartedly agree on that, WP:BIASED states, "Common sources of bias include political..." Hence, seeing the bias and considering the policy WP:BIASED, A rephrased statement starting with According to Marxist Economist Prabhat Patnaik would be beneficial. Thank you. Jenos450 (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the view is held quite widely. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The first three sources displayed for me are Wikipedia, a student newspaper op-ed, and a Medium post. Regardless, if it is commonly held, it should not be hard to include some of the scholarship displayed there, and that moreover has no bearing on whether or not we should mark the potential biases of a source making a claim that is likely controversial given the obvious stigma of fascism. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 03:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support adding in-text attribution to that specific quote, but oppose doing it in the lede. See my comment below for the reasoning. --MarioGom (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, as above. A reworking of this section is likely required, but the view is not a minority view among scholars studying the subject, and so in-text attribution isn't appropriate. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment
Three points: (1) If the article is to quote Patnaik, the article needs to explain what Patnaik means by "in the classical sense". I don't know what he means by that phrase as I have access to only the first page of his article. (2) The sentence in its current form is vague and confusing. I suggest the following copy edit to improve clarity of expression and conciseness. "The Hindutva movement has been described as a variant of 'right-wing extremism'[5] and as fascist.[6][7]" (3) Describing Patnaik as a "Marxist economist" strikes me as editorial, i.e., it is not impartial. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 03:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC) Hey, thanks for the reply. I too believe that the sentence here adds confusion so adding a proper in-text attribution might be necessary. I would object your decision of directly calling it fascist as it is still wildly controversial and a very high proportion of people think its a way of conservation. I would suggest the following edit:

"Marxist Economist Prabhat Patnaik describes it as "almost fascist in the classical sense", adhering to a disputed concept of homogenized majority and cultural hegemony."

This would not only promote the readers to know whose research has been cited, but also a proper background of the scholar.Prabhat Patnaik wiki itself calls him that, as well as WP:BIASED welcomes such changes. Thank you. Jenos450 (talk) 10:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: (Summoned by bot) I think "almost fascist in the classical sense" is sentence too specific to go without in-text attribution, regardless of who is the author. On the other hand, it looks out of place in the lede. It should be replaced with an adequate summary of . Just addding the in-text attribution to the lede would make it look like it's a minority view, which it is not. --MarioGom (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That makes good sense. I agree with your recommendation. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 20:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2020
change sakha to shakha in the ideology>adoption section Azad Richa (talk) 04:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Kautilya3 (talk) 13:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Why does this start with a prejudice?
This article is prejudiced, and designed to perpetuate prejudice. Why do I say that? Because it pins the loaded, pejorative label "fascist" at the very beginning. That's a priori prejudice. How can a movement with roots in ancient Eastern culture be associated with an essentially European label? The Hindus that Savarkar derives Hindutva from had never heard of Europe.

It is a fundamental Orientalist fallacy to view Hindutva through the lens of fascism. At the very root, Hindutva is the search of a national identity in the incredibly, unbelievably diverse Indian subcontinent. It is fundamentally not, and cannot be shown to be, an exclusionary, majoritarian, oppressive and racist movement like fascism.

Please remove the early sentences containing fascism. They make a neutral reading of the article impossible. It is mischievous to start with a highly charged label associated with years of atrocities and millions of deaths. Sooku (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the above points. Also it states more details from a 3rd party observers making opinion based remarks on the underlying ideology, rather than quote from the source material. One should avoid any prejudices on a subject and keep the article as close to the source as possible. Trixon123 (talk) 00:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Hindutava indeed is in accordance with the fascist theocratic ideology and it was proven when the the prominent Hindutava leaders expressed their desire to replicate what Mussolni did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.66.105 (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

This page has some serious bias. Looks like it has been created/edited by a Hinduphobic person. The citations provided are unreliable. National Herald, a newspaper closely linked to the Nehru-Gandhi clan has been provided as a citation. This source is politically motivated and should be removed immediately. Parlebourbon (talk) 16:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You can try to correct the bias yourself. Wikipedia pages aren't created by a single entity, they are grown by an entire community. Several scholars have refered to Hindutva as "a meddling of Hindu Fascism and Hindu Fundamentalism," as has been cited several times in the article. Furthermore, Hindutva is not the same as Hinduism, and many Hindus condemn this ideology. Therefore, it would be wrong to simply call the article Hinduphobic without refutation. A source's origins from decades ago do not matter if they provide reliable enough information in the present. MBFC rates it "Mixed." Also, can you pinpoint where exactly National Herald was cited in the page so a more reliable source can be added? — The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk stalk 07:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

A July 2020 article with 0 citations has been used to make a blanket statement. Doesn't align with Wikipedia values. WP:SOAP. Cwarrior (talk) 01:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC about the introduction quotation
Need guidance in deciding to remove Prabhat Patnaik in the introduction, who apparently is a Marxist economist, it would be opinionated to cite him on right-wing cases like Hindutva. Neutral standpoint from a Marxist economist is not possible as it is still controversial if Hindutva is "almost fascist" or not due to different POVs. I believe political/ideological sources should be removed as per WP:BIASED. --Jenos450 (talk) 06:55, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal of fascism - There are no Wikipedia policies that prohibit "Marxists" or Leftists or the so-called "BIASED" sources. There is a large section on "Fascist and Nazi undertones" in the body. Hindutva fascism gives 182,000 hits on Google. So, this is not some isolated political view being propogated by supposed "Marxists". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Procedural comment -, please re-sign your first statement so that the RfC bot can pick it up properly and transclude just your opening sttatement instead of everything through the end of Kautilya3's vote. signed,Rosguill talk 21:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As Kautilya3 has made clear, we do not discount sources based on POV, only on reliability. I'm not seeing any policy-based reason for this removal. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – well, we could also discount sources if they represented cherrypicking of reliable sources expressing views of a tiny minority, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.  imho, your only avenue here is to demonstrate that the statement currently in the lead is so far out of step with majority and minority opinion, that it cannot be included in the article at all. That's a pretty high bar, but if you want to make any progress, that's what you're up against. The fact that you don't like it, or that it sounds critical or opinionated to you, isn't a reason for it not to be in the article. A person or group does not have to announce, "I am/we are fascist" in order for Wikipedia to say that, if it is reliably sourced and in compliance with WP:DUE WEIGHT. The criteria for inclusion of quoted, attributed material is even easier to satisfy. Mathglot (talk) 23:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment
Kautilya3, Taj mahal is a Hindu temple gives 45,00,000 hits on google. This doesn't signify anything, that is why it is controversial and not something that is widely upheld. The apex court of India (Supreme court) defines Hindutva as a way of life rather than anything. The Bench had further added, “no precise meaning can be ascribed to the terms `Hindu’, `Hindutva’ and `Hinduism’; and no meaning in the abstract can confine it to the narrow limits of religion alone, excluding the content of Indian culture and heritage”. Now, the statement "Hindutva being fascist is widely upheld" is a controversial statement. Thanks, kind sir. Jenos450 (talk) 11:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Support i agree with  भारत का प्रतिहार (talk) 07:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)  Blocked sock 13:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

On the first paragraph
Request to replace "described as" in first paragraph with "described by some" as the sources cited have very little secondary sources, and seem to be biased when describing the BJP, using terms like extremist, which reflects the author's opinion, and therefore may be subject to debate, and not necessarily an objective fact. Also, when referring to people suggesting Hindutva as a form of "conservatism" or "ethnic absolutism", the source cited is weak, and I cannot seem to find any information suggesting the existence of the authors anywhere outside of the article at all. It's outdated as well, as it is from 2000, and the site is in basic HTML.

I request that the first paragraph be revamped completely, and be open to editing, as to pointing out the errors in it in the future. Based47 (talk) 06:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:NPOV. "may be subject to debate" is not good enough. You need to provide evidence of actual debate. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2021
Thetraumitizer (talk) 02:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC) ayyavazhi has been referred as seperate but it is a part of hinduism.


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  -ink&amp;fables  «talk»  11:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Research Exists for Cow urine Benefits
Writeup under section Psuedoscience is not up to date. Benefits of cow urine has been discussed in research, and it is incorrect to say that no scientific backing has been found. See for example https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4566776/.

Vishwajeet103 (talk) 22:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Perhaps. But the ideologues didn't cite any science for their adocacy. They only cited faith. And that is peudoscience. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

But the statement made in article in factually incorrect. "No scientific evidence has been found" is factually incorrect. If the ideologues did not quote science, mention exactly this in the article that "Research has shown benefits from Cow urine but ideologues did not quote science". Moreover, dismissing ancient medicine practices as faith is pejorative. It is only due to the ancient practices, modern science took notice of this and started research. The same is true for many practices like "Mindfulness Meditation", "Yoga", "Nostril Breathing" etc. You cannot write since ideologues of Yoga did not quote science, "there is no scientific evidence" :) Vishwajeet103 (talk) 07:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * See WP:RSN. Looks like a fringe journal to me. Doug Weller  talk 08:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Doug Weller did you get a consensus on the RSN noticeboard? This 'review paper' appeared in the Journal of Intercultural Ethnopharmacology - which features in the list of possible/potential predatory journals (adapted from Jeffrey Beall's list, and maintained by a group of anonymous scholars). Going through the issues, it does seem like a fake/predatory journal. (However, in it's present avatar (Journal of Complementary Medicine), it seems legit.) Several citations from the 'review article' (most of the ones that refer to 'scientific' evidence or studies) also feature on the Predatory Journals list. As a side thought - which delves into the content of the article/claim itself, though not entirely irrelevant here - mammal urine with a significant portion of urea, would be 'antibacterial' insomuch as it kills bacteria that are directly exposed to it; but so does bleach, soap, and nitric acid, but neither of these can be used as an 'antibiotic' for medical purposes. To call something beneficial for health, it's not enough to show that a substance kills bacteria, but it needs to establish medical efficacy, ideally using the gold standard of a double-blind controlled publication. So, user:Vishwajeet103, the article you linked to does not in fact establish "benefits" of cow urine, and it fails to do so in a spurious journal citing other very spurious articles. For your argument about the practice of yogasana, there was no scientific evidence to the health benefits of yogasana until someone started doing some science with it; as in, conducting experiments or trials using something akin to the scientific method, as opposed to expressing faith in it, Neogarfield (talk) 11:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * several comments saying not reliable, none supporting. Vishwajeet 103 is indefinitely blocked for persistent tendentious editing, pushing pseudoscience and unreliable sources, ignoring warnings and violating WP:MEDRS.  Doug Weller  talk 13:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Rollback
I have removed the section as a whole diff because the unexplained edits recently done by Saumyalakhani fail WP:V, WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. The first sentence alone in this section is not supported by the sources even after using Frontline Hindu which makes no mention of "pseudoscience" and other one is Scroll which makes only one mention on title and only one mention of "Hindutva", thus fails WP:RSCONTEXT. Also see RSN discussion about Scroll. Aside from this, the rest of the information of the section just makes the connection of RSS and BJP leaders with whatever news sources say in violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR while the source does not make the connection of the subject (Hindutva) with personal and political beliefs of these leaders. Compared to the rest of the article that has used WP:SCHOLARSHIP sources. Dhawangupta (talk) 13:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Please provide exact quotes; what exactly does The first sentence alone in this section refer to? I guess this part:
 * Some additional sources:
 * Srinath Perur (2019), Science and the rise of nationalism in India, nature
 * Sanjay Kumar (2019), In India, Hindu pride boosts pseudoscience, Science
 * Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  14:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sanjay Kumar (2019), In India, Hindu pride boosts pseudoscience, Science
 * Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  14:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I am obviously referring to that first sentence. It is not supported by the sources as I already described. All other sources that have been used here, including Indian Express, Guardian,Al Jazeera, The Print, Hindustan Times and others have just made no mention of 'Hindutva' or 'pseudoscience'. Thus indeed, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:V is being violated here. While your sources[ don't make mention of "Hindutva", they appear to be targeting India as well as BJP as a whole. But subject here is "Hindutva" and it is necessary to follow [[WP:RSCONTEXT]]. What you are certainly looking for is the section that already exists on the article for years, and it is Hindutva, which already covers the content your links are showing but has used higher quality sources. Dhawangupta (talk) 15:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * If I understand correctly, you object wholesale against the subsection on pseudoscience? In that case, you shouldn't have done a mass-revert, or roll-back, but removed the subsection in question. And then, still, it might have been wise to first start a discussion... I'd rather raise the question if the examples given in that section aren't WP:UNDUE - eventually in addition to your objections. It can all be summarized in the first statement: "Hindutva organizations have been criticized for their belief in statements or practices that they claim to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method, and therefore are categorized as pseudoscience.", which is supported also by the sources provided by me. To state that those sources "don't make mention of "Hindutva" is sophistery; they obviously are about Hindutva. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  19:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Dhawangupta: I respond to your message on my talk page. Hindutva is well covered topic in peer-reviewed, high quality scholarly papers and books. The older versions of this article, worked on by Fowler&fowler, others and I, cited numerous scholarly sources on Hindutva. That is what this article should predominantly rely on, as it is a sensitive, controversial and potentially harm or hate-inciting to proponents or opponents of Hindutva. Please see community discussions on topics related to other sensitive and potentially harmful misinformation, such as medicine/health (WP:MEDRS). Newspapers and news-weeklies (magazines) are not appropriate or reliable sources here... Indian newspapers and news-weeklies in particular (we have discussed their widespread paid news problem, political bias, etc on RSN and elsewhere over time).
 * JJ, others and you should work together to develop a good summary based on high quality sources. JJ offers quality sources such as one from Nature and another from Science, which is worth reading in full and summarizing here in a neutral way. For example, the Nature article is not a pure or universalized criticism, but a carefully worded one. It states, among other things:
 * Ancient India abounded in scientific advances, in fields from astronomy and mathematics to metallurgy and surgery. The Sanskrit text Sushruta Samhita, dated to the first millennium BC, discusses techniques for skin grafts and nose reconstruction. These achievements, along with traditional Indian knowledge systems, were egregiously sidelined during colonial rule. Yet some nationalist rhetoric overstates or distorts history. Subramaniam shows how modern science has been bolted to Hindu mythology [...]
 * Note that the author, Srinath Perur, is careful in presenting the context and including the words such as "some" and "overstates or distorts", which editors of this article should try to incorporate. Context matters, is essential for neutral and fair summary. Our goal should be to properly summarize this and other high quality peer-reviewed scholarly sources: the context, the good and the bad as stated, not cherrypick phrases or criticism or support out of their context. Here is another well stated point in the same Nature article. Note the context and critical commentary together:
 * Many nationalists, who believe that the roots of Hinduism are vastly more ancient, have claimed that genetic research has debunked the theory. But, increasingly, studies such as a 2017 meta-analysis do point to relevant influxes around four millennia ago (M. Silva et al. BMC Evol. Biol. 17, 88; 2017).
 * Finally, we should not ignore the fact that the Nature article is a book review, and Perur is writing about and in the context of Subramaniam's book published by University of Washington Press in 2019. It is still relevant here. But a good summary should attribute and admit this in the summary here, avoiding new conclusions or novel allegations (OR or SYNTHESIS) beyond what Perur actually states.
 * Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * @JJ, on "you object wholesale against the subsection on pseudoscience", I would say I support the removal of that whole section as I have laid out above that why it needs to be removed and I already analyzed the used sources that they don't mention "Hindtuva" or "pseudoscience" and even if they mention either word they don't connect these established separate subjects with each other thus violating WP:SYNTH. Rest of the section just targets views of politicians (related to BJP or other Hindu politicians), court, etc. which is completely WP:UNDUE and unrelated to this subject in hand. Dhawangupta (talk) 09:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

user:Dhawangupta I agree with Dhawangupta carefull examine of sources should be done and only sources which are related to "hindutva" and £Pseudo science" should be kept. and article should be made neutral.Pseudo Nihilist (talk) 11:45, 30 January 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 13:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the opening-sentence, quotes above, with the sources I provided, can stay. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  12:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, wow! That section is backed by something like 50 citations. It merits its own page, as far as I am concerned. And it doesn't even begin to talk about Indigenous Aryans and Sarasvati River. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What would be title of that page? Religiously driven science related views of Sangh Parivar members? See WP:WWIN. Dhawangupta (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * @JJ: But those sources don't make mention of "Hindutva", also see comment by Ms Sarah Welch above. If you want to add an additional sentence on the next section, then you can, but the section about pseudoscience needs to go. Other than that, you should also see what your sources want you to believe. If you read your sources more carefully, then you would find it nothing different than what the next section (Hindutva) already say: "According to Jeffrelot, the Hindutva ideology has roots in an era where the fiction in ancient Indian mythology and Vedic antiquity was presumed to be valid. This fiction was used to "give sustenance to Hindu ethnic consciousness"." I don't think any more explanation is necessary. Dhawangupta (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We have two articles: Hindu nationalism and Hindutva. Please keep that in mind when deciding what should go in which article. Dhawangupta: you have some well reasoned concerns, but JJ is right that there are good scholarly sources on this. For example, please consider this Numen journal paper published in 2012, a secondary source by Cynthia Humes. It is recent but a bit dated as much has unfolded since 2012. Pages 188–198 of Humes repeatedly use the term Hindutva, wherein she discusses the (mis)use of "pseudoarchaeology and mythistory" by some Hindutva adherents. Once again the context is important... she discusses the historic Hindu-Muslim conflicts including those in the context of Pakistan and Bangladesh, and the colonial era one-sided narratives on race and other topics, how that has played a role. A careful summary of Humes etc would be along the lines JJ is suggesting, one that includes the context as stated in scholarly sources. Such a careful summary should be included in this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ps: Humes summarizes parts of Witzel's work, which anyone interested in this topic, should read too. Witzel makes very good points on Hindutva, IVC, how some Hindutva proponents have distorted and peddled myth as history, acknowledges "for the past five decades or so, the best specialists have no longer seen the influx of IA speakers as an 'invasion'. Linguists first, and archaeologists somewhat later, have stressed that such a scenario is too simple-minded and largely wrong", and such (p. 214, Rama's realm). But most scholars disagree with some of Witzel's strange "universalized" allegations in the passing, one he includes without strong persuasive evidence. For example, Witzel alleges every individual in Hindu society "suppresses, denigrates, exploits, persecutes" every other, it has "always been the guiding principle and practice", and "even among the Dalits there is always someone below them to denigrate and exploit" (p. 225, Witzel's paper). Witzel goes too far, and does not provide strong scholarly evidence for such sweeping claims. Most Hindu diaspora we meet, or those we meet while visiting India or Bali Indonesia, including the "ëudra and Dalits" Witzel refers to on p. 225 of Rama's realm, disagree that he or she, their family members or their parents or their friends have or currently "suppress, denigrate and exploit" others, or any human being for that matter, or that Hindu society or Hinduism illustrates or asks or teaches them to do so. More importantly, that is not mainstream scholarship, and most scholars disagree with Witzel there. In other words, this is a difficult and controversial topic. Don't rely on a single source, consider different sides. A good NPOV summary requires that we carefully read multiple sources, the context therein and the conclusions, and develop a summary that reflects the mainstream scholarship. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

There are article on Hindutva anti-science stance. https://frontline.thehindu.com/science-and-technology/hindutvas-science-envy/article9049883.ece https://www.thequint.com/voices/opinion/indian-science-congress-hinduism-hindu-right-wing-pseudo-science --Saumyalakhani (talk) 14:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock Raymond3023 (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The above objections appear correct given your whole argument is based on personal WP:OR, contrary the sources used by you. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 08:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Is anyone questioning the fact that prominent Hindutva supporters also support various forms of pseudoscience? I don't think so but the comment above by User:Aman.kumar.goel confuses me. I also think that we can use good quality media sources.  Doug Weller  talk 19:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Doug Weller, it is sheer ignorance to conflate cow urine and Hindutva. In fact, Congress stalwart and Deputy Prime Minister Morarji Desai, a staunch opponent of Hindu organizations, ran a medical clinic based on drinking your OWN urine -- which presumably killed thousands of "Hindutva" opponents. Sooku (talk) 10:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I wasn't talking to you, I was asking a question relevant to the content this article, which you didn't answer. Note that your comment about Desai is not appropriate here as talk pages aren't places to discuss the topic of the article and discussing Desai is not. Using Desai or sources that use him AND discuss him in relation to Hindutva directly would be. Doug Weller  talk 13:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Full of orientalist distortion
Hindutva does not need to be guessed at, or defined by opponents, enemies or cynics. The term's originator, Savarkar, wrote a detailed exposition in lucid and fluent English. It says that Hindutva is a national identity requiring Indian ancestry and allegiance to India as a nation. His work should be the default/primary description of "Hindutva". It is the height of orientalist distortion to let his critics define the term instead.

Secondly, Modi's government is absolutely NOT "almost fascist in the classical sense', adhering to a concept of homogenised majority and cultural hegemony". His motto, "sabka saath, sabka vikas" means "development for everyone, with everyone's help". RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat has also repeatedly said that the term Hindutva does not exclude anyone on the basis of religion. And the RSS has rejected caste from its very inception. Everyone is equal in their philosophy.

Fascism is a European and Christian construct and Hindutva is an Indian and Hindu construct. Equating the two is classic orientalism. A fair article must recognize this fact. Indeed several Christian writers (e.g. Frawley, Elst, Gauthier) who made the substantial effort necessary to understand Hinduism and Hindutva became supporters. Only superficial skimmers regurgitate without research. Sooku (talk) 10:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is written based on reliable sources. Your own opinions are of no consequence here. Please refrain from engaging in a WP:FORUMy debate. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Kautilya. I understand the RS policy and I believe that Savarkar's book "Essentials of Hindutva" that I listed qualifies as a reliable source. You can ignore the rest of my comments.Sooku (talk) 09:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Since Vinayak Damodar Savarkar is the originator of Hindutva, Sarvakar's Essentials of Hindutva is a primary source for this topic. The WP:PSTS policy has more information on the use of primary sources on Wikipedia:

Thank you. In this case, References 1 through 8 in the opening pargraph (secondary and tertiary sources), in broad agreement with each other, nevertheless present a single point of view. No sources are cited that present a different viewpoint. How can an article like this be NPOV? Is there a process to appeal that determination? 2600:1700:38D0:56D0:6CB7:6D36:99DD:766C (talk) 09:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Request to add
Requesting fellow users to add this under the section "Criticism and apologetics"

Upper casteism
When Prime Minister Vishwanath Pratap Singh launched the Mandal Commission to broaden reservations in government and public university jobs to a significant portion of the Shudras who were officially branded the Other Backward Classes (OBC), the propaganda outlet of the Hindutva organisation RSS, Organiser Magazine, wrote of “an urgent need to build up moral and spiritual forces to counter any fallout from an expected Shudra revolution”. According to social scientist and economist Jean Drèze, the Mandal commission angered the upper castes and threatened to distance OBCs, but the Babri Masjid's destruction and ensuing events helped to mitigate this challenge and reunified Hindus on an anti-Muslim alliance. He further says "The Hindutva project is a lifeboat for the upper castes in so far as it promises to restore the Brahminical social order" and the potential enemies of this ideology are not only Muslims, but also Adivasis, Dalits, Christians, secularists, rationalists, feminists, communists or anybody whose acts or might hinder the process of restoring the Brahminic social order. Although it is often known to as a majoritarian movement, Hindutva is indeed best expressed as an oppressive minority movement. According to French political scientist Christophe Jaffrelot, the Sangh Parivar organisations with their Hindutva ideology have strived to impose the belief structure of the upper caste Hindus. According to Dalit rights activist and political theorist Kancha Ilaiah, "Hindutva Is Nothing But Brahminism" and that only "Dalitisation can effectively counter the danger of Brahminical fascism disguised as Hindutva".

Comment: this paragraph is one-sided and selective. Besides Jaffrelot, there are authors such as Koenraad Elst and David Frawley whose analysis is suppressed. The allegations of Brahminical fascism, for example, are not supported by any current references to actual conditions in India. All the references are deliberately selected to push an agenda that distorts and vilifies Hindutva. How is this not one-sided ? Sooku (talk) 09:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2021
change Lal Krishnan Advani to Lal Krishna Advani Sanatsukuyomi (talk) 06:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 14:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

[...] Some dispute the fascist label, and suggest Hindutva is an extreme form of "conservatism" or "ethnic absolutism".
Who? Going through the paper, I couldn't find anything which suggested that Hindutva is not fascism. This entire article strikes me as trying to portray the Hindutva in the most diluted, apologetic way as possible. SourceIsOpen (talk) 15:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Pinging . -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2021
Change "Hindutva" to "Hindutva(also known as Hindutwa)", as written in the RSS website: https://www.rss.org/Encyc/2012/10/22/rss-vision-and-mission.html HotVector (talk) 22:13, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Are there any more sources using that spelling that would support also known as? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:37, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2021
Change Jeffrelot to the correct spelling, Jaffrelot in the section "Ahistorical premises, mythology as history"

Zeancl (talk) 18:52, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Kautilya3 (talk) 19:54, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Add information from the rss.org website
I noticed that there is no information in this article derived from the largest advocator for Hindutva, RSS(rss.org). I have not read their website, but it seems appropriate that information from the RSS website be added to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HotVector (talk • contribs) 23:16, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Not a reliable source. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:43, 9 July 2021 (UTC)


 * A CHALLENGE TO WIKIPEDIA POLICIES


 * Gadling's response above is typical of the prejudice that permeates the entire conversation about Hindutva. THe anti-Hindutva people set themselves up as THE authority, even when the term itself has been defined by Indians and motivates millions of Indians at the present time, and call the originators of the concept "not reliable". That's not too different from a white master telling his slaves to shut up.


 * History shows that white male scholars always start out denigrating, denouncing and trivializing any outsiders, whether it's women, African blacks, American blacks, Native Americans, Aborigines, Muslims, Orientals, Jews or Hindus. And it takes a massive effort by the "other" to correct the white male prejudice. All the defamed minorities EXCEPT Hindus have redeemed themselves in "alternate" histories. Only the Hindus are still denied a seat at the table, and shooed away like dogs (with the slogan, "Hindu nationalist !!!") and not taken seriously at all. Yet there are HUNDREDS of Indian scholars who have recovered the truth from the racist, colonialist white man's narrative.. only to be called names.


 * I challenge the entire Wikipedia hierarchy: give Hindus the same right to define themselves as you have given other marginalized and hated communities! Stop spitting hate at any Hindus who dare to think different. At the very least, allow them to present their side, instead of haughtily dismissing it as "not reliable" or "not mainstream". Both Galileo and Einstein weren't mainstream -- but they were right and the establishment of opinionated fools was wrong. Believe me, the same thing can happen in the soft "social" sciences, far more easily, and endure much, much longer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sooku (talk • contribs) 00:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Learn how to WP:SIGN and how to WP:INDENT so others do not have to clean up after you.
 * If you want the RSS site to be treated as a reliable source, go to WP:RSP, which decides such things. Won't be easy though, since so many RSS claims are obviously wrong. This has nothing to do with hate, but with competence and honesty.
 * Hindutva is not as unique as you claim. Wikipedia does not accept any "alternate histories" (or alternative facts, for that matter). See Nationalist historiography. Wikipedia rejects claims by anybody who tries to rewrite history without good evidence, be they Nazis, Stalinists, Turkish nationalists, Christian Creationists, Erich von Däniken fans, Immanuel Velikovsky fans, time shrinkers, Native American creationists, Hindutva, Islamic Creationists, Japanese nationalists, Moon landing deniers, Afrocentrists, Atlantis proponents, Anthroposophists, and many others. You will note that many of those contradict each other. You can see that you are not the only group telling stories which are just not good enough to be accepted as true by serious people.
 * Further reading about why you are in the wrong place if you want crazy ideas treated as true: WP:FRINGE, WP:LUNATICS, WP:YWAB.
 * Almost forgot: I don't think there is any crackpot who never compared himself to Galileo. But Galileo and Einstein got accepted not because they whined about being treated badly, but because they had good evidence on their side. Try that instead. (Spoiler: It won't work, because you are wrong.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:24, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

What does "Hindutva in the West" state?
There has been a claim in Special:Diff/1035089308 that the "Hindutva in the West" paper cites Hindutva as a form of revolutionary conservatism and not as an extreme form of conservatism. Please verify the source. -- DaxServer (talk) 15:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)


 * @Shivj80 Pinging the user who added the quote. -- DaxServer (talk) 15:22, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, further down in this very article someone else wrote that the journal article called Hindutva revolutionary conservatism @DaxServer. So I thought it made more sense to just standardize the terminology. Here is the sentence: "The academics Chetan Bhatt and Parita Mukta reject the identification of Hindutva with fascism, because of Hindutva's embrace of cultural rather than racial nationalism, its "distinctively Indian" character, and "the RSS’s disavowal of the seizure of state power in preference for long-term cultural labour in civil society". They describe Hindutva as a form of "revolutionary conservatism" or "ethnic absolutism"." Shivj80 (talk) 15:46, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Questionable sources of citation
Most of the sources used in the making of the article appear to be biased, circumstantially or otherwise. What can be done to improve neutrality in this article? Ranamode (talk) 17:15, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Biased in what way? Marxist? Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  19:47, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  A lot of the sources in the article are known to be blatantly against Hindutva, the rest are neutral. I have not so far seen a single source in support of Hindutva. Even if you support Hindutva or not, there is not enough fairness in the article as it does not represent all sides of the argument. Ranamode (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree, Ranamode. Do you know of any more neutral sources that could be used here? Shivj80 (talk) 15:48, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Shivj80 I think we could start by discussing the topic directly from the works of Savarkar where he laid the principles of Hindutva. Ranamode (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2021 (UTC)


 * We don't "support" or "oppose" Hindutva. We summarise reliable sources. Savarkar is not a reliable source (which page you must read before you post here again). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:34, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Adding Hindutva Harassment Field Manual
I suggest we add references to and maybe a section on the Hindutva Harassment Field Manual: https://www.hindutvaharassmentfieldmanual.org/

There's a lot of good information there, including a definition of Hindutva: https://www.hindutvaharassmentfieldmanual.org/defininghindutva Also a whole glossary of terms: https://www.hindutvaharassmentfieldmanual.org/glossary

The manual is written by a group of scholars, so well resourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahinshah121 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 8 July 2021 (UTC)


 * , it's a campaigning organisation. It could be used as a primary source to talk about the organisation's views, but not for unattributed assertions of fact. Girth Summit  (blether)  12:29, 8 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about that. It's a scholarly effort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahinshah121 (talk • contribs) 9 july 2021 (UTC)


 * Here is the 'about' page of the organisation that published this. I appreciate that it's run by scholars, and it seems like their goals are laudable, but it's clearly a campaigning/activist organisation. I'd be very dubious about using their publications to support assertions of fact. (As an aside - I wonder whether there are independent secondary sources giving them significant coverage. I haven't checked, but I wonder whether the collective themselves are notable - we don't seem to have an article about them, or this field manual. I might dig around for sources at some point. Best Girth Summit  (blether)  09:00, 9 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The Field Manual in itself is worthy to mention, under the header "Hindutva harassment," in which Sheldon Pollock, Wendy Doniger, and Romila Thapar can also be mentioned. I've added an external link, but the plain fact that such a manual is even necessary, to protect the academic freedom, should be mentioned here. Academic freedom is the raison d'etre of Wikipedia! See also ‘Targeted by hate’: Audrey Truschke on why she helped write a ‘Hindutva Harassment Field Manual’. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  08:31, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , I agree that mentioning the manual is probably worthwhile, and I wouldn't be averse to a description of its contents; all I'm saying above is that we shouldn't use it to support unattributed statements of fact - does that make sense? Girth Summit  (blether)  15:12, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Truschke herself is controversial though because she has been accused by Rutgers students of making Hinduphobic statements. An article or statement from that point of view may be helpful to improve the neutrality of this section. Shivj80 (talk) 21:46, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I won't say that we should label it as a "threat" or "harassment". Better and a neutral term would be "conflict". Per WP:RS we should avoid using an opinion piece from a website written by the campaigning organization in the question. Dhawangupta (talk) 16:22, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The term "harassment" is used by multiple sources. The term "conflict" gives too much credentials to Hindutva-activism; they have a conflict, with the modern world and academic standards. They want to force their worldview on other people. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  05:17, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2021 TOPIC: Hindutva
Reason: Tye article on the topic Hindutva states that Hindutva “is a form of fascism” to which I disagree i do agree it is right wing extremism but it isn’t “fascism” hindutva is protecting our culture from getting vanished 122.171.79.117 (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Reason: Tye article on the topic Hindutva states that Hindutva “is a form of fascism” to which I disagree i do agree it is right wing extremism but it isn’t “fascism” hindutva is protecting our culture from getting vanished
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Adding new section on Academic Freedom
Reason: There are the latest updates and news with regards to Academic Freedom and Threats with regards to Hindutva and Academic Freedom. There is a section for "Threats to Academic Freedom". There need to be fact-checked details of the proponent of the arguments. Please do a review and let me know. Hrishirise (talk) 16:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Hrishirise (talk) 16:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You do realize your sources are a) reporting the opinion of the HAF, or b) opinion pieces, or c) whatever the hell this is? In other words, none of your sources are good enough for the proposed content, and their use would constitute undue weight in any case. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. Do you only support sources from South Asia Scholar Activist Collective which is weighing towards another side? This goes against wikipedia bipartisanship if we do not share the media response and outcome of the conference. I can still remove the Republic World opinion piece from the article. The intention is to also report the media response and new feedback that was provided. Hrishirise (talk) 22:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * @Hrishirise Wikipedia is not a place to spread conspiracy theories as set out in the Republic World article. — DaxServer (talk to me) 08:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't care what affiliation the scholars have, but any sources you want to use for contentious material need to be unquestionably reliable, and the sources you have provided are not, for the reasons I have discussed. Vanamonde (Talk) 08:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Obviously some people don't like it when their bigoted attitude is being questioned. Linking SASAC with the Taliban is sick. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  11:29, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * First of all who are you calling "Bigoted"? Such language should by you needs to be reported. It's pretty clear you want to reject any unbiased edits here and are intentionally putting hurdles. Also, looks like you have no idea to even maintain this page. Because the comparison is between Taliban and Hindutva because of the way this event is timed, nobody compared Taliban and SASAC. Even then i am ready to remove that reference and language. How dare you call the contrary opinions as bigoted and allow an eco-chamber-based cross-referenced articles by the same members who are known to spread misinformation and aligning Hindutva to BJP or a Political movement. How can you call the news sources as unreliable, the point is to link the media response section. Are you saying Wikipedia does not have those news sources as citations? It is clear that you are part of the biased bandwagon here. I request refuting such language and abuse by someone here and  rights to edit should be revoked. He is here to basically create an echo-chamber based and false narratives.  @DaxServer Wikipedia is not a place to cross-reference a echo-chamber either and pure biased based narratives. This is not a fake and false media outrage. There is real state of Hinduphobia that Indian American students are facing on campuses. So the real victims are Indian American students and not the Academia.     Hrishirise (talk) 02:52, 28 August 2021 (UTC).

Talking about being 'unbiased', let it sink in why those people feel threatened by Hindutva-activists, and then you'll understand why I call them bigoted. I think you read the relevant remarks: if you want to "link the media response," first consider if noticing this event is WP:DUE, then come up with some WP:RS, not this crap, not to speak of WP:OR. You're simply using this event as an excuse to vent your opnions. Let's rephrase your proposal:

In summary: your "news"-sources are the usual outrage and misinformation from whay you call 'echo-chambers'. And linking the conference to the Taliban is insane. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  05:18, 28 August 2021 (UTC) Nothing about this conference belongs in this article as per WP:NOTNEWS. Of course, if any peer-reviewed publications come out of it that cover issues on Hindutva in the contemporary world, they may be used for sourcing content. Republic World is not a reliable source for pretty much anything. I suggest we stop this pointless discussion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:15, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Kautilya3 Yes, if that's the case then the "Threats to Academic Freedom" which cites instances with dates of events and conferences is not relevant either. Once we decided to add South Asia Scholar Activist Collective and published the Hindutva Harassment Field Manual, that creates a one-sided picture of western academia and these conferences which need to have bigger picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrishirise (talk • contribs)

Vanamonde User:Joshua Jonathan @DaxServer. You called me "Bigoted". I followed the rules of the civil discussion. Then imposing restrictions and notices on me. At this stage, I am completely sure that you guys will bandwagon against any voices which are "unbiased". You are abusing me, threatening me with bans and restrictions even with single-line edits from the beginning and reverting even small changes from day 1 which were sourced from other Wikipedia pages. I followed the talk channel and you all started attacking me there. This is the true definition of "threatening" or "threatening academic freedom". You have a one-sided view of what's a reliable source and what's not. You guys suppressing any unbiased voices because you are admins and have more experience maintaining this page. Not only that your personal biases are pretty clear above. At this stage, I am planning to file for an Arbitration request of other options for adding the section "Threats to Academic Freedom" and not letting me add the section "Hindutva and risk of Hinduphobia".
 * User:Joshua Jonathan are cherry-picking only 2 news sources in my citation of Republic World and Scroll.in and ignored the rest of 10 major news reports with different concerns raised? Also highlighted the points made by Scroll.in more.
 * User:Joshua Jonathan said, "You're simply using this event as an excuse to vent your opnions". Who am I to do so? I am not part of any organization. I am a US Citizen who has kids who will goto school and have already faced racism and hinduphobic attacks. And I am simply reporting events.
 * User:Joshua Jonathan mentioned "The organizers remain anonymous, due to the "a high volume of attacks" and "the need for safety.". How do you know this? Are you in direct contact with them or any citation here? Please provide the attacks and instances, we need citations for such statements. Appealing universities and taking legal action are not attacks or threats to academic freedom. Every citizen has legal rights to call our academia, politicians or anyone for any reason as long it's through legal means. Tell me about 1 incident of Hindutva hate crime in the US? On the other hand, tell me a list of racist attacks Hindus and brown people face by White supremacists in the US? In this case, the oppressor is well known to play victim card politics to keep oppressing. And you are supporting such threat perceptions.
 * User:Joshua Jonathan mentioned, "Hindu American Foundation" has asked 41 Universities to remove support. How do you assume it's only 1 organization? There is CoHNA: Coalition of Hindu's in North America and there are many more. And most importantly, there are Hindu Americans who are personally feeling threatened by racial and religious hate crimes by White supremacists groups. Do you mean to say White supremacist groups don't attack Hindutva people? The members of this conference call "Hinduphobia" a myth, how is that possible? So White supremest groups ask people if you are Hindu or Hindutva guy and they know the difference? And then they won't racially attack you if your Hindutva guy. Is this the logic here? Is this a joke? User:Joshua Jonathan VanamondeDaxServer
 * User:Joshua Jonathan ask for reliable sources. What reliable source do you have to call "Hindu American Foundation" which has links with the Sangh Parivar. Do you have a reliable source to justify this portrayal? And why is even that information needed.  Did you investigate who is behind  South Asia Scholar Activist Collective? There are private NGO's whose fundings is questionable and supports separatist movements, there are professors whose Twitter accounts were suspended for calling assassination of Prime Minister of India Modi. Did you investigate?
 * User:Joshua Jonathan mentioned Scroll.in an article supporting the conference. This is the most laughable reference. The article is written by a member of South Asia Scholar Activist Collective who is backing the conference from day 1. Not only that its the same writer Rohit Chopra whose Twitter account was suspended for calling for the assassination of PM Modi.
 * You guys allowed to add the section ""Threats to Academic Freedom", which has nothing to do with this topic of Hindutva which is global. And the citation was a news source with 1 link. So that is reliable? And what was the attack? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrishirise (talk • contribs)
 * Nothing about the conference belongs at this page. WP:NOTNEWS. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Regarding threats and the HAF: I've quoted the sources provided by you. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  20:17, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Request to Change Topic Title
The article is titled as "Hindutva" with no real meaning mentioned inside the article, instead a propagandist view is presented in the article. How can Hindutva ever mean "Hindu Nationalism"? The word's direct meaning in Sanskrit is "Hinduness". How did the word's meaning suddenly changed and Wikipedia allowed that happen? A word's meaning should never be changed. Aniruddh 14:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

What is Real Hindutva
What is Real Hindutva Akashandme1 (talk) 14:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2021
Wiki was vandalised by a troll User:Akashandme1. I wish to revert it. ClemBaby (talk) 15:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Adding new section on Dismantling Global Hindutva Conference
The proposed Dismantling Global Hindutva Conference supported by more than forty-five American Universities titled "Dismantling Hindutva" is a xenophobic declaration of war against the RSS and Hindus.  2405:201:D01B:6A8D:398C:4357:788E:75CE (talk) 11:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The Hindus will be well-equipped to fight it out - Antani will ensure that they come to universities with Kalashnikovs. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:35, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Content about DGH fails WP:NOTNEWS. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to make seperate article? 2405:201:D01B:6A8D:79EE:DEE8:A99C:F871 (talk) 14:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Rather call it self-defense. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  14:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Dismantling Global Hindutva Conference is a redirect to Hindutva, but that article does not mention what it is. It should either mention it, or the redirect should be deleted. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * [...] universities titled "Dismantling Hindutva" is a xenophobic declaration of war against RSS and Hindus, in your proposal xenophobic is your POV. Do you have a source which mentions that as "xenophobic" or "Hinduphobic"? Sources your cited, [1], Twitter isn't WP:RS, [2], you're linking to the conference page and calling it "xenophobic" which is your POV, [3], that news source doesn't mention DGH as "Hinduphobic", it rather expresses HAF's opinion. Wiki Linuz  ( Ping me! ) 17:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Some people want a Wikipage on a corner-place academic conference before it even happened, just in order to brand it with their POV. There is Hindutva for you. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * entire text is copy and paste from . 2405:201:D01B:6032:3560:FD5B:1347:E9D2 (talk) 11:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * yes, a wiki page on Dismantling Global Hindutva is required. 2405:201:D01B:6032:3560:FD5B:1347:E9D2 (talk) 11:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Threats to academic freedom
An important meeting to cover: -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Apoorvanand, Deepa Kumar, Thomas Blom Hansen, Audrey Trushke, Congressional Briefing: Hindu Supremacist Attack on Academic Freedom, Indian American Muslim Council, via pscp.tv, 8 September 2021.
 * TrangaBellam (talk) 17:24, 11 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Practicing Hinduphobia in the guise of academic freedom The Washington Post, 11 Sept. 2021.
 * According to the source,


 * 1) Denial of anti-Hindu sentiment and justification of documented genocides on the discourse.
 * 2)  Upfront Hinduphobic authors on the panelists of DGH, such as Meena Kandasamy who called Rama as a “dickhead” in her Random Access Man, 2012 poem for The World's Poetry Archive and further (inappropriate) claims by Kandasamy that Rama was hunting for the “testicles” of the deer in the Golden Deer incident on the epic Ramayana, thus in the guise of “scholarly publication” practicing Hinduphobia with immunity of Academic freedom..
 * 3) Prejudicial and predetermined view of Sanskrit grammar as inherently “oppressive” and reducing Hinduism to “casteism”, ignoring everything else.
 * 4) Unauthorized usage of institution's logos on the promotion, violation of 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure.
 * 5) Politicizing Hindu identity, and Hindutva and Hinduism being melded together.  Wiki Linuz  ( Ping me! ) 18:04, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Random opinion pieces, syndicated from other websites, fails WP:DUE. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Washington post passes WP:RSP. Wiki Linuz  ( Ping me! ) 19:08, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It is. But, the relevant policies are WP:RSEDITORIAL and WP:DUE. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Rewriting lead
We have multiple high-quality sources on the topic. Why not develop a well-sourced lead? TrangaBellam (talk) 20:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That's been on my "if-i-have-the-time" list for a while, so I'd be happy to pitch in, but can't do too much heavy lifting. Why don't you make a list of sources in a sandbox somewhere, and ping me? Vanamonde (Talk) 12:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , noted. I will make a list of sources (with quotes) at User:TrangaBellam/sandbox. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:45, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Travel will somewhat curtail my participation this week, but I will try to take a look on the weekend. Vanamonde (Talk) 11:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Hindutva with Taliban and Ku Klux Klan
record something from and or from any other reliable sources. 2405:201:D01B:6019:A14F:C22E:676B:77EF (talk) 14:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Poderias traduzir esta página? Seria útil pois posso citar decolonialidade. Além disso não consigo achar a ferramenta de tradução. Att 2804:14C:5BB1:8AF2:FD37:CBEC:556C:F7EB (talk) 15:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)


 * OK. HERE. Dr. Loo Talk to me 23:05, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2021
Hindutva is Hindu + Thatvam meaning hindu's principles. We do not like this getting denigrated by Leftist writers who out there to criticize political parties affiliated with Hindu religion. It is like saying Islam meaning terrorism or Christianity meaning Fascism. Please remove the following lines from the article based on some writers who are critical of Hindu religion and/or political parties which has leaning towards Hindus. But this word represents all Hindus and hence the following description doesn't

The Hindutva movement has been described as a variant of "right-wing extremism"[5] and as "almost fascist in the classical sense", adhering to a concept of homogenised majority and cultural hegemony.[6][7] Some analysts dispute the identification of Hindutva with fascism, and suggest Hindutva is an extreme form of conservatism or "ethnic absolutism".[8] Sankaran.logan (talk) 04:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. WikiLinuz  ( talk ) 04:20, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Etymology
"Hindu" is a Persian language word which made its way into the lexicon of North Indian vernaculars such as Urdu via Persian itself; -tva, of course, is the Sanskrit suffix (like -ness in English) which converts adjectives into nouns (of quality, state or condition). R. S. McGregor's Oxford Hindi English Dictionary, OUP, 1992, gives the etymology to be Hindu (P.) + -tva (S.). The OED's June 2020 revision seems to have turned it to be a word of modern Sanskrit. I would urge caution in using that interpretation.

In my view, it is usually non-native speakers of Hindi or Urdu, unaware of the cadences of the languages, which Hindu nationalists often are, viz Savarkar (Marathi), Shyama Prasad Mookerji (Bengali), Gowaliker (Marathi), Modi (Gujarati), Yogi Adityanath (Garhwali), who end up creating or perpetuating such neologisms in Hindi. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  20:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)


 * "Hindu" has been borrowed into Sanskrit for several centuries. Some of the phrases I have seen are Hindu dharma, Hindu-raya-suratrana and Haindava dharmodharaka (upholder of Hindu faith). The last one is especially interesting because it applies a Sanskrit grammar derivation to the word "Hindu". It is quite common for Sanskrit to borrow foreign language words by the way. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 04:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that very informative reply. That of course is true in some sense from the get-go, when Vedic Sanskrit picked up the Dravidian names of flora and fauna of its new lands. I don't know how old "saindhava" (literally "of the Sindhu" (Indus), but applied to the Himalayan Rock Salt, much of which comes from the region (now in Pakistan) just before the Indus debouches into the Punjab plains) is. In your context,  if it is two centuries old, what does that mean as Sanskrit has been a dead language for nearly a millennium, at least no longer a living language (although works were written in Sanskrit in the same way Newton had written the Principia in Latin)?  On the other hand, Hindi prose, ie Sanskritized Hindustani prose, did not take off until the mid-19th century. So where was "Haindava" written? Thanks again.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The concept of a "dead language" may not be very helpful to understand how Sanskrit works in India, because Indian languages have tatsama (Sanskrit-equivalent) and tadbhava (Sanskrit-derived) words. Sanskrit grammar applies to the tatsama words and phrases, whereas tadbhava words are used similar to native words. So, even if Sanskrit was not spoken, Sanskrit words were needed in modern languages to take the place of tatsama words. For example, Turushka is used as a tatsama word for Turk, while something like Turaka is used as a tadbhava word. Let us also keep in mind that Sanskrit texts continued to be written and read, and Sanskrit phrases coined for concepts and titles well into the modern period. (This is independent of the Sanskritisation movement in Hindi.)
 * The word "Haindava" implies that "Hindu" was thought of as a noun (of the people or the country) and "Haindava" was needed as a derived adjective. We don't find this in Hindi at all. But we find it among the Marathis, Telugus, Keralits and perhaps Kannadigas (Google hits for "Hindava"). One of these hits is "Haindava Kraistavam" ("Indian Christianity"). Oh, by the way, "Kraistavam" for Christianity is a similar word also! There is also "Mahammadiya" for Muslim/Muhammaden. All tatsama words.
 * All said and done, to practically all Indians, "Hindutva" is a perfectly natural Sanskrit word, its roots notwithstanding. If not for Savarkar and his ilk, it would have been quite a noble concept. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * PS. "Saindhava" meant people of Sindh in the Mahabharata, and, of course, "Sindhu" was the name of their country in Sanskrit. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That is very interesting. Thanks!  If you don't mind my persisting a little more, why do you think, "We don't find this in Hindi at all. But we find it among the Marathis, Telugus, Keralits and perhaps Kannadigas (Google hits for "Hindava"). One of these hits [10] is "Haindava Kraistavam" ("Indian Christianity").?"
 * This is the intuition that I was coming from. Supporting what you have mentioned is the fact that of the 472 constructions in Hindi ending with -tva, "hindutva" seems to be the only one in which the suffix -tva is attached to a non-Sanskrit word.  See in the definitive dictionary of Hindi, which was published in its revised version over a ten-year period in the 60s or early 70s. "hindutva" is number 467. In Platts, published circa 1882, "hindutva" does not appear.  See here; note the lexicographic order is Persian/Urdu.  That means most likely it entered Hindi around the time of Mr Savarkar's use of his Marathi-based tradition which was alive and well, as you state.
 * Could it be that as Persian and Urdu were much more prevalent in the Hindu-Urdu belt, and there was greater awareness not only of the grammar and suffix formation of those languages (e.g. Persian "zinda" (alive) + Persian -gi == Persian, Urdu, and Hindi "zindagi" (life)), or Persian "kamina" (low or mean) + Persian "gi" (suffix) = Persian "kaminagi" (lowliness) (see #303) but also of the well-established tradition of adding the suffix "-pan" (from Prakrit dating to the first millennium CE but originally from the older tradition of adding -tvam in Sanskrit) to words foreign to the Prakrit base of Hindi/Urdu, (e.g. Persian "kamina" + Prakrit "-pan" =  Hindi/Urdu "kaminapan" = (see #4, #229) -tva" was kept only for Sanskrit words? In other words, I suspect that Hindi speakers (even those who favored Sanskritization) would have avoided constructions such as "Hindutva," in favor of "hindupan," which is a word of Hindi proper.  That, in my view, might explain the nonstandard form of Hindi someone like Modi speaks which some people take to be Hindi, but which is really Sanskritized constructions from Gujarati being used in his Hindi. On the other hand, Gandhi, who made a self-conscious attempt to learn Hindi did not speak nonstandard Hindi, though his Hindi might have been rudimentary.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:23, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * PS I should have checked the OED last night. I have just done so.  In the etymology for Hindutva, it does mention the affix -pan, and Hindi word "hindupan":  "Etymology: < modern Sanskrit hindutva Hindu qualities, Hindu identity < hindu ( < Hindi hindū : see Hindu n.) + classical Sanskrit -tva, suffix forming abstract nouns, after Hindi hindupan, in the same sense."  I'm further confused by the absence of the word "hindutva" in any of the Sanskrit dictionaries (either attributively as -tva or nominally as -tvam) I've checked other Sanskrit dictionaries as well.  Furthermore, the OED's attested examples of usage start with the following two:"1913  Jrnl. Royal Asiatic Soc. Oct. 871   As Frenchmen are justly proud of their Latinity, so are Bengalis justly proud of their Hindutva, of the fact that almost every Bengali word can be traced to a Sanskrit origin. 1923   V. D. Savarkar Hinduism i. 4   Hindutva embraces all the departments of thought and activity of the whole Being of our Hindu race."
 * The OED says further in its notes: Popularized in the nationalist sense by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar's 1923 treatise, Hinduism (see quot. 1923), which was later republished with the title Hindutva. It seems Hindutva was a tatsam word (as you stated in your original post) in Bengali and possibly Marathi, which became prevalent eventually in Hindi (possibly as a result of being promoted by various Hindu nationalist organizations), and as a result, gained its current notability. Without its induction into Hindi, I doubt it would have made it; more likely, Hindupan might have.  But this is in the realm of OR ...  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it slipped my mind to say that the original coinage was from Bengal. -tva can be freely added to any tatsama noun to mean "the quality of". It doesn't have to be in a dictionary. Words in common use include mānavata and mānavatva ("humanness" or humanity), paśutva ("animalness" or inhumanity). The word for government in Telugu is prabhutva ("rulerness"). Apparently, Telugu did not borrow sarkar. One can derive, for example, ānglatva or āngleyatva from āngla (tatsama word for English - obvious borrowing from French). But you would never say "Englishatva". The word had to become a tatsama before you can -tva to it.
 * Hindi, in my view, is an outlier to all this. Being the spoken language of Delhi without a literary tradition, it probably lost much of its Sanskrit connections. Bhojpuri and other UP languages would be better examples of the north Indian tradition. But note that Hindi uses the -at suffix, probably taken from Persian, with a similar role. You find insaniat and angreziyat in Hindi. But, for some reason, hinduvat doesn't work!
 * I suppose all Indian languages also have the equivalent of the "-pan" suffix. In Tamil, it is tanmai. So, "Tamilness" is tamil-tanmai to them. But "Hinduness" is still indutvam! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I suppose all Indian languages also have the equivalent of the "-pan" suffix. In Tamil, it is tanmai. So, "Tamilness" is tamil-tanmai to them. But "Hinduness" is still indutvam! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * About the Sanskrit dictionaries, I didn't really expect that Hindutva would be found in them. But Hindu is found apparently and that is evidence that Hindu was regarded as a Sanskrit word (in addition to it use as tatsama word in other languages).
 * About Savarkar's book title, I have seen fairly reliable reports of the original book being printed with the title "Hinduism", and a sticker being affixed on top saying "Hindutva". I don't know what to make of it. Probably the publisher goofed. The book was definitely about "Hindutva", according to Jaffrelot and others. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies&mdash;I forgot to thank you. This was a very enlightening conversation.  I will mull it over some more.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Hindutva Right-Wing Leaders Call For Mass Genocide Of Muslims
https://thelogicalindian.com/trending/alarming-hindu-right-wing-leaders-call-for-mass-genocide-of-muslims-at-haridwar-hate-speech-summit-32759

Update information.Copyandwame (talk) 12:54, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2022
The Plot section contains a reference to a "Hindu figurehead" which again connects to Hindutva. This is a horrendous correlation meant to malign one of the most successful anti caste movements of this century. Kindly change it. 2405:201:F007:4E06:F06E:2B2C:318:D51A (talk) 17:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. WikiLinuz  🍁 ( talk ) 17:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Leftist Distortion of the self acclaimed ‘objective’ biggest online encyclopedia
Hello,

I am a long term Wikipedia and wanted to bring to your attention the creeping leftist distortion that has crept in some ideological topics. Ideology especially a purported version of a religion is very tricky to describe without potentially omitting the critical translations and interpretations of the many diverse followers. I encountered this in your topic on Hindutva and seemingly any right leaning Hindu based ideologies. While I see the violent tendencies of Bajarang Dal are well attested, the same cannot be said of Hindutva any more than than Islam to be the driver of terrorism. Hindutva is from two words in Sanskrit, Hindu and tva (-ness, the essence of Hindu). I am a atheist aka nastik Hindu but follow the Hindu culture of doing ones duty (dharma), understanding cause and effect of relationships (karma), having the material possessions for a happy life (artha) and inner peace (mokhsa). As such I identify as Hindutva per the Sanskrit meaning. Also while Hindutva was championed by Sarvarkar, it did not originate from him. His published accounts tell of a Hindu culture ruling India but not being anti - thesis to other religions as being Hindu does not mean denouncing any other path to the ONE GOD or Brahman in Hinduism. He refers to Hindu as a national race made up different faiths, like the Greeks, Persians and Arabs considered even Indian Muslims as Hindu Muslims. This is because the word ‘Hindu’ itself comes from a geographical description per the Indus river, rather than religious that was denoted by others. The true name is Sanatan Dharma. The genetic homogeneity of all Indians including Muslim is also backed by recent genetic studies conducted by Harvard. His attempt was to have all Indians be united given atleast their common national origins. Something that was critical in divided colonized India. His concern was with SOME Muslims having loyalty to Middle East before India. Which was the case during Malabar riots due to the Turkish Chaliphate movement. This ended up in the Mophlah genocide where Annie Besant and Ambedkar also reported the horrible terror like murder, rape, forcible conversions on Hindus. There is complex context that continues to rule people’s minds till today that is not being understood in the guise of secularism. This concern is also similar to American and European intelligence orgs actively fighting against their own Muslims joining ISIS even if born in the West. But by wholesale attaching his misinterpreted words to some violent miscreants, you effectively denounce the majority of people like me who themselves will be first to bring those miscreants to justice. This causes factionalism and divisiveness where the measured folks are not heard and the extremists are validated. Especially in Hinduism, the one major religion that does not actively convert or discriminate between other faiths.

Congratulations on doing the opposite of your mission statement of being a repository and spreading true facts!! Re-affirms my belief that everyone and orgs are just for sale.

24.130.192.154 (talk) 19:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)Vin


 * Wikipedia is written based on reliable sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * the same cannot be said of Hindutva any more than than Islam to be the driver of terrorism.
 * Whataboutism
 * Regarding "The genetic homogeneity of all Indians..."
 * Your statement is factually incorrect and I encourage you to read Indo-Aryan migrations which clearly talks about the heterogeneity of all the Indians. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 13:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Indo Aryan migration took place like 2500 years before the advent of Islam, right? So how does that affect the homo/heterogenity of people following a certain religion that came 2.5k years later? Astral Destroyer (talk) 00:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Hindutva and Neo-Nazism
Hindutva is follwing the footsteps of Nazis. Dalits and muslims are the Jews and black people in India.

Content can be updated from https://m.thewire.in/article/communalism/genocide-as-pop-culture-inside-the-hindutva-world-of-trads-and-raitas

This is made by persons smart enough to photoshop image. How many editors are hiding in Wikipedia with same ideology. Copyandwame (talk) 05:32, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


 * @Copyandwame Unfounded accusations against other wikipedians directly contradicts WP:AGF, and your source cannot be used as per WP:FRINGE.
 * $$Clyde2_3^9$$ (👋|🗣|✍️) 04:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Hindu nationalism
What's our general consensus on sources that mention Hindu nationalism but not Hindutva explicitly? At least one subsection of the article is based exclusively on such sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:00, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Pinging, who has been adding the section, and and  who have removed it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:54, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. I note that  edit warred over adding this text to 2020 Delhi riots where he couldn't gain consensus (per Talk:2020_Delhi_riots) and I will post my explanation here as well.
 * the first paragraph sourced to Times is about Violence against Muslims in India since the source itself says:"The trend we see across India is that a lot of the violence perpetrated against Muslims", and "When he was elected in 2014, there was a sharp uptick in lynchings of Muslims." Quotes were absolutely cherrypicked.
 * The second paragraph was clearly WP:RECENTISM and used the sources published 3 days before the Delhi riots actually ended.
 * You can see the current examples at Hindutva that are too specific to Hindutva agenda. But these articles are not defining Hindutva or Hindutva agenda, instead they talk about instances of Violence against Muslims. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 04:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Firstly, to say that I "couldn't gain consensus" for this text at 2020 Delhi riots is factually incorrect because I never sought one there. Secondly, is himself edit warring over this text with  at Persecution of Muslims. Now to respond to your query, lets first recap the lead of this article that says "Hindutva (transl. Hinduness) is the predominant form of Hindu nationalism in India. .... It is used by the organisation Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP), the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)". Now going by that description, any source that talks about Hindu nationalism and BJP is actually talking about Hindutva whether or not its explicitly mentioned.
 * Now the TIME source clearly states that: "For India, the violence has marked a bloody milestone after six years of governance by Hindu nationalists, who are now more politically dominant than ever before. Since winning reelection in a landslide last May, Modi has stoked his far-right Hindu nationalist base, many of whom see Muslims as invaders of a rightfully Hindu India." This is why the text was inserted under the Hindutva politics (2014–present) subsection. Hindustani.Hulk (talk) 14:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As to WP:RECENTISM, it says: "Some Wikipedia articles tend to focus on recent events." Now two years on, it's no way near a recent event. And Aman, you are trying too hard to prove that the sources "talk about instances of Violence against Muslims". If that's the case, stop arguing on that article's talkpage to try and remove these very lines. Please stop following my edits, read and understand the policies first and stop making a fool of yourself. Hindustani.Hulk (talk) 16:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi HH. I don't think I can agree with your point on Hindutva/Hindu nationalism/BJP. I could say that "Source editor is the predominant form of Wikipedia editing. It is used by all editors who have good sense." That doesn't make using source editor synonymous with Wikipedia editing, and I wouldn't use a source that criticizes Wikipedia editing by good-sense-havers in an an article about source editor. I'm not familiar with the variety of sources available in this topic area, but surely there must be some that explicitly tie Modi's actions to Hindutva? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you ever have been through the BJP's article and seen this subsection Bharatiya_Janata_Party. I don't know how can one argue that the sources mentioning Hindu nationalism and BJP are infact not talking about Hindutva. Hindustani.Hulk (talk) 16:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "any source that talks about Hindu nationalism and BJP is actually talking about Hindutva whether or not its explicitly mentioned", so that means same content needs to be forked into 3 different articles?
 * WP:RECENTISM also concerns the age of the source.
 * Until now, this article hasn't even mentioned 2002 Gujarat riots. Why it should mention about 2020 Delhi riots? We would need more than just initial news sources. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 18:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I just remembered this had been already discussed many times at Talk:2020_Delhi_riots/Archive_7, Talk:2020_Delhi_riots/Archive_13, Talk:2020_Delhi_riots/Archive_16 and probably more. The consensus was always against attributing it to Hindutva or Hindu nationalists. That should apply here as well unless it has been changed on the main article. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 18:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I can't figure out what this discussion is about. These days, Hindu nationalism and Hindutva are pretty much synonymous. If you want to argue that some specific source is using it in some different sense, please feel free to bring it up. Otherwise, this discussion seems to be a waste of time. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "Hindutva was not truly ‘mainstreamed’ until the election of the current prime minister, Narendra Modi, in 2014. In order to construct a narrative that furthered Hindu insecurity, Modi mobilized his campaign by appealing to recurring themes of a Muslim ‘threat’ to the Hindu majority. The result is that Hindutva has become synonymous with Indian nationalism." -
 * I think the above source settles the discussion and we can restore the text. Hindustani.Hulk (talk) 22:37, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This is certainly an interesting source, and does seem to cover the topic of "Hindutva under Narendra Modi". But the content you added has nothing to do with this, and has very little to do with Hindutva as such. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The article below provides "an introduction to Hindutva as a social movement in India, followed by an examination of three case studies" including the Delhi riots.
 * "Hindu nationalism, also known simply as Hindutva, refers to ethno-religious and nationalist political attitudes in India." -
 * The article below "explores anti-Muslim violence in India since 2014", when the BJP was voted to power, including the Delhi riots. The article's conclusion clearly links Hindutva ideology with the anti-Muslim violence in India in recent years.
 * "In recent years, anti-Muslim violence in India has increased alarmingly. Underlying this violence is the Hindutva ideology, which aims at making secular India a Hindu state." -
 * "But fears of India becoming a Hindu authoritarian state have been voiced after Narendra Modi of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) came to power in New Delhi in 2014. The party’s Hindutva philosophy—the creation of a great Hindu state—envisages a Hindu state where citizens with other religious beliefs are tolerated but have second‐​class status. The BJP has been associated with hundreds of violent Hindu‐​Muslim riots over the decades, the latest being in Delhi in February 2020, which claimed 54 lives." -
 * "It is now clear that the relentless call for violence against Muslims in the run up to the riots was not abstract advocacy but an essential component of the real conspiracy" -
 * The sources above establish that:
 * (i) Hindu nationalism is synonymous to Hindutva
 * (ii) the recent surge in anti-Muslim violence (including the Delhi riots) since the Modi-led BJP victory in 2014 elections is directly linked to Hindu nationalism/Hindutva.
 * Lastly, the content I added and sources referencing it basically say the same thing. Hindustani.Hulk (talk) 08:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The two concepts do indeed overlap, however as you can read in Hindu nationalism, the term applies to all forms of Hindu nationalism throughout history, right from the Middle Ages; whilst Hindutva applies to a particular ideology that developed in the last 100 years only and placed significantly more focus on Hindu than on nationalism. I personally don't think the two articles should be merged. — kashmīrī  TALK  09:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Aman.kumar.goel@Firefangledfeathers and all Hindustani Hulk is CU blocked. Doug Weller  talk 13:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Locked
It's locked so I can't edit it but words like satra are uncommon outside India so need to be translated or at least explained. Thx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.11.225.37 (talk) 01:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2022
In the lead, please change this: '"It is used by the organisation Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP), the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)[3][4] and other organisations, collectively called the Sangh Parivar." to, "It is used by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP), the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)[3][4] and other organisations, collectively called the Sangh Parivar."- 116.72.150.222 (talk) 20:00, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅, thanks for pointing out the redundancy. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2022
Billy deb (talk) 05:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

https://www.hinduamerican.org/blog/what-does-hindutva-mean Billy deb (talk) 05:19, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Aoidh (talk) 07:09, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Concerning deletions by Deepp213
Experienced editors please take a look. Sushant Kaushal G (talk) 06:23, 18 November 2022 (UTC)


 * sikhs have nothing to do with this... please stop showing sikhs as some kind of subculture or part of this narrative.. sat shri akal.. 101.0.35.5 (talk) 11:20, 3 May 2023 (UTC)