Talk:Persecution of Hindus/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Sources

Can somebody please list any and all scholarship from the past 3/4 decades, that use the particular title of this article :- "Hindu persecution"/"Persecution of Hindus"/"Muslim persecution" + Hindus/some combination involving Hindu, Muslim and persecution, in describing (1) pre-Raj India (except Aurangzeb) and (2) post-1947 nation-state of India? [I note all that I come across, since 1970. Will be leaving anything from fringe non-indexed journals (not reliable) and those that use the word to refer to caste-oppression or oppression of other groups by Hindus(irrelevant).] TrangaBellam (talk) 08:03, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• 1 and 2 -

• ...To encourage the identification of this demonic Other with Muslims, some among those seeking to ‘define Hinduism’ recast Hindus as an entity who had been persecuted for the last thousand years. As Romila Thapar (1997, p. 63) notes, exaggeration of Hindu ‘persecution at the hands of the Muslim is required to justify the inculcation of anti-Muslim sentiments among Hindus of today’...
• ...If by persecution is meant the conversion of Hindus to Islam and Christianity, then it should be kept in mind that the majority of conversions were from the lower castes and this is more a reflection on Hindu society than on persecution. Upper caste conversions were more frequently activated by factors such as political alliances and marriage circuits and here the conversion was hardly due to persecution....When the destroying of temples and the breaking of images by Muslim iconoclasts is mentioned—and quite correctly so—it should however at the same time be stated that there were also many Muslim rulers, not excluding Aurangzeb, who gave substantial donations to Hindu sects and to individual brāhmaṇas. There was obviously more than just religious bigotry or religious tolerance involved in these actions. The relationship for example between the Mughal rulers and the Bundela rājās, which involved temple destruction among other things, and veered from close alliances to fierce hostility, was the product not merely of religious loyalties or differences, but the play of power and political negotiation....

• 3
• 4

• ...The obvious danger of this thesis is that it can be modified to provide support to a Hindu communalist argument that a self-conscious Hindu identity arose out of the violent persecution of Hindus by Muslims. In fact state-sponsored persecution was only sporadic and directed mostly at temple buildings, not people. Nonetheless, religious literature by Hindu poets such as Kabir, Ekanath, and Vidyapati (some of this quoted below) suggests that socioreligious conflict occasionally violent conflict-did occur among people on a local level... [This was at a time when Eaton was yet to appear. And, that tells us something.]

• 5

• ...More recently, scholars have effectively disposed of the idea that the Mughals led any systematic, religion-based attack on Hindus. In contrast, as Richard Eaton has shown, Mughal temple destructions were primarily political rather than religious acts...

• 6

• ...A key part of Savarkar’s influential definition of Hindutva was the assertion that Hinduness was defined by an exceptional history of persecution....Once again, past and future are condensed as classical Hindu nationalist themes of perpetual persecution, a history of Hindu destruction at the hands of Muslims...in the broader history of Hindu nationalist thought across the twentieth century and its long-established narratives of Hindu persecution, threat, and crisis...

• 7

• ...Hagiographical stories are conspicuously silent about Eknāth’s political environment,tempting some modern interpreters to fill the gap by projecting nationalist assumptions about Muslim persecution of Hindus back onto the sixteenth century...

• 8
• 9

• ...The ideological strategies for constructing such hostility are limited. First, there is the stratagem of pushing a particular historical interpretation of the past. After all, some kind of case can be made with some degree of plausibility about Muslim persecution of Hindus and denigration/desecration of the symbols and institutions of Hinduism in the past, provided the distinction between Muslim rulers and ordinary Muslims can be soft-pedalled or elided...

• 10

• ...Ironically, while engaging in military campaigns against Vijayanagar or its territories, at times it was the Hindu generals of the Bahamani Adil Shahs or Qutb Shahs who planned the plunder of temples. There is scant evidence that any Muslim ruler tried to impose a theo-cratic state in India. In spite of the jiziya tax imposed by some Muslim rulers (by and large for economic reasons, or perhaps to appease orthodox clergy), Hindu law was applied in all other matters to decide cases involving Hindus. Episodes of direct religious persecution of Hindus were rare, as were communal riots. At the popular level, the extent of religious tolerance, including shared sacred spaces and mutual exchange epitomized by Sufism and Bhakti worship, was extraordinary, especially from today’s perspective...

• 12
• 13

• ...Certainly Muslim oppression of Hindus in India was an indisputable fact. India's early modern history is a history of successive conquests, both Mus lim and Western... [First source in support but over a journal of English Literature.]

• 14
• 15

TrangaBellam (talk) 10:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

That's a highly relevant quote! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:31, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

• Ms Sarah Welch - Please feel free to add more sources. Every source that I come across rejects the premises (or at best, notes them to be very rare) and often, links the subject with Hindu Nationalist politics. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Also Kautilya3 and Fowler&fowler. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Medieval spans

[Copied from Talk:Anti-Hindu sentiment]

From a quick review last night, I decided that the section needs considerable expansion. Writing one pithy sentence with half-a-dozen citations is never a good idea. TrangaBallam, please include specific page numbers and representative quotations where we can locate the supporting material. It also seems to me that the content makes too strong claims such as "historicans rejected ...". The real situation is much more nuanced. Also keep in mind that any attack on religious practice counts as "persecution". The motivations do not matter. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree that it is nuanced. I have used the word "primarily" and it serves a purpose. I will add quotes since you have challenged the cites. Please feel free to trim them.

I disagree on the definition of persecution. There's ample scholarship (not limited to S. Asia) about why extrapolating secular definitions to times long past is historically nonsensical. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I have now added Gotschalk (2006), who presents a summary-view of the whole field. If you believe that the claims are (still) strong, I need to see more recent review-article-types on issue of religious violence in medieval India. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

So you are saying that stuff like temple demolitions etc. are said to constitute religious persecution today, but they are not considered persecution in the historical context. I don't think I buy that. I would like to see sources that discuss this. And they better be scholars that truly understand what temples mean and what demolishing them means. I would also like to say that Hindus are entitled to decide for themselves what it means to them, and I don't see how any scholars can sit in judgement of that.

We are talking about "medieval spans", not the British. So all these sources that talk about the British, including Gottschalk, are not really relevant. From a cursory reading, I find Gottschalk to be quite dubious. For example, he makes a claim about what Mridu Rai "demonstrated", which is a wild distortion of what she actually did. But in any case, all this talk of the British is completely barking up the wrong tree. We should really be talking about medieval history. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I am pinging Ms Sarah Welch for help because I don't really know all that much about this stuff. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

TrangaBellam: The quote you added in response to Kautilya3's concern does not say "this is not persecution". Nor do the other sources you added say Hindus were not persecuted by Muslim rulers. A better way would be to add another subsection and explain what other scholars are saying. But be careful... no WP:OR and no WP:Synthesis. The source must explicitly say it was not persecution and provide their reasons for the same. We should seek to summarize different views with sufficient detail on how and why as stated by the scholar(s). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The burden of proof lies on you. Please find me a source, that describes ABC event in medieval span to be religious persecution. I have created a section above for that. And contains a quote from Romila Thapar.

I am not sure that Kautilya3 has read Eaton or any of the other cited works in the section on temple demolition. Eaton's view is widely accepted. The sheer number of citations to his articles on these aspects means something. Otherwise, please find me a source that explicitly disagrees with Eaton. I will be very happy to include that.

If you believe Gottschalk is dubious, please point me to a more recent source contradicting him. Also, you have misread him.

Sarah, the removal of the section on medieval India had a consensus, which you had missed. TrangaBellam (talk) 04:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

TrangaBellam: You mass deleted a lot in recent days. I have now read through your December comments above where you make some good points, and some one-sided ones. I do not think you have a consensus above (except for the occasional Walrus Ji's agreement). A revert means you do not have a consensus, and we should discuss this.

First take the quote you added in response to Kautilya3's concern is One of the key issues here, of course, is how to represent complex social events within a historical narrative: what makes a riot ‘communalistic’ or ‘religious’ in nature, rather than economic or ethnic or class-based, etc.? There are multiple narratives that can be offered of any complex social phenomenon and it is not always clear why classifying them in terms of a universalized discourse of religion aids us in understanding either their specificity or their context.... How is this or anything based on this WP:Due in this article and that section, and how does it address Kautilya3's concerns?

Deleting sourced content after you come across another source or newspaper article to criticize the other side, or one that alleges bias, or poor scholarship, or Hindu Nationalist, or Islamic Supremacist, or some such is not the way to a balanced/NPOV article. Please avoid comments such as "I am not sure that Kautilya3 has read Eaton or any of the other cited works in the section on temple demolition". Kautilya3 has been contributing for a long time, and I remember he has discussed that Eaton paper and others by Eaton on several occasions, quite insightfully.

A better way for you, and me, and for all of us, is to study the peer reviewed scholarship carefully, explain the context and the different sides, without WP:OR and no WP:Synthesis. The source must explicitly discuss persecution (or what that term is generally understood as), or discuss his or her views on why accepted facts of history were not persecution. We should seek to summarize different views with sufficient detail on how and why as stated by the scholar(s) for a complete, comprehensive NPOV article. If you agree with these guidelines, we can collaborate over the coming weeks try to expand that section based on scholarly reliable sources. Per what Kautilya3 is suggesting above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

So you are saying that stuff like temple demolitions etc. are said to constitute religious persecution today, but they are not considered persecution in the historical context. I don't think I buy that. I would like to see sources that discuss this. And they better be scholars that truly understand what temples mean and what demolishing them means. -- My sole response is Eaton's view is widely accepted. The sheer number of citations to his articles on these aspects means something. Otherwise, please find me a source that explicitly disagrees with Eaton. I will be very happy to include that. Find me one and obviously, I have to include it. But, maintaining the balance.

Deleting sourced content after you come across another source or newspaper article to criticize the other side, or one that alleges bias, or poor scholarship, or Hindu Nationalist, or Islamic Supremacist, or some such is not the way to a balanced/NPOV article. - WP:FALSEBALANCE. I do believe that medieval sections need to be described in considerable detail but as they stood, they reflected centuries-old scholarship. So, a deletion until a total NPOV write-up.

The source must explicitly discuss persecution - Please provide me some. As I noted - The burden of proof lies on you. Please find me a source, that describes ABC event in medieval span to be religious persecution. I have created a section above for that. And it contains a[n interesting] quote from Romila Thapar.

(or what that term is generally understood as) - We cannot do that. Check this article or several others.

I do not think you have a consensus above - I would like to hear from JosuaJonathan etc.

If you agree with these guidelines, we can collaborate over the coming weeks try to expand that section based on scholarly reliable sources. - Sure, there is nothing disagreeable. Thank you.

The quote is very due in this article because it points out the futility of using religion as a lens to discuss complex social events, precisely the thing we are doing having chosen the subject of this article. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

As to a quite similar article, @Fowler&fowler: notes ...have stuffed the page with pre-modern descriptions whose existence cannot be adequately verified, whose sources are old and unreliable, and whose raison d'etre sometimes seems to be nothing more than ruffling the feathers of others. In any case, the expressions, "religious violence," "violence in the name of religion," "ethnic cleansing," "genocide," usually presuppose a modern sensibility... which is very agreeable. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

TrangaBellam: Wikipedia is not the right place to delete everything and in one or few pithy sentences "pointing out the futility of using religion as a lens to discuss complex social events". I share Kautilya3's concern with your recent edits. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 06:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

That's a strawman because I never said that. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) TrangaBellam – you might have already realised that Ms Sarah Welch will avoid discussing how to improve the article and will instead attack your editing style or the way you present your arguments. I have been through that. Best is to ignore and move forward, you have presented some very good arguments. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the way forward is to reinstate the old content and add whatever commentaries are necessary. I have no problem with cleaning up the old content, removing wishy-washy sources etc. But I have a huge problem with removing the whole thing and claiming that the "historians have rejected it". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The real persecution of Hindus

Hinduism is a synthesis of religious practices that existed on the subcontinent ca 1700 BCE among a large population and the religious practices and mythology that small bands of mostly male Indo-Aryans brought with them. The real persecution of Hindus, of the proportion that practiced the pre-existing religions, was carried on by the Indo-Aryans. No persecution, genocide, femicide, racial, ethnic, and gender segregation, apartheid, or environmental damage, wrought by waves of later immigrants or nonimmigrants, the Turkic Muslims and the British among them, have come anywhere near what the Indo-Aryans managed to perpetuate. The deforestation of the Gangetic plain, the exclusion of the majority of India's population, the craftsmen and builders (that in an earlier era had created a great urban civilization), and the forest people to the dreaded realms of ritual impurity; the subordination of women (who were mostly local), curtailment of their right to any property, embodied in the taboo on widow remarriage, dowry, and female infanticide, were all the hallmarks of Indo-Aryan dominance, living on unconquerable down to the present day. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

If there are scholarly sources about "real persecution of Hindus, of the proportion that practiced the pre-existing religions, was carried on by the Indo-Aryans", we should summarize them in this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Please see Tim Dyson's magnum opus, A Population History of India, Oxford University Press, 2019, Chapter 2, Settling the Ganges plain and beyond. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC).

PS this page is not on my watchlist. I am here on the talk page because I was pinged several times. I haven't really seen what I was pinged about, but this is my perspective. I will now be bowing out of the discussion. Thanks MSW for your nice reply. And hello.  :) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Definition

Ms Sarah Welch, you are going by 21st century post-secular definitions of persecution. As I noted (with reference) :- However, projecting this definition onto the pre-modern spans is fraught with ample difficulties including charting out the perimeters of violence, and tackling the absence of a rigidly religious sphere. Theorizing in the domain is underdeveloped and heavily contested; however, a consensus exists that religion and violence (persecution) were linked with political, social and economic factors in a complex manner and that, all narratives of religious persecution must be situated contextually with considerable nuance. I believe Fowler&fowler has made a similar point over here. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:39, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The title of this page is not "religious persecution" anyway. So I don't see why this is an issue.

I am quite happy to grant that the kind of persecution that happened in the West between Christians, Muslims and Jews, where people might have taken the stand that the opposite religion had no right to exist at all, did not happen in India. From the time of Muhammad bin Qasim, Hindus were accepted as people of the book, and Muslims always assumed that they had to co-exist with them. And Hindus too were quite happy to see Islam as a legitimate religion, where an avyakta God was worshipped, a perfectly laudable thing to do. So it was often political rivalries that got manifested through a religious axis. And the amount of tolerance people had for each other varied from time to time and from person to person. The religious axis always existed, even in liberal regimes. The Bahmani Sultanate was fairly liberal, but Afzal Khan, going to to capture Shivaji, randomly desecrated three temples along the way. For Afzal Khan the temples didn't mean anything. But for the people that venerated their deities, it would have caused considerable hurt. Afzal Khan knew that it would hurt. That is where the religious axis exists. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I have never stated that Hindus were not hurt?

Eaton and countless other scholars hold that demolition of temples were politically motivated acts. [In my lead, I have written that historians reject that conflicts were religiously motivated. Not that historians reject "Hindus were persecuted".]

Once you provide me a source which claims that contemporary Hindus were hurt by demolitions that occurred under the Delhi Sultanate/Mughals, we can certainly add them.

As C. Bayly notes, during the Aurangzeb/Shivaji times, religiocommunal riots were becoming a thing due to multiple factors. This OBVIOUSLY needs discussion. I did hardly state that the section on medieval India would be limited to a single line.

What matters is peer reviewed books and articles. Neither my views, nor yours. Regrettably, all sources seem to discount the idea of "Persecution of Hindus" (in pre-Aurangzeb India) as extremely rare event or worse, Hindu Nationalist bogeyman. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Everything can be "politically motivated". Even 9/11 and Mumbai attacks are "politically motivated". That doesn't explain or excuse anything. Eaton's purpose was mainly to examine the claims made by the Hindutva camp and see how many of them were actually valid. But these debates don't settle anything. A better thing to do would be to plot all the major temples of India along with the dates of their construction. Then we get to see which temples exist and which don't exist.

The temples that don't exist were not necessarily "demolished". Many of them would have also degenerated over time. They weren't allowed to be repaired or rebuilt. There were also pilgrimage taxes and other such extractions so that the temples couldn't earn the money needed for their upkeep. These would amount to a form of passive persecution.

You are not going to find any good sources for any of this. As we all know, Hindus didn't write any history and, after independence, no self-respecting scholar would write any communal histories. So the British Raj era sources are all you have. All that we can do in order to be somewhere close to truth is to publish the isolated cherry-picked facts like the old version of this page did, and clean it up as much as possible. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The subject is "persecution of Hindus", where the word "persecution" and "Hindus" mean what modern scholars discuss and mean in their publications relating to religious persecution of Hindus. Synonyms are included in that scope. There is no need for separate additional articles on Religious oppression of Hindus, Religious victimization of Hindus, Religious maltreatment of Hindus, Religious abuse of Hindus, Religious torture of Hindus, Religious discrimination against Hindus, Religious bullying of Hindus, Religious harassment of Hindus, and so on (see Oxford/Cambridge dictionaries for the word persecution). Kautilya3: There are recently published scholarly sources on persecution during Delhi Sultanate, Deccan Sultanate, Madurai Sultanate, etc. There are also sources that discuss, question and add nuances on how to interpret what happened. I just need the time, which I am short of. If you have the time, I can email some to these scholarly sources. You can read, reflect and summarize them here... save me the effort. Meanwhile, we should return a lot of deleted text (of course I am fine with removing non-HISTRS sources if any that have been added to this article, and adding/replacing that with 'better source needed' and 'cn' tag.) Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

...The subject is "persecution of Hindus", where the word "persecution" and "Hindus" mean what modern scholars discuss and mean in their publications relating to religious persecution of Hindus... - I agree. Something I have been requesting since long. Talk:Persecution_of_Hindus#Sources is that-way.

In light of Kashmiri's note, I don't think there exists consensus either for restoring the Medieval section. (Or, for my edits of yesterday.) Let the article stay, as it is.

You are not going to find any good sources for any of this. Then, the article ought be kept in this limbo.

...But these debates don't settle anything... Historians disagree with you. Why Wikipedia won't?

Anyways, Cynthia Talbot's monograph is very interesting. Please read that. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:43, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I have added a few recent scholarly sources and summarized them. Friedmann has much more (see his index where he lists many pages under "Hindus, persecution of"). Same for Wink and others. There are many more sources on this, which I will try to summarize in the future as I clean up and bring some context/balance. I also added more on Chach Nama, for NPOV, as there are questions about its historicity and reliability. We worked together on that article, oh, many many months ago after you had pinged or emailed me. You had polished that article a bit, so please take a look at the added portions here too and polish it. I am slow as you know, sorry! Thanks, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:58, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Thapar source

@Kautilya3: with this edit, TrangaBellam added Thapar's essay as source to support their addition

"However, Romila Thapar [...] note[s] such persecution to be rare events".

Paragraph 2 mentions persecution six times, paragraph 3 mentions When the destroying of temples and the breaking of images by Muslim iconoclasts is mentioned—and quite correctly so—it should however at the same time be stated that there were also many Muslim rulers, not excluding Aurangzeb, who gave substantial donations to Hindu sects and to individual brāhmaṇas. But, I do not see where Thapar is stating "persecution was rare". Please double check if this is a misrepresentation of the source or I am missing something. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that was a bad edit. Forced conversions and voluntary conversions are completely different phenomena, and we can't confuse one with the other.

"Forced conversion", which I think is a misnomer, is part of conquests, not persecution. When the Muslim rulers/generals conquered a territory, the rulers and generals of the conquered territory had to convert to Islam in order to retain their positions. If they did not do so, they would be either killed or enslaved. Anybody who resisted the plunder, which was a legitimate part of the conquest, would face the same fate. After the conquest was completed, the people that completely submitted, were then allowed to carry on their lives as before. There is an extremely important letter from Al-Hajjaj to Mohammad bin Qasim, which set the foundation for this policy.

"It appears," Hajjaj wrote, "that the chief inhabitants of Brahmanabad had petitioned to be allowed to repair the temple of Budh and pursue their religion. As they have made submission, and have agreed to pay taxes to the Khalifa, nothing more can properly be required from them. They have been taken under our protection, and we cannot in any way stretch out our hands upon their lives or property. Permission is given them to worship their gods. Nobody must be forbidden and prevented from following his own religion. They may live in their houses in whatever manner they like."

I don't know whether this was an established policy of the Caliphate all over the world, or whether it was something Al-Hajjaj made up specially for India. But, within India, this policy was essentially followed throughout the centuries since then.

But Akbar, and probably Babur too, did not demand the traditional forced conversion. Either they did not care for the Caliphate rules (they were Mongols after all, with no connection to West Asia), or they realized that the Rajputs were too valuable to be treated in that fashion. So Akbar made alliances with them. Those alliances became the foundation for the Mughal Empire and sustained it for three generations. Akbar was deified by Hindus, regarded as an incarnation of Vishnu. But for the Islamic clergy, he was a heretic. So his descendents had to bend to the clergy. By the time of Aurangzeb, the clergy had won, and Akbarism was destroyed. The Mughal Empire soon became history. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I must apologise for this. Bad on my part. Largely agree with K3 but there are nuances. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. The edict above is called the "Brahmanabad settlement". It can be found in numerous sources. I might create a page on it, because it is an important topic. It also seems to me that Aurangzeb has gravely violated the settlement. Thus he doesn't deserve the whitewashing he is normally accorded by historians. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Osama bin Laden, modern era terrorism, extremist attacks, counterterrorism and this article?

TrangaBellam: you inserted Deepa M. Ollapally source to this article with this edit. You cite pages 22-52. This is a source whose summary states In his testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs on November 2, 1999, Ambassador Michael Sheehan, Coordinator for Counterterrorism in the US, concluded that “The center of anti-American terrorism has moved from the Middle East to South Asia … As direct involvement in terrorism by most Middle Eastern state sponsors and groups has declined, our attention has increasingly focused on Osama bin Laden and the alliance of groups operating out of Afghanistan with the acquiescence of the country's de facto rulers, the Taliban.” When viewed from a historical standpoint, however, South Asia's new status presents a serious anomaly. Can you explain how such a source is the appropriate context to this article and the section where you inserted "However,..."? On which specific pages is the source discussing Friedmann edited book, or the context therein to justify your "However,..."? What I see on p. 22 of the book is "it is difficult to find any historically deterministic trend in ethno-religious extremism"; Chapter 2 over pages 22-52 builds around that and to that. The rest of the book is about extremism in contemporary Afghanistan, Pakistan, Osama bin Laden etc in the context of religious fundamentalists in South Asia. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

How is the summary relevant? The operating quote is located at Pg 30-31.

... Ironically, while engaging in military campaigns against Vijayanagar or its territories, at times it was the Hindu generals of the Bahamani Adil Shahs or Qutb Shahs who planned the plunder of temples. There is scant evidence that any Muslim ruler tried to impose a theo-cratic state in India. In spite of the jiziya tax imposed by some Muslim rulers (by and large for economic reasons, or perhaps to appease orthodox clergy), Hindu law was applied in all other matters to decide cases involving Hindus. Episodes of direct religious persecution of Hindus were rare, as were communal riots. At the popular level, the extent of religious tolerance, including shared sacred spaces and mutual exchange epitomized by Sufism and Bhakti worship, was extraordinary, especially from today’s perspective... TrangaBellam (talk) 03:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

The context here is the Deccan Sultanate and their military campaigns against Vijayanagara. First, that is not the same context as the prior sentence for a "However,...". Second, it is a misrepresentation of source to generalize a statement out of its limited context. Third, there are ongoing scholarly disputes about the war history of Deccan Sultanates and Vijayanagara Empire. If we want to include this, it would be better summarized in a separate subsection with the context and the different views for NPOV. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

This belongs here and given how keen you are on absolutely contextual representation, please explain your blatant misrepresentation of an essay from Friedmann's edited volume. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

David Lorenzen source

TrangaBellam: with this edit, you cited the David Lorenzen source, giving pages 630-659 as source. I see something relevant on page 631, but that is not support for "rare". Any other specific page(s)? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:11, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I can use the precise word "sporadic". But, it was only yesterday you were mentioning about synonyms. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Sporadic synonyms would be "intermittent, periodic, occasional, irregular", and not "rare". Lorenzen's context is "state-sponsored persecution" of Hindus. Further, he distinguishes that from "state-sponsored" action against Hindu temples. @Kautilya3: Please review the specific pages TrangaBellam has now identified for the three sources. That "However,.... " sentence seems like a misleading summary. We better summarize the views from the three cited sources with context a bit more because they are WP:Due. Perhaps as a separate para or subsection, along with opposing scholarly views for NPOV. Let me know any alternate suggestions you have, after your review. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Which dictionary of international repute mentions periodic as a synonym of sporadic? Merriam Webster mentions aperiodic as a synonym and as far as I know, periodic and aperiodic are antonyms.

We are discussing state-sponsored persecution. You want to now argue that regular Muslim subjects were persecuting the Hindu subjects (which Lorenzen does not cover) as well? Sure but we need a source.

Also, please provide the exact quote and page number from Gokhle's essay. Asking for the third time. So that, I can "contextualise" my response-addition in a better manner. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

How about we settle on "occasional"?

I am not sure where the "specific pages" have been identified. On the main page, I still huge page ranges. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Single page 131.

Unless and until Sarah replies on what basis she wrote the first line, tweaking my one-line-attempt at maintaining NPOV won't lead to anywhere. If she removes her opening line, I will be removing my line. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I have read the context and expanded it, sticking with the word 'sporadic' per source. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Jackson

That the Muslim historians viewed the conquests as religious warfare is undoubtedly true and held by everybody. You need not attribute it to Jackson. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

There is more in those sentences. We attribute for many reasons, such as WP:Plag issues / if fragments can be seen as close paraphrasing, letting the reader know the scholar behind that view, etc. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Not sure. Do we attribute NASA for the fact that earth goes around the Sun? TrangaBellam (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

If a view is representative of scholarly literature, attribution isn't just unnecessary, it can violate NPOV; see WP:YESPOV. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Editor of Frontline is not Richard Eaton

@Kautilya3: With this edit TrangaBellam claims Richard Eaton is stating:

"The ideologues of the Hindu Right have, through a manipulation of pre-modern history and a tendentious use of source material and historical data, built up a dangerously plausible picture of fanaticism, vandalism and villainy on the part of the Indo-Muslim conquerors and rulers. Part of the ideological and political argument of the Hindu Right is the assertion that for about five centuries from the thirteenth, Indo-Muslim states were driven by a 'theology of iconoclasm' - not to mention fanaticism, lust for plunder, and uncompromising hatred of Hindu religion and places of worship."

That is a quote in the abstract by "– Editor, Frontline". Please check. We should not misrepresent Eaton, or imply he is the editor of a media publication. Overall, I do not see where Eaton is "rejecting". His position is different, nuanced. Not only in the full article but in his far more detailed scholarly books. We should rely on and summarize, with context, those scholarly papers/books of Richard Eaton, set aside Indian newspapers and media/magazines. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree. This topic is too hot for a Frontline editor to be used. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Madurai Sultanate

A newer source :-

• Rao, Ajay K. (2016-01-02). "From Fear to Hostility: Responses to the Conquests of Madurai". South Asian Studies. 32 (1): 68–79. doi:10.1080/02666030.2016.1182326. ISSN 0266-6030.

TrangaBellam (talk) 06:58, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Friedmann

The book is a collection of essays. If I remember the times I read it. Please describe the chapter and author. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Wait, the page numbers you mention contains an essay by B.G. Gokhale titled Hindu responses to the Muslim presence in Maharashtra. What's happening here? TrangaBellam (talk) 20:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I used the wiki cite tool for google books. The tool has its limitations. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Don't know about the tool but no issues. Thanks. TrangaBellam (talk) 03:09, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Please provide quotes. I checked out Gokhale's chapter and he mentions that such acts were not the norm and sporadic. TrangaBellam (talk) 04:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

...Destruction of places of religious worship, such as temples, and dishonor to women would generally provoke sharp reactions. But both the rulers and their rural subjects understood well the limits of tolerance and generally kept themselves within those bounds.... There are two aspects of the subject that may be noted at the outset: historical facts, and the subjective perceptions of history in the minds of men as reflected in historical and literary works...We are more concerned here with the perceptions of the Muslims and the Muslim state in the minds of the people of Maharashtra than with discrete facts relating to this reign or that...

And, the article prim. discusses Aurangzeb and Shivaji's times. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:11, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

In case, you choose to not respond, I will be removing the line.

Also, please stop using a single source Andre Wink to write three paragraphs. Summarize him. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Those paragraphs are the summary of many many pages (he has 3 volumes on this). Please quit the lecturing, rudeness and questioning scholars such as André Wink. He is a historian and a professor, one of the most respected Indologists specializing in Indo-Islamic history based on Arabic, Persian and Indic evidence. He discusses the complexities of the Hindu-Muslim conflict and persecution, covering both sides. His peer reviewed books have been published, for example, by Cambridge University Press. These publications are WP:RS, and I will be adding more. If you have concerns, please take it to and explain it on one of the noticeboards / ANI / wherever. I will join you there. Your cooperation is requested, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I am once again asking you to quote Gokhle's lines. Until then, removed. That reply is again a strawman because I did not raise any issues with Wink's scholarship. Rather your over-reliance on him.

And, your behavior is very similar to what was noted by @Kashmiri:. Stop pushing edits without consensus. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:14, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

And, this review of Wink's historiography by a highly acclaimed historian is so to-the-point. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:01, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Qasim and Chachnama

I have done a series of edits on two passages concerning Qasim's invasion and Chachnama. If Kautilya3 or Sarah sees wrong representation of any source, please flag. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Sarah, you note ..trim Friedmann, since Chach Nama is a questionable source in mainstream scholarship.. I agree, at large.

However, Wink's paragraph (that you have written) draws almost-exclusively from Chachnama. Check the footnotes. It is not surprising since he has routinely criticized all works which questions reliability of Chachnama and considers the work to be a fairly accurate register of Conquest-history, though part-fiction.

So, you can either trim Wink's part in a similar fashion (both Wink and Friedmann get a line, each) or you need to keep Friedmann's part in entirety. Because both of them are very reputed scholars, both of them reads the same primary text but arrives at quite different conclusions. It is very important to note Friedmann's reading of the Jat persecution as simply increasing the vigors of caste system which was already prevalent in pre-invasion society. For sake of NPOV, a reader shall know both sides. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what Wink said about Chachnama. Honestly, it should be pretty straightforward for any trained historian to figure out what parts of Chachnama are original and what parts were later representation. (Note that even the later representation predates practically all of the history we are covering.) Check Irfan Habib's review of Asif (doi:10.1177/2348448917694235). I think we should just use historians and not worry about how they are drawing information, unless those conclusions have been contested by other historians. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

...I think we should just use historians and not worry about how they are drawing information... — That's precisely what I am stating. I did not delete a single line of Wink but added Friedmann and others, who reached different conclusions on reading the same text. However, Sarah now says that Chachnama is a questionable text, we shall not use that much, hence no Friedmann and others. But, she does keep Wink. So, it's not NPOV anymore. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch and TrangaBellam: I would like to see all mention of Chachnama removed from this page. There is a separate page on Chachnama, which is still quite poor. Please add your content there. On this page, we should just focus on what the scholars say about the subject. Since Manan Asif's book is all about Chachnama, I hope there won't be any need to cite him on this page either. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:24, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Can you please propose a lines? TrangaBellam (talk) 03:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Kautilya3: Yep, remove all mention of Chachnama. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:Synthesis and the need for care

• Past and recent edits by some editors have added "However,...." type statements. I have highlighted some in the sections above on this talk page. In many cases I find that this is creating serious OR / WP:Synthesis problems (misrepresentation of the sources). We should not combine two or more sources discussing very different contexts to reach or imply "a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the source". "However," and such summary implies that the previous sources' context plus view(s)/conclusion(s) have been discussed by the sources cited next and disputed/corrected/questioned. We can certainly summarize the "context+view/conclusion" without "however" from different sources. See WP:Synthesis for illustrations.
• This is not an article on India's history, it is an article on "persecution of Hindus". Avoid adding history such as X attacked Y, AB employed or made donations to CD, etc unless the scholarly source discusses it the context of persecution and Hindus. Otherwise it is WP:Synthesis.
• Please cite specific pages to help collaboration. Citing pages 20-79 is not helpful. If the strongest or the direct support for what you are adding is on page 31, then citing page 31 or perhaps pages 31, 20-79.

Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

The point about specific page is noted. I will do that from now.

I will like some examples about specific cases of synthesis. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:24, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Johnson

That cannot be attributed to Johnson and Koyama. They are quoting Bosworth in toto.

The granting of dhimmi status to Zoroastrians was justified because it was claimed that they had been granted a revelation from God but the Holy Books has not survived. However, “[w]hen the Muslims first acquired a foothold in the Indian subcontinent through the conquest of Sind in the early eighth century, a situation arose similar to that of Persia; the teeming populations there could not be slaughtered en bloc, but how in the absence of any Quranic nass (legal injunction), could the pagan Hindus be assimilated to dhimmi status? On the evidence of Balhduri’s account of the conquest of Sin, there were certainly massacres in the towns of Sind when the Arabs first arrived.” But, eventually “[p]eace treaties were made with the local communities . . . on what had been the standard conditions during the overrunning of the Fertile Crescent and Persia” (Bosworth, 1982, 43).

Note the quotation marks carefully. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Bosworth, 1982, 44 notes :-

...An interesting instance of what seems to be the adoption of an ancient Hindu discriminatory custom towards an inferior minority by the Muslim conquerors has been suggested by Y. Friedmann as the explanation of a puzzling passage in Baladhuri about the activities of an Abbasid governor in Sind during the caliphate of al-Mu'tasim(218-271/833-42). In this, the governor is dealing with the community of Jhats (Arabic, Zutt), considered an unclean group in the Hindu social system; he took the jizya from them, "sealed" their hands (i.e., the practice of giving a receipt for payment of poll tax in a particularly humiliating way, attested for Iraq and others of the central Islamic lands from the Umayyad period onwards),and ordered that every Jhat when he went out should be accompanied by a dog. The apparent explanation is that the dog is an unclean animal to both Hindus and Muslims, and the requirement that every member of the despised Jhat group should be distinguished by having him with a dog would thus be a peculiarly local form of ghiyar, distinguishing feature...

The reason I wrote:- ...It is very important to note Friedmann's reading of the Jat persecution as simply increasing the vigors of caste system which was already prevalent in pre-invasion society... Now, there's Clifford Edmund Bosworth in support. I thank Kautilya3 for restoring my writings. TrangaBellam (talk) 04:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, shall we introduce this specialist work? TrangaBellam (talk) 05:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure. McLean is a great source for Arab Sind. Some people find him relying too much on Chachnama. We might need to filter it through Friedman's insights. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. McLean's review of Wink's work is very negative.

Also, I saw atleast two reviews of Wink's work mentioning that McLean's work is better. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Over reliance on singular sources

I had raised the issue of over-reliance on Andre Wink, some sections above.

Sarah replied ... He is a historian and a professor, one of the most respected Indologists specializing in Indo-Islamic history based on Arabic, Persian and Indic evidence. He discusses the complexities of the Hindu-Muslim conflict and persecution, covering both sides....

Regrettably, there exists voluminous criticism (and admiration, which I didn't doubt) about "the most respected Indologist", as can be understood from multiple mixed/negative reviews over André Wink, added by me. Numerous acclaimed scholars have raised issues with (1) his handling of sources and (2) understanding of religion as a monolith.

Sarah has continued to move on the same track, now using Jackson to frame the entire section on Delhi Sultanates.

I do not propose to remove Wink or Jackson. They are reputed scholars and even if rebutted by many, their views matter. But, I propose that the space accommodated to them be considerably reduced.

@Kautilya3: How do we resolve this? TrangaBellam (talk) 13:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

For the time being, I would say both of you might focus on adding whatever material you want to add, and we can eventually get to harmonising the various points of view. I am more a learner here than an expert. So I will need plenty of time to read through the content, the sources, and contemplate, before I can come to a judgement. @TrangaBellam: thank you also for adding reviews to the Andre Wink page. Those will be very helpful. You can also add footnotes using {{efn}} when you want to add a counterpoint to any content. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Framing of alleged persecutions

Where's the section on the framing of alleged c.q. perceived persecutions? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2021

The Indian diaspora across 30 countries has been protesting the genocide in West Bengal in May, 2021. Please add some information about it. This and this can be used as references (there are many other references online)!

 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) 14:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Please change X (no info) to "The Indian diaspora across 30 countries has been protesting the genocide of Hindus in West Bengal in May, 2021" using this and this as references.

This page is not about protests. If there was a "genocide", of "Hindus", we need reliable sources saying so. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Claims that Aurangzeb provided grants to Temples.

I saw a line in which it was written that Aurangzeb probably built several temples. But that claim would be dubious at best. When NCERT and historians were asked to find proof that the Mughals had built any temples, they were unable to provide any valid source:

• timesnownews.com (Jan 14, 2021), gave grants to rebuild temples': NCERT has no info to back its textbook claims, reveals RTI query
• dnaindia.com, NCERT book claims Aurangzeb gave grants to rebuild temples but has no info on source

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Somethingsomeoneqwerty (talk • contribs) 19 july 2021 (UTC)

The lines were not sourced to NCERT. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay, but they were and other historians were unable to find any proof of that either. But if you insist I'll add that line again. Somethingsomeoneqwerty 17 july 2021

Eraly is a pop-historian and the lowest-quality of all those sources which are used.

other historians were unable to find any proof of that either TrangaBellam (talk) 17:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't know about Eraly being a pop-historian, but his wikipedia page indicates that he is reliable, at least as a source for Mughal History. Beyond this, I don't think I am big enough to judge which historian is good or bad. I simply cited what he said, and I specified that these are his views alone. But why did you revert the all the other changes as well?

It was an open case, they were free to refer to any work, by any historian, but were still incapable of finding any certifiable source. Other than this can you please provide the link to the source claiming that Aurangzed built any Hindu or Jain temples, or any Sikh Gurudwaras, or any Buddhist Stupas, I'd greatly appreciate it.Somethingsomeoneqwerty 17 july 2021

(edit conflict)There is not a single review of any of Eraly's works in any peer-reviewed journal. I did not intend to revert the 1971 Genocide parts.

It was an open case, they were free to refer to any work, by any historian, but were still incapable of finding any certifiable source TrangaBellam (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Our source is Audrey Truschke. You might also consult:

Chandra, Jnan (October 1957). "Aurangzib and Hindu temples". Journal of the Pakistan Historical Society. 5 (4): 247–254.

Chandra, Jnan (April 1959). "Alamgir's Grant to a Brahmin". Journal of the Pakistan Historical Society. 7 (2): 99–100.

Chandra, Jnan (January 1959). "Alamgir's Attitude towards Non-Muslim Institutions". Journal of the Pakistan Historical Society. 7 (1): 36–39.

Chandra, Jnan (October 1958). "Alamgir's Tolerance in the light of Contemporary Jain literature". Journal of the Pakistan Historical Society. 6 (4): 269–272.

Chandra, Satish (1970). "SOME RELIGIOUS GRANTS OF AURANGZEB TO "MATHS" IN THE STATE OF MARWAR". Proceedings of the Indian History Congress. 32: 405–407. ISSN 2249-1937.

The very recent and very reputed Eaton, Richard M. "Aurangzeb – from Prince to Emperor 'Alamgir, 1618–1707". India in the Persianate Age: 1000–1765. University of California Press. pp. 327–338. ISBN 9780520974234.

Thanks. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Regarding this edit diff, edit-summary

Edit 1:There was another claim present in the note which was referenced, so I thought that it'd only be fair to show that as well. Please let me know if that is acceptable or not. Edit 2: the claim about Aurangzeb building temples or providing grants, has unfortunately been debunked several times, I'll try posting the latest link as of January 2021 in the Talk Page.

ad 1: you selectively copied the quote from the note; that doesn't work. I've removed it again.

ad 2: the temple claim is sourced to Copland, not to the NCERT; please stick to the topic, c.q. source.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: I'm sorry, but I don't understand what further sources are required? An RTI activist filed a petiton asking NCERT to provide sources or backings for their claims, but they were unable to do so. NCERT is supposed to be among the foremost sources of History in India. Now there has been a further petition filed (in march 2021) to change this in their books: Okay I see that you have a different source, but I thought that since there was a fairly big and public debate regarding the authenticity of this claim it'd be unfair to add this on wikipedia. But if there is a proper source, as you said, by Audrey Truschke, then I appreciate it. Thankyou. Somethingsomeoneqwerty (talk)

Debate is held among historians over peer-reviewed publications. Not among random John Does via bureaucratic procedures.

NCERT is supposed to be among the foremost sources of History in India. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

TrangaBellam

• Could you also answer in chronological order? Thanks.
• Specify the topic you're responding to: "Regarding xx";
• Provide diffs, titles and disputed text, not just an author-name; sometimes you're quite cryptic;
• Not use the "Citation needed"-tag when responding to a statement at the talkpage? It's quite confusing.

Disputed text #1:

In contrast, the historian Abraham Eraly estimates Aurangzeb era destruction to be significantly higher; "in 1670, all temples around Ujjain were destroyed"; and later, "300 temples were destroyed in and around Chitor, Udaipur and Jaipur" among other Hindu temples destroyed elsewhere in campaigns through 1705. Source: Eraly, Abraham (2000). Emperors of the Peacock Throne: The Saga of the Great Mughals. Penguin Books. pp. 398–399. ISBN 978-0141001432.

Disputed text #2 (apologies; it wasn't Copland et al., but Eaton):

he probably built more temples than he destroyed." Source: Eaton, Richard M. (2000). "Temple Desecration and Indo-Muslim States" (PDF). Frontline. pp. 73–75. Archived from the original (PDF) on 6 January 2014. Ian Copland; Ian Mabbett; Asim Roy; Kate Brittlebank; Adam Bowles (2013). A History of State and Religion in India. Routledge. p. 119. ISBN 978-1-136-45950-4.

ad 1: Eraly (2000), Emperors of the Peacock Throne: The Saga of the Great Mughals, has 64 cites at Google Scholar; seems okay to me. Yet, copying the quote from the note into the main body of the article is not okay; the note is balanced, but this violated WP:NPOV.

ad 2: regarding the NCERT-"controversy," the NCERT answered that "The information is not available on the files of the Department." Interestingly, I can't find the sentence These orders appear to have been directed not toward Hindu temples in general, but towards a more narrowly defined “deviant group", and he probably built more temples than he destroyed. in Eaton (2000)... And why? Because Somethingsomeoneqwerty fucked-up this page with his edits:

• The line was added by me diff;
• Somethingsomeoneqwerty removed the statement, but left the source diff;
• I reverted diff;
• Somethingsomeoneqwerty removed it again, moving the Copland-source downwards diff;
• after reverting TrangaBellam, they re-inserted it diff, but with the wrong source, and the edit-summary I've added this line for now, but I'd greatly appreciate it if someone could give a valid source for it, because I could not find any..

Look, Somethingsomeoneqwerty, if you go on like this, I'll ask for you to be blocked due to a lack of WP:COMPETENCE.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:44, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Bangladesh genocide - revert of all the changes

But why did you revert the all the other changes as well?Somethingsomeoneqwerty 17 july 2021 (See diff JJ)

@Somethingsomeoneqwerty: stop messing-up the talkpage. Answer below the latest thread, and sign with ~~~~. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:44, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Disputed text:

The genocide in Bangladesh began on 26 March 1971 with the launch of Operation Searchlight, as West Pakistan (now Pakistan) began a military crackdown on the Eastern wing (now Bangladesh) of the nation. The act was motivated by religious and political reasons. During the nine-month-long Bangladesh War for Liberation, members of the Pakistani military and supporting pro Pakistani Islamist militias from Jamaat-e-Islami party killed between 200,000 and 3,000,000 people and raped between 200,000 and 400,000 Bengali women, according to Bangladeshi and Indian sources, in a systematic campaign of genocidal rape. The actions against women were supported by Pakistan's religious leaders, who declared that Bengali women were gonimoter maal (Bengali for "public property"). As a result of the conflict, a further eight to ten million people, mostly Hindus, fled the country to seek refuge in neighbouring India. It is estimated that up to 30 million civilians were internally displaced out of 70 million. During the war, there was also ethnic violence between Bengalis and Urdu-speaking Biharis. Biharis faced reprisals from Bengali mobs and militias and from 1,000 to 150,000 were killed.

References

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm new to editing on Wikipedia and still not used to the proper etiquette. I'd appreciate it if you could accommodate my inexperience. Thankyou for ponting out my errors. I'm not sure I follow what you mean by disputed text. Can you please elaborate? ::Somethingsomeoneqwerty (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I didn't intend to revert this edit. Thanks. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, I do object against it's inclusion. It's the lead of 1971 Bangladesh genocide, which was added without attribution (stating in an edit-summary that it was copied from another aeticle). A link suffices, instead of copying this info. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree and did not scrutinize this edit. This is pandering to the Hindutva tropes of 1971 being a Hindu genocide inflicted by Muslims and cannot be farther from truth. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Absent reliable tertiary sources which document 1971 to be a persecution of Hindus (rather than Bengalis, including Hindus), I will remove this section in around a month. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

CA subsection inclusion

@TrangaBellam: Regarding this edit, I'm not sure sure why we'd need consensus decision to be made for the inclusion of this subsection since the sources are pretty clear about the subject matter. —Wiki Linuz (Ping me!) 05:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

The sources are pretty clear that the arsonists willed to burn down mosques (in retaliation to 9/11) but failed to distinguish between the intended target and a temple.

Racists/Islamophobes burning down temples, from what is evidently not an antipathy against Hindus, does not make persecution. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

No, indeed. Rather Persecution of Muslims. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

So, can I move the 'Canada' section rather to Persecution of Muslims? —Wiki Linuz (Ping me!) 06:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

WikiLinuz, what's your plans for the Pakistan section? WP:NOTNEWS is the relevant policy and such detailed descriptions shall be moved to their article on religious freedom; it is a fact that the state of Pakistan persecutes minorities (via direct and indirect means) and the best of sources shall be used to flesh a few paragraphs at most. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:29, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

[1] what's your plans for the Pakistan section? (..) such as detailed description shall be moved to their article on religious freedom; [2] (..) best of sources shall be used to flesh a few paragraphs at most.

[1]: I'm planning to move certain temple destruction and vandalism to Hinduism_in_Pakistan#Riots,_attacks_and_destruction_of_temples section; [2]: Yes, like stated, we shall move the vandalism leaving behind prosecution noted from more refined sources. What's your stance on moving the CA section to Persecution of Muslims? Wiki Linuz (Ping me!) 16:02, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October, 2021

There was a lot of violence in Bagladesh recently and their PM was forced to say that the perpetrators will be hunted down according to this and this, so please make a sentence and add it using these sources. Thanks!

Raghu487, TrangaBellam or Kautilya3, please do the needful.

Using the sources mentioned above, please add a sentence to the Bangladesh section like, "Following reports of vandalism of Durga Puja pandals in Bangladesh, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina issued a warning to the miscreants and said they would be "hunted down and punished". You may change the sentence if it is inappropriate but please see what the sources say.

 Not done Persecution of Hindus in Bangladesh has been a consistent affair for decades and the premiers deliver such vacuous promises often. This article is an overview and such details violate WP:NOTNEWS. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Aurangzeb

It is surprising why the atrocities committed by butchers such as Aurangzeb and all Mohammedan islamic invaders have not been portrayed. In the article. The only purpose with which terrorism prevails is to convert people under threat of murder to convert or be subdued. Aurangzeb created a history of plunder and loot which taimur started and still continues in Pakistan on all non Muslims. The rape of nuns of the church in Kasmir is totally ignored. Th 2401:4900:54EE:C7AA:895A:7AC7:1BF4:684D (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Hindu nuns? Fascinating. Speaking of plunder and loot, Srimara Srivallabha predates Taimur. Anyways, please find reliable sources and propose additions. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December, 2021

In the, "General effect" subsection of the, "Medieval era Muslim rulers" section, the beginning of the second paragraph reads, "According to Romila Thapar, with the onset of Muslim rule all Indians, higher and lower caste, came to be regarded as mleccha, and were lumped together in the category of "Hindus."" but mleccha meant foreigner, so please remove that word from that sentence.- 116.75.88.82 (talk) 17:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

It can be changed to, "According to Romila Thapar, with the onset of Muslim rule, all Indians, higher and lower caste were lumped together in the category of "Hindus.""

A better solution here would be to define what "mleccha" means, but I'm not knowledgable enough in this topic to answer. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 22:35, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

The word does not make sense in that sentence! That is why I suggest it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4071:4D81:9EE8:2884:B8AB:2800:4429 (talk) 10:32, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done Kautilya3 (talk) 22:19, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• The Hindu Samaj Temple after fire.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2022

Please create a section for Canada and add this, "Repeated thefts and vandalism in temples is worrying the Hindu community in Canada" using this and this as sources. 116.72.147.85 (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: sources do not indicate that the content passes WP:NOTNEWS. ––FormalDude talk 04:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Attack on Festival Processions

Hello, Amitized recently added the currently ongoing conflicts between the Hindu and Muslim populations during Hindu Festivals as "Attacks on Hindu Festivals" in the article. I dont think that this particular event counts as persecution considering the center is taking action against it and the institutions are working. Although the historical events that have happened in the 20th century can be added here. >>> Extorc.talk 05:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted the edit because the sources are unreliable and do not support whatever was added in wiki-voice. Amitized, even if you find better sources, I'd suggest addressing the concerns raised above first. Hemantha (talk) 09:23, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2022

K1761 (talk) 08:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Prosecution means the institution and conducting of legal proceedings against someone in respect of a criminal charge.

the act or process of prosecuting specifically : the institution and continuance of a criminal suit involving the process of pursuing formal charges against an offender to final judgment. 2 : the party by whom criminal proceedings are instituted or conducted. 3 obsolete

So by giving a new definition to prosecution which is not part of Cambridge and Oxford dictionary, aren't we manipulating? If I search "Violence against Hindus", It leads me to "Prosecution against Hindus with a made up definition of "prosecution" and how what a sociology professor thinks matters when it's an english word and what a literary professor think should matter. Otherwise it should also be Prosecution against Muslims and not "Violence against Muslims"

 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) 09:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Dismissive prejudice

This article suffers from dismissive prejudice: an ab initio strategy to dismiss, minimize or hand-wave away the severity of masscres described in writing by the perpetrators. Said accounts are not rebutted or ameliorated by a single contemporaneous eyewitness or writer. This is like denying the Holocaust because it's too horrific to contemplate. Sooku (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2022 (UTC)