Talk:Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh/Archive 2

RSS and hindu supremism compared to monotheistic supremism
I have been reasearching the Hindutva / RSS for a while now.

I find articles with things like the BJP party leader wistfully asking the pope to 'declare all religions equal'. From things like this I gather that most hindus are universalists.

Is the RSS regarded as far right just because they are non-universalist hindus i.e. hindu ideoogical supremists ?

Compared to most Christian / Islamic theologists the RSS aren't really 'religious' extremists, it's just that the hindu norm is more oriented towards religious universalism.

Response: I have known RSS very closely, for over 40 years. They are not extremists in the normal sense of the word. In my opinion, RSS exists because Hinduism is not an organized religion but Hindus are still identified as HIndus and have been persecuted for centuries because they are Hindus. There is no platform to talk about common interests of Hindus, there is no organization, institution or government that works towards common Hindu interests. And there are interests to protect, what with forced conversions, conversions based on money and fraud, riots and partitions, ethnic cleansings in Pakistan, Kashmir etc.

Babri mosque missing
In the fist paragraph it just says 'after the 1992 demolition'. When I went to edit it someone has tried to link it but it is not happening. Don't really edit much so am foolishly ignorant of how to fix this!

Would someone mind amending this?

Thank you

Minor change in the tenures of RSS chiefs
K.S.Sudarshan took over as RSS chief in the year 2000 and not 1998, as mentioned earlier in this article.More information about this can be found on http://www.rediff.com/news/2000/mar/10rss2.htm. So I have changed the entry.

Anon edits
RSS's biggest online discussion group: -

http://www.o_r_k_u_t.com/Community.aspx?cmm=2623078

It is at present having around 8500+ members. There are also many yahoo groups on RSS but biggest in them is just 1400 members strong.

http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=145&page=30 RSS joins relief operation in flood-hit Surat

http://news.oneindia.in/2006/06/25/jk-rss-adopts-militancy-hit-muslim-children.html RSS adopts around 100 militancy-affected children of J&K

RSS members assisting in relief work in flood-affected areas [Courtesy - CNN-IBN]

Nagpur, Aug 10 : Lokkalyan Samiti, an outfit within RSS, has extended help to the flood affected people of Vidarbha region by providing medicines, meals and essential commodities, according to samiti vice-president Vilas Phadanvis.

"About 200 RSS volunteers are assisting in arranging meals, distributing medicines and collecting utensils for the affected-people in worst-hit Yavatmal and Chandrapur districts", Phadanvis told reporters here today.

RSS activists are enaged in relief work in Umarkhed, Kelapur, Babhulgaon, Ralegaon, Darwah taluka along with Patan and Bori areas and have provided cooked food, linen and medicines, he said.

To collect essential commodities and utensils, RSS activists, along with students and teachers, would take out rallies at other places, Phadanvis stated.

Samiti has appealed to citizens to donate plastic mats, buckets, kitchen utensils and cash to meet the requirements. Samiti was working with local units of BJP, VHP, Bajrang Dal and other Sangh Parivar members for collecting and distributing relief material in Vidarbha region, Phadanvis said.

Some video collections, from RSS Swyamsevaks

on Sri Madhavrao Sadashivrao Golwalkar alias Guruji http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-733685232730989997&q=rss

on Lakshmi Bai Kelkar aka 'Mausi Ji' - Founder of Women's wing of Sangh

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5631255398904393522&q=rss

on Trailer on "Sangh"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4931461361225442948&q=rss

 on Desh Hame Detha Hai

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=381046271740440543&q=rss+-feed

on Vedic Science

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8572690367218250933&q=rss+-feed

Regards, Vikas

=
============

Please add these above informations in the main article. Regards Vikas

Objection to changes to sourced content
I object to the following edits which change material that is sourced by a WP:RS:. The book by Nussbaum is the source for the quotation, which is directly relevant to the subject. Buddhipriya 06:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The quote is correct, and has not been removed. It is appropriately placed in the criticism section (where it is now), and henru's view paraphrased in the history article. Putting Nehru's quote in box while not doing the same to others is hijacking wikipedia to propogate an anti-RSS POV and is using wikipedia as a soapbox.Khilafat Osmania 06:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The quotation is cited by Nussbaum specifically in context of the Gandhi assination to help explain the political thinking in place by Nehru immediately after the assasination, and to explain his communication to the regional governors about his concerns. Moving it away from the assasination confuses the issue and gives no context for this.  Nussbaum's context is very specific in showing that Nehru believed that the RSS was behind the assasination.  The issue is not whether or not that was true, but what Nehru believed and acted upon, based on his communication to the regional governors. Buddhipriya 06:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Which is why the sentence was paraphrased in the Gandhi Assassination section. It is both an attack on the RSS from the point of view of Gandhi's assassination and an attack on the RS in general (see Godwin's law, comparing people to Nazis constitutes an attack meant primarily to censor debate). The present version keeps Nehru's views in both context, and not giving undue weight to it keeps the article free of WP:POINT. Khilafat Osmania 06:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't agree, so let's see what other editors have to say. Buddhipriya 06:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not enough. You have to explain why you don't agree. There isn't enough of a dispute in progress to necessitate some sort of third party intervention yet. No information that you added was removed, so it is not a content issue, but an issue of Undue weight and WP:POINT. Khilafat Osmania 06:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is the text that I feel should be added to the section on the Gandhi assasination, which you have objected to:

After Mahatma Gandhi's death in 1948, the RSS was accused by the Government of India for taking part in the plot to assassinate the Mahatma. Nehru believed that the murder of Gandhi was part of a conspiracy on the part of the Hindu right to seize power, and he believed that the RSS was the power behind this conspiracy. Nehru saw the situation as analogous to that in Europe on the eve of the fascist takeovers and in December 1947 he wrote to the provincial governors saying:

I think it would be best to ask the opinion of other editors to judge if this material is relevant to understanding the political climate following the assasination and Nehru's opinions regarding the involvement of the RSS in that assasination and his suspictions of of a more broad conspiracy. The material sets the events of the banning of the RSS into historical perspective, following shortly after World War II, when events in Europe were fresh in the minds of world leaders. The quote establishes a historical context for the banning of the RSS following the assasination. I see that another editor has agreed with the version as I inserted it, but that you have now reverted that editor's changes as well.

Also note that your reversions and changes are impacting several sections of the article at once. To reduce the complexity of the edits being discussed, would it be possible for you to focus on one item at a time rather than changing many things at once? Making multiple simultaneous changes makes it more difficult to collaborate on editing, as the issues for each edit may need to be discussed independently.

For example, you have also objected to the use of the Quotation template in the above material, since it is not used for other Quotations. That is a formatting objection rather than a content objection. The benefits of using the Quotation template are that it makes it easier for the reader to visually see which statements in the article are quotes. See: Template:Quotation. Its use in this article probably should be discussed independently so editors can make a conscious decision regarding whether or not it should be applied consistently to all quotes in this article. It is not a critical issue, and thus can be handled as a separate question. Buddhipriya 17:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Moved from article
REQUEST :- THIS IS VERY RELEVANT PLEASE DONT DELETE.

There seems to be an inherent contradiction in either the total number of Members or the number of SHAKHAS (Branches). It is said here that the number of members of RSS is 4.5 million and Shakhas is 50,000. If the number of Shakhas is (as mentioned here) 50,000 all over India, the number of members enrolled in each Shakha comes to only 9 (nine) per Shakha, which is too low to be called as a Shakha or Branch. Generally in RSS system one Shakha is run for one area (called as Locality, Peth or Munciple Ward in Indian terms). If this is so, one area (which may have minimum 10000 population) has only Nine members enrolled in one Shakha, which is again too low. Something some where is wrong. It is also possible that the number of Shakhas and Members mentioned here is bit exaggerated without any logic. The number of Sangha Shakhas was at peak after Emergency was lifted in India in 1977. After around 1985, due to Socio- Economical changes in the life style of Indians the attendance at Shakhas drastically reduced resulting into closer of many Shakhas. At present there may be only 10,000 Shakhas mainly in smaller cities or rural areas with an average attendance of approx 20 Members in each Shakha, totaling to only 2 million active Members. It is noteworthy that the attendance of Youth is very low. In bigger cities having population morethan 15 million the Shakhas are virtually wiped out. It is also because people now a days don’t like wearing old fashioned Khaki Short and don’t want to play Indian games being the backward system adopted by RSS. The popularity and membership of BJP is much higher than of RSS and that is why BJP is overshadowing and dominating RSS, which is supposed to be the mother organization. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.211.246.141 (talk • contribs) 13 Jul 2007 (UTC)


 * First, even RSS doesn't keep count of it's members or track them centrally. So even RSS doesn't know the exact count of its member and they only estimate also. Thus I personally wouldn't trust any outsider even trying to guess the numbers. However, RSS does keep exact count of other things such as the number of Shakhas (Daily/Weekly/Monthly) ... 45,000 this year. So trust the number of the Shakhas but not the members. Addtionally, RSS recently claimed that ~1,76,00,000 or 17.6 Million people attended its various programs held throughout the year 2006 all over Bharat. So this gives an estimate of the size of Sangh supporters.


 * Also the definition of RSS's member or swayamsevak is different. They consider anyone who has attended Shakha as swayamsevak. So that number can vary widely. Sjain 20:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

BJP quote
The BJP is not the RSS. The quote is meaningless to the article. Baka man  00:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If the following BJP quote is relevant and meaningful then how come not the other?
 * "However, it feels this society has been threatened by repeated persecution of Hindus, especially by Muslims. According to the BJP, a member of the Sangh Parivar: Thus, the seeds of today's Hindu Jagriti (awakening) were created the very instance that an invader threatened the fabric of Hindu society which was religious tolerance. The vibrancy of Hindu society was noticeable at all times in that despite such barbarism from the Islamic hordes of central Asia and Turkey, Hindus never played with the same rules that Muslims did.[9]" Please dont cherrypick quotes to PROJECT a particular view favored by you of BJP. Either take out mention of BJP altogether or leave this one too. --TomCat111 05:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Its still irrelevant. Baka man  18:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Is it irrelevant because you say so? Have you even read my response above?  If you cannot support your contention with reasonable argument then please stop vandalizing.  Time and again you are violating POV. --TomCat111 19:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Since your editwarring tendencies are your prime factor for editing the pedia, there is really no reason to respond to your rants. I'll humor you. Your quote from some obscure part of the BJP website, never even mentions the RSS. It doesn't even mention the BJP, and there is no case from placing it in even the BJP article. Your edit summaries are even more petulant than your talk page "Statements".

Social Activities
I dissected the Social Activities section and here are a few changes I was forced to make-
 * Sewa Bharati has also collaborated with several relief groups, such as the Catholics Bishops Conference of India to conduct relief operations in the aftermath of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. Activities included building shelters for the victims, providing food, clothes and medical necessities
 * The article from which these details are sourced very clearly explain that the Sewa Bhararti "was ready for the mission and preparing to send relief material to the affected areas". It does not say what or whether any aid was actually given. Also collaboration with the CBCI is misinterpreted.


 * In 2006, RSS participated in relief efforts to provide basic necessities such as food, milk and potable water to the people of Surat, Gujarat who were affected by massive floods in the region
 * Here the source was The Organiser, a pro RSS mouthpiece. Not reliable by any means.


 * The RSS also rendered relief work during the 2001 Gujarat Earthquake and the 2004 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake and the subsequent Tsunami
 * The two sources are just links to news articles on the disasters. Not verifiable, therfore invalid.

--EGGman64 18:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The intro paragraph has a line numerous social, service charity (sic), and relief works, which I have removed.
 * A single verifiable act of charity cannot justify "numerous".
 * "Relief work" is also ambiguous because it is not mentioned in the cited article whether the Sewa Bharati actually did ground work in TN post Tsunami.
 * The term "charity" has the connotation of repeated altruistic endeavours. This too is not verifiable.

Hope this prevents my edits from being undone. If removal was unjustifiable, please explain claely so some middle ground can be reached. Thaks. --EGGman64 09:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Israel and Zionism
I have begun a reworking of the Zionist section. Certain key points were left out and relevancy was lost, although citations are present. Allow me to elucidate- A recent issue of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)-backed weekly Organiser has gone out of its way to support the Zionist cause, arguing that the recent violence was the result of Palestinian intransigence.
 * This was quoted in reference to the GOI's decision to ratify a UNGA resolution condemning excessive force used by Israelis in Palestine.

This has invited scathing attacks on the party from anti-Zionist elements
 * There are NO scathing remarks on the cited page rather a clear dissemination of the ideals and objectives of the RSS. This has no relevancy to the previous sentences. However, when clubbed together these take on a different (and almost propagandist) meaning.

''In addition. RSS welcomed the visit of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to India in 2003.Sharon's visit was widely condemned.''
 * Here reasons for condemnation of Sharon's visit (i.e failure to uphold the Oslo Accords which has led to a systematic breakdown of the middle east peace protest) were conveniently left out.

''This follows the rise in support for Israel in India in recent years. This has invited scathing attacks on the party from anti-Zionist elements''
 * This statement is irrelevant because the cited article refers to India as a whole. What difference does the country's stand on Israel make to the RSS and Israel? Furthermore, it is implied that anti-Zionist factions are opposed to RSS because they claim Palestinian intransigence. This is a blatant misuse of a citation. The article on Ghadar's site is with reference to the Freeman Center's stance and the site is clearly NOT Anti Zionist. I propose that the above lines be removed or reconstructed.

--EGGman64 12:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Protected
I've protected the page until the disputes are resolved via discussion and consensus, verifiability, and other relevant policies. Thanks. --Ragib 04:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Archives
Can we have the earlier discussions archived? I'm using Misza Bot --EGGman64 07:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

eggman reverts

 * Eggman I see you use an op-ed done by a Marxist (Praful Bidwai) and partisan rags (countercurrents) for the page. Any informed reader would laugh if you asked them whether Bidwai could say something objective about the RSS. Usage of these are not acceptable under WP:V or WP:LIBEL.
 * Also, the adding of irrelevant sections on Communism and obscure poojas really is not central to the RSS' notability. Undue weight is being given to esoteric things in an obvious attempt to skew this page
 * Reliable info is being removed at a striking pace, such as references from mainstream literature discussing their charity projects, which are notable, considering the RSS is the largest volunteer organization in India. As a counterview to marxist polemicist Bidwai, Sandhya Jain goes into quite a bit of detail on the RSS charity work after the tsunami. Baka man  22:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I do agree that an oped should be questionable. But addition of the Bidwai reference is in context to the all male inclusion. I should think you are aware that the RSS is all male. since that was the first link which propounds that information.
 * I agree that counter currents is not reliable. It was not MY inclusion. I agree that it should be removed, however it must be noted that most of the sources in the page are opined or defunct.
 * I think that an entire town filled with posters of condemnation by the RSS merits a mention as a controversy.It is an insight into the lack of religious tolerance(?) that the RSS is so famous for.
 * The brutal attack by RSS workers on a person belonging with ideological difference (which is very different from, as you say "an irrelevant sections on Communism"). It is neither a section nor one on Communism. It was a valid controversy which featured in all major Indian newspapers.
 * "you say "reliable info", please enlighten me.- believe every bit of info I removed or edited was accompanied by an explanation.


 * I do not wish to engage in a battle of opinions, rather I'd like some neutral ground to be found. However, first I must acknowledge that the provocation comes from you. My first edit to this page was reverted. In an attempt to bring to your notice to the Talk page where I had provided reasons, I posted on YOUR talk page. Once again, no reply but a quick revert. Even edits where I pleaded for you to open a discussion before reverting, went unheeded. The points you've discussed in this post do not grant you the right to changes I made (also with explanation) on the Zionism section and the social activities section. You've reverted all my changes regardless of their content. This was unwarranted and unjust. Why not remove the Counter current link and with the reminder that it is a biased site? Why not remind us that Praful Bidwai is a provocateur and then provide a link which states that the RSS is all male? Why not add the Sandhya Jain's op-ed column (hypocritically) as a verifiable link and keep the line on RSS work during the tsunami? Why not allow verified content to stand even though it may not show that RSS in good light because it is verifiable?

I'm sure you've seen it before, but please take a look at this.--EGGman64 05:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Again you give undue weight to random unrelated events which are really unrelated to the RSS' notability. The attacks in Kannur were reported I agree, but the RSS is not a force in Kerala, neither is this of any equivalence level on par with their political views, which are central to its notability. The section on Tamil Nadu is so obscure it is a testament to your mud-digging skills that you found one incident like this is a news archive. Ramanathapuram is little more than a village, which RSS is a national organization. Verified content would be like the material in The Hindu referring to their charitable activities during the tsunami. Of course, you wouldnt let that stand would you? Its better for you to talk about communal fights with arm chopping and villages in the middle of nowhere to prove a point. Baka  man  01:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Bakasuprman time and again vandalizes the page by undoing without giving any explanation at all. Other times, he invents excuses like ‘popups’ without ever clicking on the link. He shows total disregard about the discussions and at his sweet-will vandalizes the page to propagate his narrow vision; for example, please take a look at the [BJP quote] discussion.  He needs to be counseled so he can show some more of an ethical responsibility; or else he should be banned.--TomCat111 22:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:POPUPS, TomCat in case you never got the point. Baka man  01:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

So on, so forth, and thanks for all the reverts
Verily, my patience wears thin. Your constant reverts indicate a chronic inability to overlook the most lucid explanations. A flick of a wrist, a tap of a button...voila let grammar, syntax and factuality be damned. But my sarcasm is lost, I'm sure as it tries to weave its way through an impregnable cranium.

''Verified content would be like the material in The Hindu referring to their charitable activities during the tsunami. Of course, you wouldnt let that stand would you? Its better for you to talk about communal fights with arm chopping and villages in the middle of nowhere to prove a point''

Rebuttal: Sandhya Jain's column in the Hindu is also an op-ed column. I'm sure you'd rather not be a hypocrite, so let's not reference it. (After all I did remove Praful Bidwai's, at your request.)

Take a look at the village in the middle of nowhere. Pretty cool huh! I'm sure it's not ALL that important...but somehow it seems to have a place here.

But why must I bother with this debate? Are not my additions factual? Mud-digging or not, WHO ARE YOU to decide what stays or not if IT IS TRUE?! And as Huxley says Facts don't cease to exist because they are ignored --EGGman64 18:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sandhya Jain was used in the same spirit as Bidwai. I am quite aware of the fact that op-ed's are not the best sources, and I never used that in the article while you continue to use the Leftist messiah as a tool in your rather holistic defamation of the RSS.
 * Usage of countercurrents, a partisan source doesnt make the vitriol drive any more legitimate
 * The second word in a header is rarely capitalized. Syntactical errors?
 * You have not demonstrated why minor gang violence in Kerala and obscure regional edicts fit in the framework. It is obvious to an informed observer that these kinds of killings are not uncommon in Kerala with UDF, RSS, NDF, and LDF workers hacking each other on a regular basis. A district head of an RSS office in a small district is not a reflection of official RSS policy. Saying otherwise is a hasty and politically mischievous generalization based on an instance.
 * The aforementioned pale in comparison to substantive debates as to whether the RSS is fascist and serve to obfuscate legitimate criticism.

 Baka man  22:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Please do not place your statements inside mine. Baka man  00:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Do point out where I "continue" to use Bidwai.
 * Do point out where I've used Countercurrents. I just removed the link to CC in Gandhi's asas.., although I didn't add it there.
 * I refer to the sentences which you constantly revert. An example- They have engaged in numerous social, service charity, and relief works, and engaged in inter-community dialogues, as well as actively participated in the political process.
 * Maybe if you'd read the Indian Express article cited things would be clearer? UDF, NDF, and LDF workers constantly hacking each other have, with guile and ease, evaded the media. Lucky them. The RSS has not though and let's publish the facts as they stand.
 * Do read wikipedia's article on Fascism. Its a wonderfully ambiguous and thus, subject various points of view. A debate on whether (or not) the RSS is Fascist seems ridiculous when the meaning of Fascism is equivocal and obtuse. Facts rather than interpretation thereof is of more importance to an encyclopedia.--EGGman64 20:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC) reconstructed from series of diffs Baka man  01:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I see that the Ghadar.Insaf Marxist website is being used in an article on the RSS. Needless to say this doesn't meet WP:RS on partisan sources. Mentioning soapboxing in TN and minor communal killings in Kerala do not meet WP:UNDUE. Why not mention the killings on RSS members, or the fact that convicted terrorists support the government of kerala. Baka man  00:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Why not remove the link to Ghadar Insaf, instead of REVERTING all the content. I'm pretty sick of this mindlessness. Also, if you feel that the articles  are worth citing, by all means please add them. But do not circumvent the discussion. I'm requesting you NOT to revert stuf I've added since EVERYTHING has a source and reasons. Please do not use the revert buton. Change text, remove unreliable stuff, add more content but PLEASE stop arbitrarily removing content with a revert.
 * Thanks. --EGGman64 06:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There is little rhyme or reason for keeping obscure events not germane to a holistic discussion of the RSS on the article. This is a violation of WP:UNDUE. The "atonement pooja" gets 82 ghits on a generous google search. The "RSS Ramanathapuram district president" is hardly a major figure in the RSS. The feud with the CPI-M is again a local four-way cesspool of political fighting better served in a Politics of Kerala article. You have not demonstrated how this pertains to the national/international RSS (Rashtrik/Antarrastrik) notability of the Sangh. Baka man  02:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Calll for Wider Participation For Article British Raj
My apologies on this off topic post, but this is for asking for help in support from frequent editors here to correct bias in the British Raj article that paint the British Raj in a positive light. It appears that a small number of people have taken over that article while hiding all the atrocities committed by British Raj in India. See Discussion at  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desione (talk • contribs) 16:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV
Looks like an ad for RSS. Must be re written in a neutral way. Madhava 1947 (talk) 00:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

"Vincent Kundukulam, a Christian priest at St. Joseph Pontifical Seminary in Aluva, Kerala, has written a Ph.D thesis in Sorbonne University, Paris, France". Restoring this section as it is sourced and perfectly relevant to this article.Nambo (talk) 11:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Reference About Khushwant Singh
There is reference in this article which mentions a book by Khushwant Singh. The title is "Congress (I) is the Most Communal Party". I could not find any reference to such a book in Google search. Please mention more verifiable resources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skbhat (talk • contribs) 10:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Participated actively in the political process
"They have participated actively in the political process through the Bharatiya Janata Party. "
 * There is no reference for this, while I agree they may have supported BJP, or Shiv Sena or any other party there is no reference that they "have actively participated"> On the contrary RSS considers it self as a non-political organization. In any case to say "They have participated actively in the political process through the Bharatiya Janata Party. " is a Point of View which is not supported by evidence therefore i am removing it.Sindhian (talk) 05:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

threat to the state:
"during periods in which the government of the time considered them a threat to the state"This ia again a propaganda and POV of parties and individuals opposite to RSS. Is there any reference to prove that. Should be removed to restore NPOV Sindhian (talk) 05:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

both offensive and defensive,
"The organization gained considerable strength and support because of its various relief activities, both offensive and defensive"

"both offensive and defensive" sentense actually does not make sense plus is controversial and considered a POV of RSS opponents. No reference or justification for the comment is sited.So I suggest we remove it Sindhian (talk) 05:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Nathuram Godse
"Nathuram Godse, there were reports of celebrations by some RSS members by distributing sweets.  As a precaution, "
 * 1) Nathuram was not a member of RSS at the time he commited the murder so this sentense is not rlelevant to RSS at least does not require prominance. So I will be removing it.Sindhian (talk) 05:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) "some RSS members by distributing sweets" What is the value of this sentense other than propaganda. It is like saying some muslims distributed sweets on 9/11 in an article on muslims? Besides even the quality of reference is questionable. The reference refers to an article where the author says "And there were reports" meaning there is no proof or real reference. Even if it had happened its relevance to RSS as a whole is poor.So I suggest we remove this as well Sindhian (talk) 05:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Israel
"In November 2000, when the BJP-led Indian government voted in favour of the United Nations General Assembly resolution condemning Israel's "excessive use of force" against Palestinian civilians, the RSS-backed weekly, the Organiser went out of its way to support the Zionist cause, arguing that the recent violence was the result of Palestinian intransigence. . This follows the rise in support for Israel in India in recent years. . "

Three things wrong with this piece

1. It talks about BJP to start with while the article is RSS 2. It has hatefull overtone and looks is inteneded as propaganda. "Zionist cause" is used in a hatefull and POV overtone. 3. "Went out of its way" is clearly a POV and cannot be justified on Wikipedia  Sindhian (talk) 05:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

advocating friendship with Pakistan
Out of context section looks like propaganda and openiated sentense.Should be removed or balanced 05:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Accusations
Too many accusations which are infact POV of different insignificant authors of politically opposition. Again looks like propaganda since the acusations or the openions of the said authors are not independent or substantiated. Need to remove to restore NPOV. Sindhian (talk) 05:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

In the form of God
I have never heard that RSS worships country in the form of God. There are no references so removed Sindhian (talk) 05:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Govind Godse
''Gopal Godse, one of the co-accused in the Gandhi murder case and Nathuram Godse’s brother, confirmed that both he and his brother were actively involved with the RSS at the time of the assassination. In an interview in 1994, he stated:

"All the brothers were in the RSS. Nathuram, Dattatreya, myself and Govind. You can say we grew up in the RSS rather than in our home. It was like a family to us. Nathuram had become a baudhik karyavah [intellectual worker] in the RSS. He has said in his statement that he had left the RSS. He said it because Golwalkar [the then RSS Supremo] and the RSS were in a lot of trouble after the murder of Gandhi. But he did not leave the RSS." ''

This sentense is clearly added as a propaganda and has little information value about RSS as an organization so I suggest we delete it. Sindhian (talk) 05:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

removed unreferenced POV
Removed the edit

are a revival of Hindu tradition and to be an advocacy group for Hindus, whom they feel are being slowly marginalized due to alleged "negationism" in India and the acts of appeasement against them from the left-wing political parties and politicians in favor of extremist elements of other religious denominations.

I didn't find any reference to it. If someone has we can consider putting it back. Sindhian (talk) 08:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Accusation of being militant organization
References cited are not credible enough and accusion of militancy is not widely made. Therefore removing Sindhian (talk) 06:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The Elst quote
Koenraad Elst has indeed written a couple of (openly partisan) books on the topic, and I see no reason not to mention him. However, this isn't http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/ and we shall not provide a platform for extensive quotations of Mr. Elst's rants. It is much to give him a dedicated h3 section under "academic criticism", but I suppose the tone of his piece really speaks for itself. We can keep the reference, but there is no way this should take up anything more than two or three lines in the article body. --dab (𒁳) 11:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am agree with you. However since is edit warring instead of discussing the issue, I have left a note in his talk page.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 03:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The summary of the quote did not reflect it. Trips (talk) 03:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Elst is a partisan and apologist source. Using him to refute the criticism from mainstream academics also a case of WP:UNDUE. We should be careful before inserting quotefarm.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 03:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No that is double standards on the application of WP:UNDUE. Trips (talk) 03:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No one is saying Elst should not mentioned. His counter criticism deserves inclusion, but his view should not be included as a mainstream view.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 03:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * his "counter-criticism" would deserve inclusion if published academically. Rants picked off random websites do not "deserve inclusion". It isn't too much to ask to present a bleeding scholarly source in a section titled "academic criticism", is it? I'm sorry, but why is it necessary to spend time discussing this? This is how Wikipedia works. Trips is to come up with a scholarly reference or drop the issue. The "allegations of fascism" are referenced to  Far Eastern Survey, Vol. 19, and monographs published with  Blackwell Publishing,  State University of New York Press, and University of Washington Press. The "rebuttals" of these are referenced to www.hindu.com and www.indiastar.com. "Double standards"? I dare say so, but hardly in the sense Trips alleges. I say we cut all sources not published academically from the section. --dab (𒁳) 08:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Response to fascism accusations is perfectly NPOV. Considering Elst is responding to accusations of fascism. Trips (talk) 03:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, response to an accusation is appropriate, but it should be mentioned who is responding.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 03:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * no, mentioning the response would be appropriate if the response had been made in an WP:RS, not on indiastar.com. If horsing around with this quote goes any further, I will again remove it altogether and place the burden of establishing that it meets WP:RS on anyone who wants to include it. WP:RS in this case means, published in a peer-reviewed academic publication. dab (𒁳) 14:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

A link to the Koenraad Elst wiki page should more than suffice, what is currently used is fine. Trips (talk) 07:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * See Dbachmann's rationale above why the entire quote is inappropriate.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 02:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Trips is obviously an adherent of the ideology under discussion here. Per WP:TIGERS, this means he should not edit the article. This is an article on religious extremism, and we don't want religious extremists writing these articles. Even mentioning Elst's opinion is stretching things. Elst has published some articles academically. This doesn't make anything he says academic literature. Most of his books aren't published academically at all, but by a partisan propaganda outfit. The quote under discussion here didn't even appear in print, but it is just something he wrote for indiastar.com. Why we should  mention a random ranting opinion piece found on the internet under "academic criticism" is beyond me. But if we do quote it, I insist we make clear that it is' a random ranting opinion piece found on the internet. --dab (𒁳) 14:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

That WP:TIGER would extend to me anymore than you and your strong views is fallacious. Religious extremist?, you're entirely being silly now. Trips (talk) 15:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

my strong views that Wikipedia policy should be upheld? I'm afraid we don't list that under "TIGERS", we list that under "protecting the project's integrity". I'll remove the Elst rant as WP:UNDUE then. The burden is on you to present a scholarly source. --dab (𒁳) 08:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

But you earlier said that a few lines were fine and that the reference can be kept. Also, this is an opinion, attributable to Koenraad Elst, who is one of the few notable people particularly relevant to this article, whether you like him or not, therefore it is not undue weight. Trips (talk) 14:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I said I didn't object to a few lines being kept. This was an offer for compromise. I never said Wikipedia policy requires us to keep any of this. In fact, I argue that the "DUE" guidelines would require us to remove it. Elst's opinions in general may be interesting as a primary source, but he has no place under "academic criticism" unless he publishes his stuff academically. If we cannot agree on how to present this piece, it will be best to blank it. If we do keep it, the most I could agree to would be characterizing it as a personal opinion posted on some website. --dab (𒁳) 15:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

ahem, I just note that the quote isn't by Elst at all. Well done. It turns out that this is a random review of Elst's The Saffron Swastika, which is of course published by Voice of India. There is no need to quote this ranting review, if anything, we can note the existence of Elst's book. Elst is, of course, a supporter of the European Nouvelle Droite, which is a polite way of saying, a neo-fascist, himself. Yes, Elst knows as much as any RSS-ideologist about the topic, and he is just as biased. This is just a primary source showing that RSS proponents reject the fascist label. Noting as much is fair enough. --dab (𒁳) 15:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Britannica
is changing the section name of Academic criticism to Criticism and removing the Britannica reference from lead which states "According to the Britannica Online, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh is the most militant Hindu organization". There should be a separate section for Academic criticism and Britannica is good in the lead.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 11:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I have simply grouped similar accusations together. Trips (talk) 11:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Guys, leave the Britannica reference in the CRITISISM section. There is no denying that RSS is a controversial organization, and it has both admirers and detractors (and it is obvious that both parties are here at work). --Vrite2me (talk) 08:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Supreme Court lifting of bans
I had removed the incorrect reference to the lifting of bans by the Supreme Court, which never took place, but this edit was reverted. The cited BBC article next to this statement contains no reference to any lifting of the ban by the Supreme Court. I have inserted the correct historical events and provided a citation as well. If this edit is reverted as well, it will only prove the bias of the reverter. I would challenge you to produce details of these supposed SUpreme Court rulings - case titles, dates, details of the judgment etc. Shankargopal (talk) 09:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

RSS and Quit India Movement
Are these informations of RSS not participating in Quit India Movement of any encyclopedic value?  Docku: “what up?”  13:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Fascism and humanitarianism
An interesting topic that this article might include is the link between fascist groups and humanitarianism. While the links between imperialist powers and the humanitarian international have been discussed at length in literature on humanitarianism, there is no study of the use of disaster-relief by racist and facist organisations - although that use is widespread. It would be interesting to know, for example, whether India allowed indigenous fascist groups to provide succour to the victims of the tsunami, while refusing entry to other groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.95.125.189 (talk) 06:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

In India, most political parties and organisations use the 'fascist' epithet aganist each other. One does not become a 'fascist' only because a political rival would want to portray him/her as fascist, just to score a political point. Unspokentruth (talk) 16:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

On the main article page only favourable opinion of Khushwant Singh about RSS was written, Here is complete opinion which is taken from Sikhtime's interview of Mr Khushwant Singh (http://www.sikhtimes.com/bios_021503a.html).

He Said "R.S.S. is a communal organization and dangerous to the country's secular fabric. Look what they did to Muslims in Gujrat. However, they take a different approach with the Sikhs. During the 1984 Sikh pogrom, they did save many Sikh lives. R.S.S. volunteers participated during the tercentenary celebrations of the Khalsa in 1999. They consider the Khalsa to be a military wing of Hinduism and their savior."

So infact RSS is communal organization and does not think well about minority Muslims.

I am putting the above viewpoint of Kushwant Singh in the main articleUnspokentruth (talk) 00:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Ideology section
The ideology section I think needs to be significantly changed to meet the standards of encyclopedia. Please let me know if anybody has any comments on this. Unspokentruth (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Content on McCarthyism against RSS volunteers
This is in reference to the blind deletion of content by Ism schism with a one word edit comment calling the content OR.

Since when are the quotations from Supreme Court judges which are already in public domain and are also well documented in the books (whose references have been given), become original research. What is the basis of such deletion? If the editor is genuienely interested in knowing about it and improving the content(I am ready to assume that for the moment althought it is very difficult), the Supreme Court cases are available on many official and educational websites, you could verify the content there. I am adding the ISBN number of the book if that was the editor's concern.Unspokentruth (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A lot of what you wrote is original research and personal commentary. It might be true, but the style of writing is inappropriate for Wikipedia (it's heavily biased). Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 05:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it would be more appropriate if you could rely on secondary sources, such as scholarly journal articles or books, for a neutral take on the persecution of RSS volunteers. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 05:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the action of Nishkid64. Only because some facts do not represent your core beliefs, they do not become "biased", "original research" or "personal commentry". That too when matter comes from court judgements, arguably the most impartial sources. And the matter is not being asserted,it is being attributed to the judges.

The tone, I did not find anything wrong in it. But since some people are bent at finding excuses to delete content that is not favorable to their beliefs, I request Unspokentruth to try and put only quotations from the judgements in block quotes and with least editing possible. nihar (talk) 07:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If you intend to add the text back to this article, make sure you use "authentic government sources" only. When it comes to such a sensitive topic, it is better to use original wordings/policy statement of Government of India (without copyvio). Even reliable print and electronic media becomes unacceptable in such cases because they are blamed to be biased towards one of other section of society. Try to play safe and add contents directly from .gov.in or nic.in domains alone. When you use these sources as citations, your work is generally warranted from deletion. -- GP Pande  14:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou for the suggestions. I had added the reference of the book with the ISBN number, which was probably not visible to many. Nevertheless, I am adding 6 more references (for the same content), two of which are legal journals, two are legal reports published by Law institutes. One is a book with a collection of the judgements from the Supreme Court judge and one is the book on the compilation of legal cases against the RSS. You will find most of these in the University of Cambridge library and many of them also on the net.Unspokentruth (talk) 15:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Secondly, about the tone, Anyways I am rephrasing many statements. But please understand that the words are all straight from the Supreme Court judges' mouth. The tone of judges is absolutely appropriate, I would not like to "tone" the words and try plagiarism or synthesis. Don't be a McCarthy yourself and delete it again :-). If you have any constructive suggestions on improving it, we can do it together. Unspokentruth (talk) 15:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nihar S, might I remind you that your statements are in gross violation of WP:AGF. You don't know jack about me, yet you claim that I consider the material to be unfavorable to my beliefs. Unspokentruth, I'm satisfied with the changes you made to the section. I'll go through it and try to polish the section. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 16:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Nishkid64, I am sorry, I probably phrased it wrongly; I wanted to say that facts were being discarded just because they don't conform to 'popular beliefs'. I know I should not have talked of your personal belief.


 * Unspokentruth, I appreciate you have given so many sources. But don't you think putting same references for each of the lines of the paragraph is unnecessary when all are referring to the same source. It looks odd. In my opinion the references could be put at the end of the paragraph. And why give 6 references to the same judgment? (I guess it is the same judgment)??? In my opinion one genuine source would be good enough; the one you think is the most credible of them all.nihar (talk) 03:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The references can be put once at the end, but I think we should retain all the references so that it does not become a contention later. Secondly, I believe, "McCarthyism against RSS volunteers" is the appropriate title. 'Discrimination' is too vague a term and can mean many things. Specialy when the judgement explicitly calls it McCarthyism. Why do you think 'McCarthyism' as a title is inappropriate? Unspokentruth (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

After the consentful silence, I am making the necessary changes. Unspokentruth (talk) 16:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry I disappeared from this discussion. McCarthyism is a very loaded term, and I don't think it should be used in this context. In one particular case, the court labeled the government's actions as "McCarthyism", yet you seem to have overgeneralized that every other instance of discrimination against RSS volunteers is also McCarthyism. I've now changed this back to discrimination – a more neutral wording and an easier term to comprehend for our readers without a background in US history. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If it is for easier comprehension, maybe yes. But otherwise I disagree. Rather 'Discrimination' is too loaded a term. Discrimination is a far greater charge and I don't think the political opponents of RSS were that bad. McCarthyism on the the other hand refers to cases of job denials based on one's ideology as is seen in this case.


 * I have also added the references that were sought.Thanks Unspokentruth (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The first line of the section, which you wrote, specifically states that RSS volunteers were discriminated against due to their political allegiances. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I would love to uniformly put 'McCarthyism' in all places wherever it is apt :-). Secondly you say I am overgeneralising the observations of a Court judgement. It is a Supreme court's judgement. It has been recorded, commented on and has been published widely. If that is not enough, is there anything else that can be called as 'McCarthyism' by any means? Would you like to apply it uniformly to all articles on wikipedia? I have seen pages after pages in wikipedia constructed around some term, vaguely used in a newspaper article. eg Hindu Taliban.   Unspokentruth (talk) 14:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The Hindu Taliban article deals solely with that term; this article is not about McCarthyism. The Supreme Court judged in one case that the actions of the government were "McCarthyism". This judgment does not apply to the rest of the section; it only exclusively relates to the first Supreme Court case discussed. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Anyways I don't want to spend all my time devoted for wiki over just this one word. Your answer does not convince me. I continue to disagree. Unspokentruth (talk) 16:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither do I, but I still don't see the appropriateness of "McCarthyism". I don't see how such a narrowly defined concept would apply to this paragraph: "The RSS also has been banned in India thrice, during periods in which the government of the time claimed that they were a threat to the state: in 1948 after Mahatma Gandhi's assassination, during the Emergency (1975-77), and after the 1992 Babri Masjid demolition. The bans were subsequently lifted, in 1949 after the RSS was absolved of charges in the Gandhi murder case, in 1977 as a result of the Emergency being revoked, and in 1993 when no evidence of any unlawful activities was found against it by the tribunal constituted under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. [61]", which does not explicitly state that the government's actions were politically motivated AFAIK. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Recent reverts
The recent edits by User:Walky-talky are highly soapboxy and unconstructive. Referenced content is being removed, they are being replaced by partisan sources which are blatantly inaccurate. nihar (talk) 09:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you please be specific? Which one of my edits is "blatantly inaccurate"? What are the partisan sources that I have introduced? Did I remove any referenced content without giving any reason for that? Not everything can be referenced belongs here. Walky-talky (talk) 09:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to know specifically if your edit with respect to Role during Indo-Sino War is synthesis or you have reported as it is? nihar (talk) 09:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If you are there, please respond. I am waiting before I revert it nihar (talk) 09:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you need more time. I am reverting the text for now, I would be grateful to you if you could alert me and discuss if and when you think of inserting back the content. nihar (talk) 10:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have reverted you. There is no synthesis in the material that I included in the section on Indo-Sino War.  Please look at the reference cited which is available online.  The referenced text that you introduced again in the lead is based on primary sources as I had pointed out in my edit summary.  I changed it to what mainstream secondary(third party) sources say.  Moving all criticism to a "criticism" section is not what our style guidelines prefer. ( What are the "two things" ... "delibrately mixed up" "to give a different meaning").  Anyway, the criticism section was more a "criticism of criticism" before I made the changes.  Walky-talky (talk) 10:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Please quote the exact wordings of citation. nihar (talk) 11:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have given the full quotation and its URL above. I corrected the citation as well.  Do not vandalise the article by removing a request for quote and changing the citation to an incorrect one.Walky-talky (talk) 11:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I found this from a review of Pralay Kanungo's "RSS's TRYST WITH POLITICS — From Hedgewar To Sudarshan"."He deals with how Deoras could convince the then Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, to accord to the RSS this privilege. The common agenda then (and in 1948 when Birla negotiated on behalf of the RSS) was the "need" to take on the communists." .   I have partially reverted myself in view your (synthesis) criticism; though I believe it was in context and I had seen references supporting it. I did not see any third party sources to support that "Nehru was impressed by RSS".  Please comment on the current version.Walky-talky (talk) 12:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for being honest. The contents you put there were not in the book. You never read a book which you quoted. Fare enough! I appreciate your honesty. But sadly the current version too is still inaccurate. This is what happens when you try writing backwards - 'first make conclusions and try to fit facts into them'. Try improving it. I am putting a synthesis tag there. Let me know when you are done, please do not remove the tag untill then. nihar (talk) 12:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your appreciation of my honesty. I will thank you again when one day I, “first make conclusions and try to fit facts into them” and find your suggestion helpful.  As I said above, the reference says "He deals with how Deoras could convince the then Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, to accord to the RSS this privilege. The common agenda then (and in 1948 when Birla negotiated on behalf of the RSS) was the "need" to take on the communists."  What was the need for Nehru to take on the communists?  The communists did not support Nehru during the China war while RSS did.  But this article (reference) does not explicitly mention this obvious context.  Hence technically it could be called Synthesis; though no way improper.  That’s why I reverted myself as there are many other serious problems in this article.  The present version ( sentence) is based only on one source and so how can it be called a synthesis?  Please look at WP:SYNTH again and check whether there is any justification for that tag.  I am not reverting it today.  Walky-talky (talk) 05:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Contradictions galore: First you put some soapboxy content claiming it was there in the book. When you were asked to present the actual lines, you say the comments were from the review and not from the book while still putting back the reference. Now you are yourself confused as to whether to call it synthesis or not. Nevertheless, if you want the content to be there please, quote the actual wordings as I requested earlier, if not remove it. I request you again to stop putting such inaccurate soapboxy content. In case you do not agree, we can ask for arbitration  nihar (talk) 06:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have changed the citation. There is no "soapboxy content" and I have no doubt that there is no improper synthesis, not even synthesis.  You please explain what improper synthesis is there or remove the tag.Walky-talky (talk) 06:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I reiterate, quote the actual wordings. nihar (talk) 06:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Please also let me know why you deleted a quotation of Jyotirmaya Sharma and also the initial description section, both of which had good references. In Jyotirmaya Sharma's statement, you say it is distorted and taken out of context. Please elaborate. I do not agree with your observations. nihar (talk) 12:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "Fascism is a radical, authoritarian, corporatist and nationalist political ideology. Historians and political scientists disagree on a precise definition, however; some would omit one or more of the preceding themes, while others would add many more."  Just look at the article on any fascist organisation and you will see a section devoted to the academic and mainstream media debate about whether the organisation has all the features of a fascist organisation.  See for example, "In both popular thought and academic scholarship, Nazism is generally considered a form of fascism – a term whose definition is itself contentious. The debate focuses mainly on comparisons of fascist movements in general with the Italian prototype, including the fascists in Germany..."(Nazism). But this comes after "Nazism is often considered by scholars to be a form of fascism". The section on "Accusations of fascism and militancy" requires lot of improvement.  As I mentioned earlier, it is more like a "criticism of Accusations of fascism and militancy".  First there should be a discussion on RSS leaders' appreciation of Fascism and Hitler, the fascist features of RSS and then one can also talk about the academic debate about whether it is appropriate to call RSS fascist.  I removed the sentence "In addition, accusations of "fascism" have been critiqued as overly simplistic by Jyotirmaya Sharma as inappropriate, calling them a "simplistic transference [that] has done great injustice to our knowledge of Hindu nationalist politics".  What does that sentence mean?(… accusations of "fascism" have been critiqued as overly simplistic by Jyotirmaya Sharma as inappropriate…).  Also Jyotirmaya Sharma is talking about Western commentators likening "the Sangh Parivar and its politics to Fascism in order to make sense of the growth of extremist politics and intolerance within their societies." and is not on "accusations of fascism on RSS" in general.  The quotation I added, "since a characteristic of the RSS's Hindu nationalism has been to down-play the role of the state we cannot classify it straightforwardly as a fascist movement....Nonetheless, the RSS can be classed as authoritarian in its emphasis on discipline, in its refusal to recognise the specific character of minorities and in its intention of reforming the Hindu mentality absolutely to prepare the advent of a new man, implying the need to extend the sway of the organisation over the whole of society" can also be distorted/ taken out of context like this.  That why I replaced the reviewer's comment with this original quotation.  Putting that sentence I removed, without giving the proper context is like adding "Roger Griffin and  Matthew Feldman criticises the accusations of fascism and is of the opinion that " 'fascism' should be reserved for the Italian system under Mussolini, while Nazism should be called 'National Socialism' and regarded as a unique phenomenon." to the Nazism  page.Walky-talky (talk) 06:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Quote
Here is the quotation "I hav been reilably informed that a number of youths of RSS were able to inform Sardar Patel and Nehruji in the very nick of time of the Leaguer`s intended coup on September 10, 1947"........

....."Why have I said all this? Because if those high-spirited and self-sacrificing boys had not given the very timely information to Nehruji and Patelji, there would have been no Government of India today. (Page 172, Philosophy and action of the R. S. S. for the Hind Swaraj‎) Unspokentruth (talk) 14:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I had put the tag after this sentence: Dr. Bhagwan Das commended the role of the "high-spirited and self-sacrificing boys" of the RSS in protecting the newly formed Republic of India, from a planned coup to topple the Nehru Administration in Delhi.  The reference cited is “Anthony Elenjimittam, Philosophy and action of the R. S. S for the Hind Swaraj”.  The quotations you provided do not mention any thing about Bhagwan Das.  Please provide the details of the book (author, title, page number, edition, etc) where you found this.  Please also quote sufficient number of sentences to make the context clear.  From what you provided, no one can make out who is saying this and when.  I found both the quotations you provided only  in books authored by RSS leaders.  Walky-talky (talk) 05:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Role of RSS in land reforms
The section on Participation in Land reforms deals with role of RSS in Bhoodan movement. Many individuals (belonging to different organisations) had participated in this voluntary movement in their individual capacity. Just because some RSS activists participated in this movement, we cannot have a section on Participation in Bhoodan movement or Participation in Land reforms in this article on RSS. For any organisation and in any field (freedom movement/ education / research / sports / cinema, etc) we can always find some activists of that organisation who played some role in that field. That doesn't merit a section for the organisation’s role in that field. Hence I have removed this section. If RSS had played some role in land reforms, significant enough to find a mention in an encyclopaedia, there will be reliable, secondary sources on the role of RSS in land reforms in India. Produce that and then we can revert this. Right now I see only articles criticising RSS/BJP for not taking up the cause of land reforms in India.Walky-talky (talk) 10:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I warn you, stop this vandalism and answer the earlier questions asked. The matter is well referenced and from very credible sorces. nihar (talk) 11:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well referenced is not the only criterion for inclusion here. Please look at the wikipedia policies and respond to what I have posted above. Walky-talky (talk) 11:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

All the sources are reliable. You are dragging it too far. If you think any of the sources is not reliable, secondary sources, provide details as to why you think so. I request you again to seek consensus and not force things. If you revert again, the only way would be seeking arbitration. nihar (talk) 12:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I said reliable, secondary sources on the role of RSS in land reforms in India. When I was typing this yesterday, I wanted to underline 'the role of RSS in land reforms in India'.  Then I made it bold as I saw underlining is not possible( Or is it possible?  Unlikely; Knuth did not like it). So I will  ask again for reliable, secondary sources on the role of RSS in land reforms in India.Walky-talky (talk) 04:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * According to the refs, (1) Golwalkar pledged the support of the RSS for the Bhoodan movement, (2) and many members of the RSS subsequently participated in the movement. Point 2 seems to be a direct result of point 1, which means the organization, as a whole or as a part, played a role in the Bhoodan movement. However, instead of including an entire section about the RSS and Bhoodan movement, I think we could make do with a small two-line mention in another section. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 20:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In addition, I found no evidence that Vinobha Bhave ever said, "I am an inactive volunteer of the RSS". There's no mention of this in the The brotherhood in saffron. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 20:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have found this instead.

. And along with quotations like this , We can speculate about the real intension of Golwalkar. Then we can also include the left’s criticism that the Sangh Parivar has not taken up the cause of Land reforms. Why should we? ( Why should an organization that claims to be a “cultural” organization, take up the cause of Land reforms?) The simple fact is that RSS has no significant role in the land reform movement in India. As I mentioned, Golwalkar had asked his volunteer to do many things. Are we going to have a section of “Role in Population Control” because Golwalkar advocated celibacy? If there is any mention of RSS in any academic discussion on topics related to the Agrarian Reforms in India we can mention it. If there is a mention in any modern academic resource on RSS/ Sangh Parivar on the role of RSS in land reforms, we can mention it. Anything else will be an improper synthesis. Walky-talky (talk) 04:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to The Brotherhood in Saffron: The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and Hindu Revivalism as of yet (should be getting it at my uni library shortly), but this quite clearly is a modern scholarly work that briefly discusses the RSS's role in the Bhoodan movement. As mentioned before, notability is still an issue that hasn't been addressed, and I won't comment on it until I have fully reviewed the matter. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 04:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes; that seems to be a scholarly work we can rely on. We can mention the Role of RSS in Bhoodan movement  if this book discusses it.  Neither do I have access to this book; but a Google Book Search in this book returned no results for Bhoodan or Vinobha.  Perhaps it is there in the pages not available as Google Books snippets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Walky-talky (talk • contribs)
 * The info is all on page 111 of the book. That's as much as I was able to discern from Google Books. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, here's what page 111 says: "With these considerations in mind, Golwalkar in late 1949 assigned several pracharaks to work with Vinoba Bhave, a disciple of Mahatma Gandhi, in a voluntary land donation program aimed at convincing landowners to give some of their property to landless peasants." I think this shows that the RSS was in fact involved in what I presume was the Bhoodan movement. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 02:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I am reverting the text and also adding the other viewpoints discussed here. Nishkid, I appreciate your effort in going thru the hard copy of the book and putting it here.  nihar (talk) 11:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)