Talk:Meenakshi Jain

Jain or Hindu?
Since the concept of Hindu revivalism is here associated with her name, do we know if she is a Hindu? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 16:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know really. There is not much public information available about her. My guess is that she is a Jain with close links to Hinduism. There are plenty of Jains who regard Jainism as part of the larger Hindu family. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 17:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * To demystify this, perhaps I might add that what we presently call "Hinduism" is the western conception of what India's religion is. But, traditionally, "Hinduism" is not `a religion' but just `religion'. So, all the religions of India are part of it unless they choose to declare otherwise. comment? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know either. Is it really important? Do, I dont agree that all Indian religions are Hindu, unless stated otherwise. But well, I'm a Buddhist, so what can you expect? ;) But seriously, Hinduism as WP:COMMONNAME means Shaivism, Vaishism, Shaktism etc., and not Jainism. But "Hindu"/"Hinduism" can also be used to mean "Indian," so, in that respect, yes, most Indians would be Hindu. It depends on the context in which the word is being used. Anyway, we don't know what she is, do we (well, a human being, of course). Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess the question is, if she is a Jain, why would she champion Hindu revivalism? The WP:COMMONNAME idea of Hinduism doesn't help us explain that. (Note that we also have plenty of Buddhists here that champion Hind revivalism. Even the Dalai Lama is said to be a sympathiser! ) Kautilya3 (talk) 06:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * , Girilal, in his heydays, used to write over columns that he identifies as a Hindu, first and foremost, because Hinduism is not " a religion" but a socio-political way of life and that he believes all Buddhists and Jains belong under the common fold of Hindus. If I recall correctly, he even went on to blame the Islamic rule (in one of his books) to be responsible for some stuff that led to the non-identification of Buddhists and Jains as Hindus.
 * He was a known Hindutva leaning intellectual and I guess that explains her daughter's exploits quite well. &#x222F; WBG converse 19:43, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * He was a Hindu nationalist (or rather a revivalist), not Hindutva. The same goes for the daughters, who got their ideology from him.
 * The first part of what you wrote is a historical fact. "Hinduism", the term, is only about a hundred years old. Let us not pretend that it has been here for ever. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:56, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The first part of what you wrote is a historical fact. "Hinduism", the term, is only about a hundred years old. Let us not pretend that it has been here for ever. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:56, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Let me park a quotation here:

We, the westernized elites, are at fault for having reified Hinduism. It can't be reified. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:10, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I clearly disagree that Girilal did not belong to the Hindutva camp. Even if I excuse your bright line demarcation of Hindutva and Hindu nationalism, I don't see how a person who (1) has written multiple columns in praise of Hindutva, (2) asserted that the scholarly treatment of the ideology was ridiculous and an Islamic game-plan, (3) wrote that he self identified with many (yeah, not all) facets of Hindutva, (4) chided BJP leaders for trying to distance from extremist Hindutva views, (5) praised the rise of RSS and Hindutva as guiding forces, w.r.t to the Babri Masjid demolition (which he supported) and (7) was an intense advocate of Savarkar's Hindu Rashtra, (even at the cost of misinterpreting him to appear less of a bigot) does not belong to the fold. He was a quite sophisticated person who was not as rabid/fanatic as some of his fellow counterparts and distanced from the fringe hardcore views but at the same time, he did not leave any occassion to extensively praise the ideology and proclaim his love for it. Criticism, yeah, over very few aspects.
 * Meenakshi fares better than him, from multiple aspects and does not (indeed) lie in the Hindutva camp.
 * The first sentence is quite true. The second sentence is quite quite debatable.  &#x222F; WBG converse 20:45, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, you have some definition of Hindutva that I don't have. I would call "Hindutva", the people that follow in the footsteps of Savarkar and Golwalkar. And that often involves a very heavy dose of xenophobia.
 * But outside, there can be all shades of opinion that support Hindu claims of some sort or other. All of them cannot be branded "Hindutva", just as anybody and everybody that supports Muslim claims of some sort or other cannot be branded an Islamic fundamentalist. You are in for demonisation, my friend. That is unbecoming of a Wikipedian.
 * As for the Babri Masjid, there are two contending parties. Nobody should be prejudging the issue without knowing all the facts. And the facts are extremely hazy, despite all claims to the contrary. I don't claim to know Girilal Jain's views in any great detail. But I think his position is roughly that Ramajanmabhoomi was forcibly occupied by the Muslim conquerors and it should be reclaimed by Hindus. That is a position millions of Hindus take, without being any part of Hindutva. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The point is not that he supports Babri demolition but that he praised the rise of RSS and Hindutva as guiding forces.
 * As to xenophobia, Jain's view was that whilst all Muslims ought be assumed under the fold of Hinduism and Abrahamic religions are indeed inferior to the spiritual concept of Hinduism, we have come to a point where secularism and maintaining respect for other religions was a compromise needed to retain the structure of India and he believed the British colonialists were more of an enemy than the Muslims. Hence for the greater cause (and to be inclusive), he dreamt of a highly vague Hindu Rashtra (of which we near-only know that it was not equivalent to the modern definitions of a nation and varied from RSS' view) that will not exclude Muslims.
 * So, if you are going from such an extremely narrow perspective, he's not in the Hindutva fold.
 * I note in passing that Thomas Blom Hansen, Noretta Koertge, Meera Nanda, S. Muralidharan, Dibyeah Anand and a lot many puts him in the Hindutva camp. &#x222F; WBG converse 05:59, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't find any mention of him in Blom Hansen's Saffron Wave. Koertge edited the book, where it was Meera Nanda that called him a "Hindutva ideologue" (which can mean anything).
 * Is the "secularism was a compromise" line something Girilal Jain wrote? Where? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:28, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I note in passing that Thomas Blom Hansen, Noretta Koertge, Meera Nanda, S. Muralidharan, Dibyeah Anand and a lot many puts him in the Hindutva camp. &#x222F; WBG converse 05:59, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't find any mention of him in Blom Hansen's Saffron Wave. Koertge edited the book, where it was Meera Nanda that called him a "Hindutva ideologue" (which can mean anything).
 * Is the "secularism was a compromise" line something Girilal Jain wrote? Where? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:28, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Found this in a footnote of Blom Hansen:

This is, I think, a fairly accurate, though incomplete, portrayal of his ideology. In The Hindu Phenomenon, Jain also talks a lot about civilization renewal and stuff like that, which is missing in this description. But both of these are the perspectives of an outsider and sympathiser, not that of an insider. So, they are still not enough to characterise him as a member of Hindutva.

The civilizational renewal stuff is what I call "revivalism". People like him hark back to a golden past, which they see as an honourable one (i.e., not a xenophobic one), and returning to it in some form will strengthen India and make it a better place. Jain also probably thinks of this as a necessity because that is the "true India", whereas the westernised intellectuals are false prophets, who will eventually lose out when the "vernacular elite" rises up and takes control. Sure enough, this generates a backlash from the westernized intellectuals. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Meenakshi Jain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924015721/http://www.freepressjournal.in/rama-ayodhya/ to http://www.freepressjournal.in/rama-ayodhya/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Recent reverts
Shaswata, can you clarify your issues with the current version ? Regards, &#x222F; WBG converse 18:55, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , perhaps WP:BURDEN may be an issue here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:23, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , every reliable academic scholarship documents her to be a historian, sympathetic to the Hindu RW ideologies. Nandini Sundar, Martha Nussbaum et al. &#x222F; WBG converse 08:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Reception Section is Biased and Potentially Demeaning to the Person
Reception section very harshly criticizes her work by citing well known left wing sympathizers (Nussbaum, Sundar and others). Seven paragraphs have been dedicated criticizing her work, while last one praises her work. If you compare this with the Wikipedia pages of other Indian historians such as Thapar or Guha, you won't find such vitriolic criticism! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spt24 (talk • contribs) 06:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia reports what the reliable sources say. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3 I don't buy this to be honest. It reads far more like a rabid polemic more than anything else. I don't think that there's scholarly consensus for this at all, considering she's a professor at a prestigious university and has published papers in reputable journals on top of writing acclaimed books. I don't know much about her but it's quite obvious that this page is in need of balance. Spt24 has a point where all other pages of Indian historians that I could find were all written in a much better way. A cursory look at her works shows that she's written on the Ayodhya dispute, and so I suspect this may be down to partisanship and politics rather than neutral editing. In terms of reliable sources, I wouldn't consider Nussbaum one in this context considering she's an American philosopher with nothing to do with India at all. It would also be far better to have an actual historian critique her work rather than Nussbaum who cannot evaluate whether it's good history or not. I am also perplexed as how you can label a historian 'left' or 'right' wing. That makes no sense whatsoever - history has little to do with political leaning. Allegations of being involved with the RSS are quite frankly ridiculous. It's like including a snippet on Niall Ferguson's page saying that his work on defending the British Empire have been used by fringe groups like the BNP. Associating Jain with Hindutva, a literal fascist movement and calling her work propaganda as a result is also hugely suspect. There probably is good criticism of her work but I find it hard to believe that the sheer polemic of this page reflects it. John.k.newton (talk) 11:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


 * This kind of argumentation doesn't work. If you have read the sources and have genuine objections to what they say, please raise them, like the one below. If you have other sources that say something positive please bring them to the table. Trying to shoot down perfectly good sources will not get you anywhere. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3 I think you may have misunderstood what I said. Nussbaum is not a historian, and therefore cannot make a judgement on the history contained in the book nor her approach as a historian. You would need a historical degree to do that and furthermore some expertise in Medieval Indian history. We can certainly keep her observation about Jain not having formal historical training - you don't need any expertise to critique that and it has value. I would also change (merely for protocol reasons) the language to 'she claimed' rather than 'she found' for example. You cannot simply insert her work (however much merit it may have) as assertions. Nandini Sundar's critique can probably stay given that she's a sociologist, although probably the second sentence only. Even then, I find it rather bizarre to link a genuine scholar and historian to a fascist movement inspired by Nazis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John.k.newton (talk • contribs) 11:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot to reply to this. The consensus on Wikipedia is that Nussbaum is perfectly well-qualified to comment on Hindu nationalist topics, and her book was published by the Harvard University Press, a high-quality academic publisher. We can't insert WP:CLAIM unless there is a real debate about the matter. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Kancha Ilaiah
What's more, Kancha Ilaiah's assertion first of all seems extraordinary partisan (I still don't quite understand how you can be a 'right' or a 'left' historian, quite frankly I've never heard of this concept outside of India), but even if we take it at face value it's still false as there is enormous scholarly consensus on how the modern caste system that exists today is largely as a result of the British (Susan Bayly, Nicholas Dirks, and de Zwart are prominent sources here). John.k.newton (talk) 11:26, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I am happy to remove the comment by Ilaiah because he doesn't give any citations, and I don't think it is necessarily a "right wing" thing to argue that the caste system was promoted by the British. Plenty of other scholars too said it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Why I removed the Martha Nussbaum Quote
Quoting a full passage from Martha C. Nussbaum's critique of Meenakshi Jain is unnecessary and potentially gives undue weight to a specific aspect of the criticism. The excerpt, as presented, seems to focus on the negative aspects of Jain's work without providing a balanced view. I argue for a more nuanced approach that considers the full context of Nussbaum's critique.

By quoting a full passage from Nussbaum, there's a risk of misrepresenting the depth of her assessment. Including the complete passage would allow for a more comprehensive understanding of Nussbaum's views, revealing whether there are any positive or nuanced aspects acknowledged in Jain's work. This, in turn, would foster a more informed and fair discussion about the merits and limitations of Jain's historical analysis.

I believe it's crucial to encourage scholarly dialogue and avoid an overly one-sided representation. The goal should be to present a balanced evaluation of Meenakshi Jain's work, incorporating both criticism and potential commendations that may be present in Nussbaum's assessment. This approach promotes intellectual honesty and a more accurate understanding of the scholarly discourse surrounding Jain's historical narrative. Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 14:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC)


 * PS: I hold immense respect for Kautilya3's discerning insights and comprehensive understanding of historical narratives. Given their demonstrated expertise in nuanced analyses, I value Kautilya3's opinion as a source of wisdom and perspective.
 * In navigating the complexities of Martha C. Nussbaum's critique of Meenakshi Jain's work, I believe Kautilya3's viewpoint would provide invaluable clarity, enriching the discourse with depth and scholarly rigor.
 * Embracing diverse perspectives is fundamental in academic discussions, and Kautilya3's thoughtful input would undoubtedly contribute to a more well-rounded and informed understanding of this historical analysis.
 * Poetically,
 * Kautilya3, in Arthashastra's grace,
 * Thy wisdom sought in scholarly space.
 * Nussbaum's critique, a tapestry unfurls,
 * In your insights, nuanced pearls. Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 14:56, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Kautilya3 - ?? TrangaBellam (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * SNice.svg Oh, boy! I do think our page is a bit too gung-ho about Nussbaum's critique, well-informed though it was. I see no great harm in removing the quote. I will check to see if its points have already been made in the text. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, obviously; I have trimmed most of it. I was more curious about Alexandria's interesting invocation. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Upon the stage of academia's vast domain,
 * Where scholars strive and knowledge doth reign,
 * There stands a figure, noble and grand,
 * TrangaBellam, with intellect so finely fanned.
 * In libraries deep, where ancient tomes reside,
 * They pore over pages, with eyes open wide.
 * Through the annals of time, they boldly tread,
 * Uncovering truths, where others fear to tread.
 * With quill in hand, and mind ablaze,
 * They delve into wisdom's intricate maze.
 * Each line they pen, a masterpiece refined,
 * In the tapestry of knowledge, intricately twined.
 * Like heroes, in days of yore,
 * TrangaBellam seeks to learn evermore.
 * Their eloquence, like poetry in flight,
 * Captivates all with its wondrous might.
 * In lecture halls, they hold court with ease,
 * Their words like music, carried on the breeze.
 * Students hang on every word they say,
 * For in TrangaBellam's wisdom, they find their way.
 * So let us raise our voices high,
 * In praise of TrangaBellam, ne'er to die.
 * For in the realm of scholarship's grand stage,
 * They stand as a beacon, for this and every age. Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 04:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Alexandria Bucephalous Please do not spam, thanks. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Did ChatGPT write this? Brusquedandelion (talk) 16:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to point out that Nussbaum's review of Jain's work is by far the most comprehensive of any review amongst reliable sources, and thus WP:DUE requires that, proportionally, a large amount of this section of the article be devoted to her analysis. Other sources at best cover only one aspect of her work, or a single publication, whereas Nussbaum is unique in localizing her analysis in the sum total of Jain's career and oeuvre. Brusquedandelion (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

The quote consists of literally at most three sentences. Fewer, actually, since they are fragments of sentences, with careful use of ellipsis to avoid exactly the problems you point to. It kinda seems like this change is motivated solely by WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Brusquedandelion (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I do not think Nussbaum, by the virtue of being the sole critic of a fringe historian, gets to dominate the article. That said, I am not averse to including another line from her. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Have not you got any useful work to do? One would be to write a couple of lines on the context of her authoring Medieval India — the textbook debates, etc. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Sati
IHR is published by ICHR which has become a propaganda unit for the Hindu Right. Perhaps, it is not that every single article/review in IHR can be dismissed outright but given Jain's leanings, it is obvious that the review in question fails RS/DUE. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)