Talk:Sangh Parivar

Hi Boud,

I don't like making too big a deal of expressing admiration for Mussolini, et al. A lot of people did this in the years before WWII, and I don't think it should be given too much meaning. It's easy in hindsight to say, "look, they supported those evil fascists", but at the time it wasn't necessarily clear what it was they were supporting.

Also it's a cheap shot, a discrediting tactic like, "They support/think like/associated with Nazis!", in violation of Godwin's Law. There's plenty to be said about the Sangh, but can we not make fascist links such a big part of it? Their OWN ideology is, ah, interesting enough without resorting to "guilt by association" smears, do you agree? Graft 17:36, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The Sangh promote negative stereotypes about muslims and are directly implicated in a pogrom of at least 2000 Muslims in Gujarat in 2002. This is about 3000 times less deadly than the Holocaust as a racist-based massacre, but it seems to me fairly NPOV to consider the Sangh as part of the fascist tradition. i agree that it might not be tactical to call the Sangh fascist, after all, this is why the mainstream western media don't use that term for the Sangh, but wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV AFAIK. Boud 22:05, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

Uh, since the IDRF is really a Sangh front group, is it really appropriate to consider them a group which funds the Sangh, as if they have any life of their own? Graft 14:56, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Well, in the present version there's no comment on IDRF, but unless we have some published statement from a credible source saying that IDRF is really just part of the Sangh, then IMHO it's more NPOV to stick to saying that the IDRF support the Sangh. Better stick to the better supported claims IMHO. Boud 22:05, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

I see that User:68.161.149.207 blanked most of this page, but since s/he didn't blank the whole thing, it may not have been vandalism. I'm restoring it for now, but the text I restored seems like it might not be sufficiently NPOV and could do with a rewrite. Any takers? Rebrane 06:51, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)

reporting half baked one

here i am seeing the reports of half baked one

u r mentioning the in the web page of sangh parivar "Gujart riots", y not u mention the good activities carried out by sangh - The number of schools run by sangh, number hospitals, number of social activities.

This is what we called as Biased

If you can muster up the requisite grammatical skills (doubful), perhaps you would be up to the task of adding appropriate text about said good activities to the article. Alternatively, you might check out the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh article, which actually does mention some of these things. Graft 21:58, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The comment here i am seeing is most likely by someone from India who uses English as a national language but not as his/her native language. While personally i think that the writer is trying to (unsuccessfully) justify the existence of a fascist organisation, and i find this extremely painful, i nevertheless think there is no need to criticise him/her for not using standard English. Boud 22:05, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sangh is not facsist Bakaman%% 16:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Tried to NPOV

I was going to revert some edits by an anon, trying to justify the Sangh, and then I decided that the previous version was somewhat POV. I share that POV -- I loathe the Sangh, the RSS, and everything they stand for -- but I think there's no reason to load the dice. Let readers make up their own minds. Zora 03:11, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I was going to make some edits to try and fix some anomalies I think you introduced, but I note that this article now has a considerable overlap with Hindutva, and to its detriment (that is, Hindutva covers the material better). Shall we gut it and start over with some more detail? I must admit my knowledge of organisational history is weak. Graft 20:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

You probably know more than I do on this subject, so go ahead. I was concerned to correct what I saw as problems, but I didn't see the larger picture the way you do. Proceed fearlessly -- I won't object if my precious prose disappears <g>. Zora 03:50, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

---

Fascism and the Sangh

Fascism - a very strong word .. A philosophy or system of government that is marked by stringent social and economic control, a strong, centralized government usually headed by a dictator, and often a policy of belligerent nationalism. ----

Though I personally detest the policies of the Sangh, ( valentine s day riots in Pune for one) , I do not thing the Sansh fits this description of being "fascist". Any opinions people.

---

--Nuttysocrates 08:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I too do not think the sangh fits this description as they do not campaign against the followers of religions like Buddhism and Sikihism, thereby not meeting the criteria required to be described as a fascist organisation, namely a belief in only one form of government and the imposition of state control over every aspect of social life...(Saurabhb 21:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC))

Pro Business ?

Are they really pro business ? The seem like a populist group to me.

It's a conservative group. Of course they're Pro-Business. Look at what the BJP has done. Also there's no space between Business and ?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.196.160 (talk) 21:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

BJP position in the list

I've put the BJP in second place after the RSS, because as a party that has governed India, it is internationally known. If there was some rationale for the previous list order that escaped me, please discuss. Jayen466 15:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

notability

Per WP:LEAD the "relative emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject according to reliable sources". Reliable sources in this context include those found by a quick search of google scholar and google news. With descriptions of nationalist far outnumbering those of "Chauvinist" or "fundamentalist" by scales of 30-1 and 4-1 respectively, it makes sense to go with the term that is most notable, not with something that in the eyes of one user claims to have scholarly consensus.Pectore^talk 19:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. A google scholar numbering is hardly representative of scholarly consensus. Really, that's incomprehensible. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You have not provided any better measure, but have continued to add unsourced tidbits like "far right wing ideology", rarely used descriptions like "Hindu chauvinist", and even revert formatting changes and better categorization. You seem to have some axe to grind with this organization, and this is perhaps an unsuitable page for you to edit. Pankaj Mishra is no Hindutvavadi himself (I have come across many a kook that thinks he belongs on a Hindu Unity hitlist) and is one of the foremost experts on Hindu nationalism. Though some of his works dabble on the side of leftism, he provides the most balanced one line description of Hindutva, one that represents scholarly consensus. Either way, your attempts at slanting this page fail on both counts of quantity (more hits for nationalism) and also quality (when the most respected commentators using the term "nationalist"). Pectore^talk 17:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If you're comparing the academic credentials of Dipesh Chakravarty and his co-authors to that of Pankaj Mishra, I'm afraid we're in trouble. I note the term 'nationalist' exists in my preferred version, and it is not required that we source it to Mishra.--Relata refero (disp.) 19:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Mishra is merely one source that exists to qualify it as nationalist. Chauvinist/fundamentalist are controversial, as well as not widely accepted descriptions. Neither critics of the BJP nor supporters will deny that it is nationalist, much like neither supporters not detractors of the LTTE will deny it is a "militant" group. Even your favorite academic, Paul Brass describes it as nationalist (coauthored by Vanaik and Engineer). The consensus is to describe it as a "Hindu nationalist" group, one that is both a mainstream, verifiable, and neutral description. Pectore^talk 19:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I have no objection to "nationalist", although other descriptions which are consensus in the academy are required in the lead. What critics and supporters of the BJP say is irrelevant as far as I am concerned, as are what might be considered controversial. The description from Chakravarty et al is hardly non-mainstream, nor non-consensus, given the nature of the source. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

As for your other deletions, I fail to see why you wish to delete the impact on Hindu practice the Sangh Parivar has had. Its not as if I am some Hindutva supporter saying "they cleansed our glorious religion of jangli darshan". These are from experts on anthropology such as CJ Fuller commenting on how these groups have tried to change Hindu practice and the repercussions and outcomes. With a cursory glance at the history, it seems your presence on this page (with your Hindutva counterparts) have reduced this page into a tug-of-war between competing viewpoints. Neither of you are right.Pectore^talk 19:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no objections to a section on religious impact, but using Fuller, a narrow-focus anthropologist rather than a historian of religion (Jack Hawley, for example) who can place the Sangh Parivar in its proper context is inappropriate. The tug of war is amusingly true, but the bit about neither being right is, of course, wrong. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

CJ Fuller is an anthropologist that has meticulously depicted religious life in India. Religion is a human construct, therefore studying religious practice is definitely within the bounds of anthropology. There are few that have studied caste more thoroughly than him, except perhaps MN Srinivas. As for you calling neutrality wrong, you should probably rethink editing this page then, since it is obvious you are a crusader for what is "right".Pectore^talk 16:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

And the reason I utilized Mishra's definition in the lead (as opposed to Saha) was because he provided an actual definition: "the Sangh Parivar, family of both extreme and moderate Hindu nationalist groups".Pectore^talk 19:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Not a definition. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Lets not get sidetracked. This discussion (as I understand it) is about notability of the term "Chauvinist" or "fundamentalist" being used to describe the RSS. Pectore has presented one way of measuring notability -- through mentions on Google Scholar and Google News. This is a perfectly valid measure that has been used in other articles as well to denote notability. The only other measure that I can think of (and is harder to use) is to go through all published materials and do a occurrence count to determine the majority view. The only other measure possible, and I don't think this is something that can easily be agreed upon, is to come to an agreement of how many mentions in certain types of publications makes something notable. If that can be agreed upon, than only that bar needs to be met to use these terms.

On another note, these terms, despite their notability or lack thereof, do act as pushing a certain POV which should be absent in articles on Wikipedia, so I would say that "Hindu Nationalist" should be used instead. Furthermore, the term "Hindu Nationalist" also sings true to the translation of "Sangh Parivar" or even RSS. Kkm5848 (talk) 19:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Counting google hits is completely useless for determining academic consensus, merely actual usage of a term. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that what the article needs is some considerable expansion, with the addition of a "Reception" section. My own view is that the lede should state that it is a "Hindu nationalist" organisation – that seems to be the most common and universally agreed description, one that supporters and detractors can agree on. It should also state that it comprises a vast spectrum of organisations that do not always see eye to eye. Views characterising the Sangh Parivar as "fundamentalist" or "chauvinist", and other views involving a positive or negative value judgment should be covered in the Reception section, and explain the background for these judgements in sufficient detail. Jayen466 10:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Relata refero has provided no way of measuring academic consensus, and chauvinist by no means meets any standard of academic consensus, being used by a tiny amount of authors. Nationalist reflects not just academic consensus, but journalistic consensus as well, and since these are the backbone of reliable sources, per WP:RS we have to use them. Sadly it seems certain users really care little about the page, but for skewing it so that it stays a cesspool of conflicted soapboxing.Pectore^talk 16:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Utter rot. We specifically don't care about "journalistic consensus". --Relata refero (disp.) 17:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The only "utter rot" is you not demonstrating that chauvinist is more reflective of consensus than "nationalist". Respected newspapers with editorial boards meet WP:RS. Either way, nationalist is a much better term, more reflective of academic consensus than chauvinist, which reflects the consensus between your right and left brain and nothing more.Pectore^talk 17:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I have already pointed out that you are yet to demonstrate a collection of academics of equivalent stature saying it is not representative of consensus. More to the point, my preferred lead mentioned all three (distinct?) terms. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is a good reference. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

here is a better one. Either way, even your book uses "Nationalist" more than "chauvinist".Pectore^talk 01:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Since we are trying to gauge academic consensus, here is a google book search for university press publications that include the terms "Sangh Parivar" and "chauvinist", and another one for university press publications that include the terms "Sangh Parivar" and "nationalist". Looking at that, it seems that the vast majority of scholars discussing the Sangh Parivar do so without using the label "chauvinist". Of the 13 scholars that do use the word,

1. Banerjee applies it to a "chauvinist wing of the Sangh Parivar";
2. Breckenridge et al. apply it to the Sangh Parivar as a whole;
3. Sarkar applies it to Hindutva as a whole;
4. Jelen applies it to Deen Dayal Upadhyaya, a BJS leader in the 1950s whose stance led to the BJS's political isolation;
5. Nanda specifically distinguishes – within Hindutva – between the socialist Nehru and the "chauvinist" Bankim Chandra;
6. Needham and Rajan refer to the Sangh Parivar's efforts to turn the "Hindu community" into a chauvinist bloc;
7. Dossani and Rowan apply the "chauvinist" label to the Maharashtrian Shiv Sena alone, saying the BJP set aside its nationalist agenda to broaden its coalition's appeal;
8. Kurien discusses ethnic chauvinism in general, and does not apply the term "chauvinist" to the Sangh Parivar (the book is about Hindus in the US);
9. Sandbrook discusses national chauvinism in general, outside the Indian context;
10. Kolodziej speaks of chauvinism in China;
11. Mondal refers to the chauvinism of Bipinchandra Pal's discourse.

(The other two books didn't offer a preview). Hope that helps. Cheers, Jayen466 22:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Pankaj Mishra

Those who are hell-bent in keeping Pankaj Mishra as a reference complete the following sentence:

"Pankaj Mishra is a novelist, his degrees are in commerce and English literature, not in political science or sociology, but still he is reliable source because ..." Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

He gave a definition or the Sangh Parivar, other people didn't. But if you really want to skew the page, I can drown you in a sea of history professors that use "nationalist". Santosh Saha should fit the bill enough.Pectore^talk 16:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:RS, definition given by non-experts cannot be included. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Santosh Saha is an expert, Mishra's book can be considered an RS as it was published by a respected publishing house.Pectore^talk 16:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Mishra isn't ideal, perhaps, but, as our article on him states, he is a notable political essayist for a number of first-class newspapers. The book that was cited here has been reviewed in equally as many first-class papers, generally very favourably, as far as I could see. So, not an academic source, but a reliable author in the eyes of the quality press – enough to satisfy WP:RS. Jayen466 21:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Since Mishra is not an expert in this field, he should not be quoted in the lead which reflects the rest of the article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Now with alternative sourcing, and slight rewording. Jayen466 22:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

What do editors think of this source for the lede? It's a scholarly work (2001) and appears well-cited. Jayen466 16:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Not a bad book. Please do incorporate it into the lead.Pectore^talk 16:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Since we now have an embryonic Reception section, I've added some material there, rather than in the lede, which I think is okay. Clearly, there is much more in Bhatt's book that could be used, given time. Cheers, Jayen466 21:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

History

I think we need to start a history section. Jayen466 10:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree, but since the Sangh is somewhat of an amorphous construct, how do we define its history? Do we start with Deendayal or with the real roots (Arya, Prarthna, Brahmo Samaj's and 19th/early 20th century Hindu nationalism)?Pectore^talk 03:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggest we identify some apposite scholarly sources and follow their approach; hopefully, that will take the decision off our hands. :-) This might be a good starting point: [1], along with [2] and [3]. Jayen466 03:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Basically – and I am not an expert – the Sangh Parivar began, it seems to me, when other organisations supporting the RSS's ideology began to be formed. I reckon it's best if we concentrate first on tracing that development. The early history of the RSS, as well as its ideological antecedents, is probably more appropriately covered in the RSS article, at least for now. If we have the history of the Sangh Parivar proper, and are lost for things to do, we can always add a bit of earlier historical context in this article as well. But first we should make sure to cover the period over which the term "Sangh Parivar" has actually been in use, IMO. Jayen466 03:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

We also have an article on Hindu nationalism. So we could give a brief outline of the Sangh Parivar's historical roots and refer the reader to the main article for details, to avoid duplication. Jayen466 03:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Reference

Here is a good reference, written by Sumit Sarkar and published in Economic and Political Weekly on January 30, 1993. Intercontinental ballistic missile (talk) 17:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Requested quote

[4] Jayen466 01:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Also see http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i8560.html for additional background on the internal divisions and range of views held within the Sangh Parivar. Jayen466 01:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Both sources imply that it is strategic positioning, rather than actual ideology (Jaffrelot everywhere says "moderate strategy"). The very section from which you quote in Paranjoy's book says "Speaking with a forked tongue". Hence I believe this quote is, out of its context, inappropriate. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Note that the "forked tongue" statement is attributed to critics of the SP in the source, rather than being the editorial voice of the book. Given the roasting Vajpayee got from the VHP, it is hardly tenable to argue that Vajpayee shares the same ideology as Dharmendra. Vides quod dico? Jayen466 00:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Here on the other hand is a source that appears to bear out your "strategic positioning" argument: "BJP continuously shifted its identity between a moderate political party and a chauvinistic movement" (p. 217, lower half). I suppose it's a question that can be asked of all politicians -- do they believe what they say, or do they only say it because their polls tell them it will bring them votes. In a similar vein, "... the BJP's opponents maintain that the party has only acquired a façade of moderation and its core agenda of Hindutva remains undiluted. This is what has been referred to as the BJP's and the Sangh Parivar's 'hidden agenda'. The notion that the 'hidden agenda' is merely a convenient stick for envious opponents to beat the BJP with is quite a common perception. However, it is not quite as much of a hoary old cliché as BJP spokespersons would have us believe." Etc. We should be able to use some of that in the article. Jayen466 00:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Your other deletion from the lead is probably a mistake -- it was not sourced to Saha, but to Chakraborty et al. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

IIRC, I took the Saha ref out because it didn't support any of the content of the sentence. Chakrabarty doesn't have the word fundamentalist on p.56; it only occurs on p.40, where it is applied to Hindutva (with mention of the BJP and RSS as parties promoting Hindutva, so it's close enough). I'll add p. 40 to the ref, or will find a source that clearly attributes the label to the SP. Shouldn't be difficult. Jayen466 00:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Since the "swadeshi division" bit is unsourced, I'm removing it as well. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll look for a source. Jayen466 00:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Y Done Jayen466 01:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Controversy section

separate controversy sections are generally a bad idea in articles on politics. if it is to be included, its better to have some referenced comment giving an overall commentary (for example an academic article as ref), rather than stacking every accusation by the political opponents of the group. --Soman (talk) 10:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

ok, I understand. In fact, I tried easing it. But what extend I can do it? If you don’t mind, please do it. I feel it should be NPOV. --Googlean ^Results 10:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

If I can come up with an alternative source, I'll rewrite. --Soman (talk) 10:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I have removed political criticism for other parties. Its sort of obvious that groups in a power struglle will criticize each other. We need unbiased observers, not political ideologues.Pectore^talk 04:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

nationalists....you're kidding me

For god's sake, these guys aren't nationalists, they're nearly terrorists. They're all bunches of loonbins who DON'T have mass public support (whatever they may say to the contrary) who plan and organize communal riots. They also plant a bomb or two why they're at it, the only reason why they've caused less havoc than the taliban and the lashkar and other Islamist outfits is because they have less sophisticated technology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.124.247.56 (talk) 12:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

IP User are you kidding us?

A typical rant by using IP address. Not new!

The point is, anyone and everyone having access to internet is free to edit wiki but do remember to write what would pass as a NPOV. Opinions are respected by not credible in lack of objectivity and proof.

Happy editting.

--Indian (talk) 14:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

attacks

some times i think, that RSS and their members wants to rule in india and on other religions??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.245.218.102 (talk) 12:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)