Talk:Vinayak Damodar Savarkar

please VOTE to Ban Indian Chronicles..

This person has been the the "delete" person, adding links of only his choice. if we try to state facts, he goes on twisting them, and deleting links to books and our comments. Please WIKIPEDIA ban "Indian Chronicles" Indian Chronicles, why do you keep removing and deleting the links to books and refences added by me. I will take up the cause with Wikipedia.Punya6666 (talk) 23:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC) Why did u remove the link to Veer Savarkar's Book? Why are you maligning such a great Freedom fighter? Are u really Indian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Punya6666 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Punya6666, your edits are unencyclopedic, against Wiki policies and full of POV. You are not at all interested in providing a neutral POV. Some examples of your POV:

• The above theories have been created by some people who hate savarkar and his one nation ideology. Very obvious POV.
• No Congress politician was sentenced to such a long and rigorous imprisonment. Another POV. Betrays Hindutva agenda.
• Maharashtra Government in the honor of he great Freedom Fighter and Patriot, made the movie tax free when it opened in theatres, so that Indians can watch and realise the greatness of the work of Veer Savarkar. Total POV and inappropriate edit.
• Veer Savarkar's Pioneering Work. This section is total list like and POV.

Please stop making unconstructive edits or some administrator will take action against you.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 04:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Write History not opinions....

Actually I wanted to start this page to give the readers a knowledge about one of the leaders of India who contributed in the freedom struggle.But I suppose the whole concept of article has been changed and it looks as if the article is anti-sawarkar. I think we shouldn't write what others say about a person but what his life and contributions were. -- Tanul 06:25, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to edit the article to bring it to NPOV. By the way you can sign your posts to talk pages by typing ~~~~. -- Sundar 05:29, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise!

I'm surprised to see all this misinformation stacked up on an article on wikipedia that should have the information and actual facts about this freedom fighter. 'What he's said' 'what the other guy has said may not necessarily be *facts*. Thats their opinions and things they claim true.

Take the issue of VD Savarkar not taking part in the hunger strike for example. It is known that he was in a serious health condition - thanks to the torture and so was advised not to take part in the hunger strike, though he started it. Savarkar himself admits the fact that he didn't take part in the hunger strike and also quotes the reasons in his Autobiography. But here, you've stated that he didn't take part in it, and the reason : why he didn't? - never care to mention, eh?

This is a totally one sided article, with texts copied from the copyrighted material of rediff articles that state the opinions of few individuals. Please correct the article.

P.S: If these things need to be mentioned, please mention it under the 'controversy' section, adding Mr. Chakravarthy's opinions and things he claims are true. But then please make sure you add what individuals keep saying about prominent personalities from time to time to make it to the headlines, on all wikipedia articles related to reknown people.

It's a wiki, be bold in editing; you are free to add content that is verifiable and is neutral point of view. -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 04:24, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Thats a good one. stack up some needless crap and ask others to be bold ;) Not everyone has the time to add up and edit - *real facts* on an article need more time and research than adding some crap. Please do everyone a favour and mark this page for deletion. That would be far more better than misleading people with "someone told" facts rather than the real ones. Once deleted, Someone can start afresh with an article on this personality.

Why delete the article? Anyone can rewrite it from scratch even now. Didn't you notice the two tags on the top of the article {{cleanup}}, {{npov}} that warn the user against getting misled? -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 04:00, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Punya6666 (talk) 05:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC) This article has been adulterated by communist writers and they keep on adding malicious content just to publicize their books. The statements written here are completely biased against the Great Patriot Savarkar. Wikipedia I humbly beg you, please donot allow such defamation of the a great person. Or else no one will trust to see your site. Just click on the Citations given by some authors and you will understand there are propagandist articles/ book from Noorani for example just to have it sold to international public. They don ot point out the efforts he took to free India from british rule, social reforms he brought in the society, or immense nationalist books and poetry he wrote. Is that not enough proof? If not just read about him from the british and French, and they will tell you he was an Indian Patriot. Some people( I would not count them as Indians) unfortunately due to political reasons are targeting such a Great person who has spent his life for humanity and just cause. Tomorrow I can write up a book criticizing/maliagning some great person, and cite references from that book, and some others will follow the same, will it mean Wikipedia will be a face of falsity, but it will show up in google results. We admire Wikipedia for the great effort they have taken to bring up a people's encyclopedia, but due to some malicious people, with political motives( and who have all the time), they can edit and post, anything they want, and facts are so easily twisted. If you read most the comments here on the Talk section, they advise to remove some citations/falsity from the article. Content which we edit is altered and removed by malicious authors very easily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Punya6666 (talk • contribs) 05:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite of the article

Is it possible to write the whole article on Savarkar again? This one is utterly biased and only spreads misinformation. I am ready to contribute on this.

I've been telling repeatedly: it's a wiki, be bold in editing; you are free to add content that is verifiable and is neutral point of view. -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 05:21, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

The much needed repair to the article

ok, I've replaced all the "he said this, he said that" with some solid facts. Feel free to copyedit and correct any mistakes in the writeup. The previous article had some cut and pasted material from Outlook, rediff and other sites.

POV

The current article seems to be extremely POV. "greates revolutionary of India's freedom struggle", "devoted entire life to the independeance movement " etc are what I mean. -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 05:43, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

There should be no two opinions about these since he certainly devoted his entire life for India. There could be two opinions about the means he used but there is no doubt about the cause he championed before the independence period. Not mentioning these fact would be a POV. Incase you want to delete these words, please mention a period of his life that he devoted to some other cause before India was free. He indeed was a great reolutionary only matched by Bose. But then Bose was a politician turned revolutionary only in the later period of his life. King1 (talk · contribs) may 6

I'm somehow not comfortable with the use of superlatives like "greatest" etc since it is very subjective. We can rank entities only according to well-defined metrics like GDP etc -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 04:11, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Right. In that case you could say "one of the greatest", though not many would dispute it. Infact there aren't too many to compare. As for your argument about ranking, in that case we wouldn't be able to say words like 'great' either. But we still use adjectives and compare things even if there are no objective criteria in most cases. I think its commonly understood that when such and adjective is used, it reflects subjective judgement of most of the people. So it COULD be used when appropriate. The only point to argue about is that whether it is VALID or not. But I don't think you are arguing about its validity here.King1 (talk · contribs) may 9

Gandhi Murder POV

The whole Gandhi Murder Section is biased against Veer Savarkar all changes made by anonymous user from 69.148.70.104 should be checked for neutrality.

The sections under contentions are Support for Nazi Germany, Murder of Gandhi, On Minorities.

This user 69.148.70.104 has changed the following from Literary Works section

from

He put forward the atrocities of British and Muslims on Hindu Resident in State of Kerala, summarized in the book, "Mopalyanche Band" (Muslims' Strike) also "Gandhi Gondhal", a political commentary on the contemporary politics by Gandhi.

to

He wrote an inflammatory books alleging atrocities of British and Muslims on Hindus in Kerala, summarized in the book, "Mopalyanche Band" (Muslims' Strike) also "Gandhi Gondhal" (Gandhi's nonsense), a political commentary on the contemporary politics by Gandhi.

All his/her changes should be carefully examined and corrected.

-Wces423 06:05, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The section On Minorities is copied verbatim from copyrighted Frontline article The Real Savarkar.

The section Murder of Gandhi is copied verbatim from copyrighted source [1].

Both do not conform to the copyright policy of Wikipedia.

-Wces423 06:34, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to tone down POV here and remove the copyrighted material. But, there should definitely be a mention of his controversial religious and political views and the allegation of his role in the murder of Gandhi. -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 06:48, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

It appears that you're taking the article to the other extreme POV, removing many references of allegations. -- Sundar 09:29, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

For the sake of neutrality, one should quote and reference from the Frontline article and a couple of news items in "The Hindu" publishing purported letters written by Savarkar to Godse. -- Sundar 09:32, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Definitely, some points from here and here must be referenced to bring NPOV. -- Sundar 09:47, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Stating fact that he was implicated, tried and acquitted is enough. You can add links to these articles in external links. -- Wces423 10:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No need of NPOV here

We cant bear the attack against this proud Son of India. No Need of NPOV When there is both +Ve and -ve aspects discussed

Please study the life of the great son of Mother India "Veer Savarkar" and then write about him.

Removal of list of accused

I think the "list of accused" should not be part of article about "Veer Savarkar". His part in the plan has been discussed in a separate section. And this list doesn't add any more information about Savarkar. Wces423 11:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed POV line

"To this day , he is widely regarded all over India as a coward for not helping India gain independence .He is also scorned upon for his alleged involvement in the murder of the great Mahatma Gandhi ."

I removed this line from the article. It is heavily POV and is redundant -- the gist of this line is already stated in the previous two paragraphs in the introduction. Thank you. Gujuguy 22:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

References

The referencing of this article needs to be improved. All the direct references we have for this immense article are simply two bare-bones, non-primary websites. Specific page references to primary resources should be done, especially to what is already listed but just "sitting there" in the references section:

AG Noorani, Savarkar and Hindutva: The Godse Connection, LeftWord, New Delhi, 2002, paperback, 159 pages, ISBN 81-87496-28-2; hardcover, Manohar Publishers, 2003, ISBN 81-87496-28-2

Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, Savarkar Samagra: Complete Works of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar in 10 volumes, ISBN 81-7315-331-0

Hindutva by Veer Savarkar

Tuncrypt 04:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

True enough. In particular, all citations that depend on the article on rediff.com should be removed, as it's obviously non-scholarly. Hornplease 23:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

great or fanatic

brothers, savarkar's role in the assasination of oyr father of nation , should /cannot be ignored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.21.156 (talk) 13:38, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Brothers, can any of you realize what damage this great leader has done to the very concept of united India by propagating fanatic communal approach which deviated muslims, the second largest religious community of India, from main stream indian politics to a marked extent?Is it not a blunder from national intgration perspective??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Al-minar (talk • contribs) 08:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Repetition

Hello,

Why does this "He is considered to be the central icon of modern Hindu nationalist political parties." twice in the first paragraph? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.23.72 (talk) 11:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

atheist

He is a self-proclaimed atheist. any objections to change the infobox? Docku: What up? 05:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

He is a central in Hindutva politics, need references for the above.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 09:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Historian Bipin Chandra says, Savarkar was an atheist. When he was the Hindu Mahasabha president he used to give lectures on why there is no god., Christophe Jaffrelot addresses Savarkar as a self-declared atheist in this book. The fact he was an atheist is already mentioned in the body of the article. Docku: What up? 12:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Good Day, Just so there is no confusion, Atheism in Hinduism is allowed, and there are a lot of Hindu Atheist, including Savarkar. The whole Sankha Philosophy, a major Hindu school of thought is about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Viperov (talk • contribs) 04:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Controversies surronding Savarkar

For the sake of completness as an encyclopedia article, the article should also cite various controversies surrounding Savarkar. I see no mention of any controversies in the main article except his involvement in Gandhi's death. To mention few

• Savarkar's letter to British asking for a premature release as well as plead of loyalty to British Raj. Followed by his non participation in any national movement for Indian Independence

• • "Text of Sarvarkars mercy petition to the British". http://www.milligazette.com/Archives/2004/16-30Apr04-Print-Edition/1604200443.htm. 

• • "Unveiling Savarkar: Picture Imperfect`". http://www.cpiml.org/liberation/year_2003/April/commentary3.htm. 

• • "Savarkar didnt share goals of Independence". http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2003/02/26/stories/2003022603861300.htm. 

• Savarkars aggresive hatred towards Muslims and suggestion of using rape as a tool for punishment

• • Jyotirmaya Sharma. "Savarkar'spolitics of revenge". http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/39187119.cms. 

• • "The repackaging of Savarkar". http://www.indianexpress.com/oldstory.php?storyid=55631. 

• • "Unveiling Savarkar: Picture Imperfect`". http://www.cpiml.org/liberation/year_2003/April/commentary3.htm. 

• • "The Myth of early Savarkar: His "Nationalist" 1857 book". http://pd.cpim.org/2007/0325/03252007_nalini%201857.htm. 

• There are mixed opinions amongst historians whether or not Savarkar was a womaniser. This topic has been popping up in various newspapers every now and then but I dont see a mention of this anywhere in this article. Being a womanizer is a big deal in this part of the world, the below book citation makes generalization of the topic

• • Lise McKean. Divine Enterprise. university of chicago. p. 87. ISBN 0226560104. http://books.google.com/books?id=OsI7Hy8H34YC. 

Anti-muslim cognition

I am a Bangladeshi and a great admirer of India because of the country's unconditional support to our Independence movement in 1971. I respect Mahatmaji, Nehruji and Indiraji to a marked extent.But I am unable to show my respect to Mr.Savarkar as I see him as a proponent of Hindu Communalism which entails innately anti-muslim cognition.Correct me if I am wrong, but I tell you my great Indian friends, I am compelled to blame the propagators of Hinduvta politics equally responsible for partition of India as the Muslim League. If you study London based Bengali scholar Jaya Chatterjee's books,you will also definitely agree with me.Thank you and pardon me if I hurted anyone's apolitical religious sentiments. Al-minar (talk) 07:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any Hindu Communal-ism in India. I am Indian. Indians respect all religions except "terrorism". One more thing - Praising Hindu religion doesn't means opposing Muslim religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.18.10.68 (talk) 10:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I can well the see anti-muslim direction of Savarkar's political phylosophy not only in Indian context but also in global perspective.Otherwise, how could he support creation of Israel in the Palestinian heartland? Is it not because Palestinians are predominantly muslim?Murad67 (talk) 05:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

What all due respect to the hard work of its creators, it is important for this article be balanced on a number of issues. As of now it is biased. Although Hindutva politics are inclusive, they are so in a totalizing way that actually turn them exclusivist to both Christian and Muslim minorities if they don't conform. Savarkar himself proclaimed in his 'Hindutva' that to be Indian is to be Hindu, yet his conception of 'Who is a Hindu' was based on whether a religion had India as its 'Holy Land' as well as its 'Fatherland'. Consequently, all native religions to India (i.e. Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists) are seen as 'Hindu.' Yet Christians and Muslims do not qualify, they have their Holy Land in the Middle East. According to Sarvakar, Christians and Muslims must thus either reconvert or accept Hinduism as central to 'Indian civilization' (Jews qualify as being assimilated in this manner). To this criterium, we understand why Hindu Nationalists did welcome Partition in a sense, because Muslims would be able to have their own land, but also condemned it because it ruptured the territorial integrity of 'the Holy Land': it presented them with a dilemma. This explains why Savarkar praised the creation of the state Israel: he obviously attached much importance to religion's link with territory. His support for Israel was not 'anti-muslim', but based on his conceptions I just explained. Whether Hinduism as such is actually exclusivist is another matter, so don't feel personally attacked, but Hindutva is a specific politicized version of Hinduism. Some have called it a 'synthetic creation of an organic unity.' Personally I believe that India's greatness lies in its diversity and tolerance. I got my information from Savarkar's 'Hindutva', Bidyut Chakrabarty's interesting collection of essays called 'Communal Identity in India,' Sunil Khilnani's 'The Idea of India' and work by the scholar Ashutosh Varshney. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.1.225.191 (talk) 20:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

maharashtracha vaagh - swatantryaveer savarkar

swatantryaveer savarkaranvar bolayache mhanaje fakt ekch...swatantryaveer savarkar mazya romrat bhinale aahet. aaj aani aatahi maazya aangawarun sarsarun kaate yet aahet. aaj te aamhala yasathi have aahet ki tyani zunjun- raktache paani karun ubha kelela ha hindustan kanhi bhrasht aani nalayak lokancya hatche bahule banala aahe. aaj garaj aahe tyanchi karan aajhi aamhala ekhada navaa sangraam chhedava laagnar aahe. mazyasarkhe khoop aahet je ya deshasathi jivachi kurwandi karatil. aamhala fakt marg hava aahe.. aani have aahet ek..swatantryaveer savarkar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.241.252.220 (talk) 13:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

All points of view

1. I agree with the editor above (not immediately above), regarding the fact that all points of view should be represented, including womanising and the one he forgot, I remember reading in Freedom at Midnight, that Savarkar was a homosexual and Godse was his partner. But please note that the various Internet sources repeat one mother source, so their multiplicity is misleading. For example his wrongly alleged support to the Two-Nation Theory, has been corrected by quoting Ambedkar.
2. I wonder how this annonymous editor managed not to get his edit stamped by the address stamping bot?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Savarkar deserves a better treatment than an article based on a rediff article. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• About alleged homosexuality, it seems to be a WP:FRINGE theory (If not, prove it by quoting other references) thus it need not be included. If sufficient scholars believe it then it could be included. Check Freedom at Midnight, if theory originates from that book or author refers to another book
• Note all internet sources are not WP:RS and may contain WP:OR
• Yes, there are numerous, well-documented controversies about Savarkar, which need mention. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 08:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

1. There is no way I can get my hands on a copy any time soon. Please somebody who can give page numbers and a short quote, and if there is a reference or it has been cooked in Dominic's head, although it would need a brave man to make such unsubstantiated allegations though. Do you suggest that even though it is in Freedom at Midnight it is still WP:FRINGE?, as you will not find many sources about his heterosexuality either.
2. Wonder whom the Note all internet sources are not WP:RS and may contain WP:OR was aimed at.
3. What many editors (including myself) sometimes forget is that our contributions are to make Wikipedia better, not portray a certain individual in a good or bad light.
4. It is imo inappropriate to use the word controversies. I would prefer all perspectives keeping within the framework of good Wikipedia principles and practices.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, even though it is in Freedom at Midnight it can be WP:FRINGE, a POV of 1 or 2 scholars, an example of FRINGE in a WP:RS is in Courtright's book suggesting Ganesha eating sweets denotes a limb phallus having oral sex.
• Adding to "the various Internet sources repeat one mother source, so their multiplicity is misleading." The first (original) internet source can be an OR or non-RS
• Yes, the word "controversy" is unnecessary in the text but there can be called controversies here for sake of discussion. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Raja.m82 (talk) 13:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Hindutva and atheism can co-exist. This ref explains Savarkar's view. [2]--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Raja.m82 (talk) 13:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Partition of Palestine and formation of Israel

This refers to the deletion at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vinayak_Damodar_Savarkar&diff=next&oldid=353874772

Editor kindly explain why you have deleted reference to Savarkar's welcoming the Jewish state in the Palestine. It is a very important policy statement. Savarkar and Gandhi both vehmently opposed the partition of India, and so as a matter or logic (and Savarkar claims to appease Muslims) opposed the partition of Palestine and the formation of the Jewish state.

Savarkar on the other hand welcomed the formation of the Jewish state.

You have also commented that there is lack of evidence for the above. However wp:rs have been provided?

I would like to bring the line back kindly justify the deletion Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Editor, kindly disregard "lack of evidence", it refers to your other edit. :-). Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't belong in the intro. Please note that the "matter of logic" that you cite is your own opinion and nothing more. Add it back into the article, but not to the intro. — goethean ॐ 13:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

"Matter of logic is not my invention, see this

“

"First, he was sensitive about the ideas of Muslim Indians who were anti-Zionists because of their sympathy for Middle Eastern Arabs opposed to the Jewish National Home; second, he objected to any Zionist methods inconsistent with his way of non-violence; third, he found Zionism contrary to his pluralistic nationalism, which excludes the establishment of any State based solely or mainly on one religion; and fourth, he apparently believed it imprudent to complicate his relations with the British, who held the mandate in Palestine. ["http://www.twf.org/News/Y2001/0815-GandhiZionism.html]

”

Relations with Israel are an important Indian policy, an important Indian's views on the subject are important and should be in the lead about him. [3] So one line in the lead and details in the article. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The material that you quoted is not talking about Savarkar, and is thus totally irrelevant and inappropriate. And the fact that "relations with Israel are an important Indian policy" does not mean that the item should be included in the lead of a biography on Savarkar. — goethean ॐ 16:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

OMG this is a serious communication snag. I wrote that Gandhi opposed Pakistan and as a matter of logic opposed Israel. You wrote that "matter of logic" was my opinion. I have provided sources for my comment. It is not supposed to be about Savarkar, I have in the article quoted sources for his statements about Israel. Savarkar's support of Israel is an important expression of his Hindutva philosphy and needs to be mentioned in the lead. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Then please cite some evidence to support your claim. — goethean ॐ 18:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The sources are cited in the article sub-section. 117.195.74.183 (talk) 10:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The single source cited is a speech by Savarkar. Unless in that speech, Savarkar says "this issue is absolutely central to my world view", then I think that you have significantly over-emphasized the role of this issue in this article. The man is known for his views on India, not Israel. — goethean ॐ 11:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Correcting myself

Actually my quoting a primary source is a bad wikipedia practice. I should have quoted a reliable secondary source that should have written that

“

Savarkar supported the formation of Israel unlike Gandhi who opposed it. It was in line with his philosophy

”

Not truth but verifiablity is the criteria for inclusion, I withdraw my request for inclusion, I will search for a reliable secondary source - such I have quoted Ambedkar on Savarkar's views on the partition of India, and then add it in the lead.

If you wish you may remove it from the article too. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Savarkar's Sexuality

Should Savarkar's sexuality be addressed in this article? Some sources claim that he was a closeted homosexual and had one sexual encounter with Nathuram Godse as stated in "Assassin: theory and practice of political violence" By J. Bowyer Bell, Irving Louis Horowitz, pp 219-220 [4]. Does anyone have other sources that corroborate this? Authentickle (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

There is only one original source for this claim. It's Freedom at Midnight by Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre. The other sources, including Assassin... are based on Freedom at Midnight. Collins and Lapierre base their claims on their supposed interviews with Nathuram's brother Gopal Godse. However, Gopal Godse denied that he had ever mentioned his brother's homosexuality while being interviewed, and the pro-Hindutva authors like Koenraad Elst term the claim as a Congress/anti-Hindutva conspiracy. utcursch | talk 07:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you cite a source establishing Gopal Godse's denial? Thanks, Authentickle (talk) 07:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Is the anti-Hindutva and pro-Congress bias of Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre well known? --CarTick 18:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I have never heard of Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre being referred to as anti-Hindu in the mainstream media. utcursch | talk 20:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

An imperialist, racist, Hindu hater, read his Anandnagar: The City of Joy, in it the only person who has a heart is its protagonist, a missionary. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I dont have that book. could you please elaborate. what in the book makes you make conclude the above. --CarTick 17:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Freedom at midnight is one of the best source on History of Indian Independence. Most Indian Historians and Scholars recommend it. I did not find any anti-hindutva or pro-congress bias in it. Infact its impartiality can be gauged from the fact that it was banned in Pakistan for a long time.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 05:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems plausible that this habit could have been picked up from Andamans. It is well known that such practices are rampant in these types of prisons. For example one journal confirms that these type of practices were common in Andamans during certain period:

Fears about sexual disorder also forced the development of distinctive convict dress. In the Andamans, where during the second half of the nineteenth century male convicts outnumbered female convicts by an average of ten to one homosexual relations appeared to be common. Commentators firmly distinguished active sodomites from passive recipients (catamites) and juvenile convicts were seen as a particular target for older men. During the early decades, these 'lads' were locked up in lattice cages at night, within their barracks, in an attempt at segregation. This was by no means an ideal arrangement, particularly with regard to fire risks. As the settlement expanded in the 1880s, all men and boys labelled 'habitual recipients' (catamites) were instead confined in and worked from altogether separate barracks. Public flogging was used to punish convicts caught in the act. (pp.165–66) – Anderson, Clare (Autumn, 2001). "Convict Dress in Colonial South and Southeast Asia". History Workshop Journal (Oxford University Press) (52). http://www.jstor.org/stable/4289751. Retrieved 2010-06-21.  --Indian Chronicles (talk) 04:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Indian Chronicle

Is Freedom at midnight, a paper published in a history journal or the like, subjected to peer review? (Though even peer review is a racket as Malhotra writes.) "Most" is what is called a weasel word. The book is written by imperialistic apologists. The Congress before its participation into electoral politics was a movement and not a political party in today's sense, with watertight ideological boundaries. Savarkar was invited to be a member of the Congress after release in 1937. (Keer). Congress was very much a part of the British establishment, like a loyal opposition. (Hyndman) Even after partition, the Congress was aware of nationalist (Hindu) sensibilities, one example is the adoption of Devanagari and a Hindi reasonably free of Arabic and Persian adulteration. The purification of language was an important movement run by Savarkar which began in Andaman (See Mazi Janmathep) as a means of establishing nationalistic (Hindu)identity. The context for the above explanation is your phrase "anti-Hindutva or pro-Congress" imagining that they are Siamese twins. Freedom at midnight, is a muck raising book that indulges in sensationalism, written by a pair of white - Christian imperialistic lackies, without an understanding and acknowledgement of the subaltern existence of a population, under the crushing domination of a racist power, and not just with reference to Savarkar. Personally it is irrelevant whether Savarkar was a homosexual or whether Nathuram was (one of his) partner(s). Savarkar has mentioned the practice, has written about it as one more way in which Muslims exploited Hindus in the Cellular jail, narrated how a boy was rescued from a Muslim and rescued from Islam, with the exploiting Muslim taught a lesson.(Mazi Janmathep) I do not remember reading that the practice, in itself, was condemned by him. (Please correct me if I am wrong). He has written the desperate conditions, such as when ill with diarrhoea he wished that he passed motions in front of the doctor, which was the only way to convince the doctor of the existence of the illness. (Mazi Janmathep). Even the most basic body needs sleep, food, defaecation, rest were used as tools to break the conviction and the will of the political convicts. Copulation is a similar basic need, not very high up from the above mentioned, and in the absence of alternatives, it is natural for homosexuality to find expression. Messer Lapierre and Collins have written Freedom ... in the late 20th century, and it would not be too much to expect a little sympathy and understanding for this aspect of a convict's sexuality, but all that they could do was to write about Savarkar's homosexuality, in order to use it to shock and generate revulsion and prejudice from those who succumb to their bait. Savarkar was a utilitarian, just as he was a pragmatist and a humanist,(Wolfe), even if his homosexuality or bi-sexuality was true, (as he was married and had children, and was officially monogamous, did not divorce, with only death separating him from his wife), why should that be considered a negative trait, especially in the twenty first century? On whether his sexuality should be mentioned or not, my opinion :

(a) His exposure to the practice is documented in his autobiography, and

(b) Freedom... mentions it.

(c) His autobiography, and Freedom can be quoted with Gopal Godse's rebuttal (with reference to the source which should be reliable as per Wikipedia standards) immediately after it. That would add balance and dimension to the article.

(d) The allegation is there for decades, mentioning the rebuttal here, would give it wide publicity.

Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

boy, you have a lot of hatred. anyway, I am not sure if homosexuality is the natural expression when other alternatives dont exist. but i agree there is nothing wrong being homo or bisexual, about one in every 10 person ought to be homosexual. it is just natural and a person needs not be judged based on their sexuality. could somebody, who has access to all these sources come with a text which could be added to the article. --CarTick 12:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I have stuck to facts quoted from wp:rs, I have not provided links etc., as this is a talk page and not the article, anyone is free to check. Google search will provide you with the material referenced. Except of-course Freedom and City of Joy, for which you need to go to a library. GayChristian101.com says that

“

Yes, many men in prison choose to engage in homosexual activity while incarcerated, as an outlet for sexual energy. I've seen percentages quoted of from 20% to 40% but I'm not sure how accurate those percentages are.

”

which pretty very much corroborates what I have written about the relation between incarceration and homosexuality. I am sorry that what I have written comes across as hateful, as I spend a lot of time in being precise. I request CarTick (Karthik?) to elaborate on which part of my comment was so exceedingly hateful that it necessitated the appellation. I request him to read Freedom ... and City of Joy. The shooting of the eponymous film also generated protests, a stay order and a firebomb attack on the crew, and charges of social pornography. Buddhadev Das-Gupta comments on the book and the film 

“

"I have myself read the book and found that it is sickening and full of sky-high errors. I have even gone through the final, 13th version of the oft-amended film script, sent it to exclusive persons and obtained their opinion," Bhattacharya said. "The book has been written from the racist viewpoint of the whites. That viewpoint has been preserved intact in the film script. It has been shown that the people of this city are unconcerned about the misery of their fellow citizens. Only the whites are the saviors."

”

(LA times)

I request CarTick to substantiate his allegation or withdraw it. All in the interest of The Wikipedian god of Verifiablity.

Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

“

Freedom at midnight, is a muck raising book that indulges in sensationalism, written by a pair of white - Christian imperialistic lackies, without an understanding and acknowledgement of the subaltern existence of a population, under the crushing domination of a racist power, and not just with reference to Savarkar.

”

this is the comment you made. u didnt quote anybody as far as i can see. --CarTick 15:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

alright, i remember i began watching the movie City of Joy (film) once and couldnt continue and gave up. From what i remember of the movie, I agree partially with Dasgupta.

I support your ideas (a-c). Since you have access to his autobiography and Freedom, could you please go ahead and add it to the article. I would be glad to know what his autobiography says about his exposure. --CarTick 21:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I assume that alright is a withdrawal of your allegation. I do not have Godse's rebuttal, plus his autobiography is a primary source. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Reply to CarTick

White missionary, lives in a slum, and works to change lives. Hindu labourer sells his bones for his daughter's dowry. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about??? Do you have any idea how people were treated at Mother Teresa ashram. Before she died, she even claimed that there is no GOD in several of her meetings and feared if she just wasted her life. At times she even confessed for converting people and after her death many of her disciples just left and are now working with St Stephens Hospital,Delhi. You can confirm about it from there. missionary has only one and only one agenda... to convert people. I have not come across any single missionary who has served the community and not asked people to practice Christianity. No doubt there is not one and will never be one. Sorry to say,they "Actually" sell Christianity for money.--Onef9day ^Talk! 00:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

read Anandi Gopal Joshi to get an idea how Wilder(American missionary) offered to help if the couple would convert to Christianity. --Onef9day ^Talk! 00:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear friend yours is a classic case of jumping to conclusions. Please read the entire thread and then share your comments. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Doug. please explain.

Doug. please explain your last edit. This article has many unsourced comments someone should go line by line and add references or delete those statements which do not have any.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

True. I restored some cited text " Savarkar's home in Mumbai was stoned by angry mobs, and his political influence and activism sharply curtailed by widespread public anger." removed by an IP who I think is a problem - I see there is an SPI started on the IP. But the article is a real mess. Dougweller (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

However his Chitpawan caste is mentioned by Vinay Lal (reference no 8), but the article as you have written is in shambles, so each section needs a rewrite, I am letting your deletion stay, because for Sawarkar caste was a matter of renunciation and not one to be flaunted, let somebody else take the trouble to edit it back.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Recent major edits

Recent edits to this page provide a non-neutral point of view. A lot of earlier useful material has been discarded and the article entirely re-written. This Article has been hijacked by Marxist writers of Indian history. WikiPedia Please remove their references from the article which are complete distortion of facts and are just added to sell their books. How can the same references of Punyani and noorani be added again and again, without are completely baseless. Honest writer of history, please rewrite this article. Can we guys vote on this? If wikipedia is not going to take action against distortion of facts and history. (The above text was pasted on the top of this page, I am relocating it here it is not mine but another editors, if what I have done is illegal please undo this edit. I have done so as that broke the thread. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

This article should not be hijacked by either marxists nor by Hindutvavadis. Both offer extreme viewpoints. To me it looks more like hikacked by right-wingers and Savarkar worshippers. If it were really hijacked by marxists then Joglekar's citations (some of which are patent nonsense and untruths) would have been removed.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 04:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

(1) My opinion or your opinion is not what is included in the article, Indian do you consider Joglekar an unreliable source in comparision to Noorani or Punmiya? Can you prove so? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Yogesh, Please see my edit. I am not questioning his reliability yet. I am reserving my opinion on Joglekar whether he is reliable source or not. Maybe he is. But what I am sure is that he is extreme POV. And yet he is there. So no one can say that this article has been hijacked by marxists. Thats my point.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 04:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Point accepted, anyways the above text is not mine and I disagree with it, I just relocated it because it was hanging in nowhere, you are perhaps right, Joglekar is one end of the spectrum, Noorani another, both of them are here, so it is even stevens perhaps.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

On second thoughts you have used words like nonsense and untruths which is why I wrote about the value of opinions.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

(outdent)Your last edit saw the following deletions, I have no issue with deletions on (1)Line 163 and Line 226 as they are inline references which is something I have not seen in articles, (2)also the citation wanted tag on line 294 is unwarranted as a citation is provided, (3)the statement on line 342 The above theories have been created by some people who hate savarkar and his one nation ideology. as it does not have a citation, however please explain your deletion of apparently well cited statements Savarkar's contribution to Indian Freedom Struggle has been immense, starting from his student days in London, where he organized the Indians in England, and France from the famous India House, where he wrote the famous book First Indian War of Independence, inspiring Indians to remember martyrs of 1857, and motivating them to carry on second war of independence. English government at that time, arrested him on political charges of waging a war against the English king, for which he was sentenced to 50 years of imprisonment, in 1907 which was unheard of in Indian political circles. No Congress politician was sentenced to such a long and rigorous imprisonment. His entire life was devoted to bring India freedom, from his works and actions. on line 352 and removing the citation on line 38, Keer is a reliable source as far as I know, what is your issue Indian Chronicles?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Yogesh, I have no problem with the edit that you have pointed out namely :Savarkar's contribution to Indian Freedom Struggle has been immense, starting from his student days in London, where he organized the Indians in England, and France from the famous India House, where he wrote the famous book First Indian War of Independence, inspiring Indians to remember martyrs of 1857, and motivating them to carry on second war of independence. English government at that time, arrested him on political charges of waging a war against the English king, for which he was sentenced to 50 years of imprisonment, in 1907 which was unheard of in Indian political circles. No Congress politician was sentenced to such a long and rigorous imprisonment. His entire life was devoted to bring India freedom, from his works and actions subject to one or two inaccuracies in the last two lines. So you may reinstate it with NPOV. There is no denying the fact that his initial years were devoted to India's freedom struggle. But not his entire life. Furthermore, I do not see any value in comparison with any congress freedom fighter. [Note use of word politician for congressmen and freedom fighter for Savarkar.] Furthermore many freedom fighers in Andamans have served much onger sentence than Savarkar. So what the author is saying is POV, which is very obvious considering his background. Coming to earlier point on Jogelekar, He compares Savarkar with the great Maratha King Shivaji. He says that: Shivaji made many promises to Aurangzeb which he did not keep after his escape. But note that all the promises that Savarkar made to British government were honoured. Hence Savarkar and Shivaji cannot be compared. That is why I said it was nonsense and untruth.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 10:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

That is not how it is done Indian, what you have done above is your analysis, which has no value, (neither has mine), please read wp:OR. All we write should be based on reliable sources. The editor above has written the above edit, and cited Keer, to counter it you will have either prove that Keer isn't a reliable source see wp:rs, or provide evidence that Keer has been wrongly cited, which I think would be a serious breach of editing on the part ot the editor Punya who has edited that text into the article, and then you may seek explanations from him and if he doesn't respond you may take community action against him resulting in block/ ban. I hope I am clear.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Like I said that if you feel certain parts of above discussed edit are reliable then please add it. I have other reliable sources to show that Savarkar only devoted his initial years to freedom fighting that can counter the above edit easily. Furthermore relevancy is also important. Anyway I have reported Punya for edit warring and refusing to discuss.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 10:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Biographies have a controversies section, you are free to quote the sources, that contradict Joglekar or Keer, Keer I am sure you know is an emminent biographer having many biographies to his credit including Ambedkar, Punya has quoted Keer, if Keer says so then it is first class, whether you like it or not. Please give Punya a long rope, he is new here and perhaps does not understand procedures.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with Punya personally. I welcome him to make constructive edits without becoming emotionally charged. If he follows Wikipedia policies, discusses controversial edits first and desists from personal attacks, I have no issues. In fact I waited for more than a week before reporting him.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 11:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The text above was inserted by Punya, not me, I do not have Keer's Savarkar, and so I cannot reinsert it. It is for Punya to do so, since he has quoted Keer and so perhaps has Keer with him. My issue is your removal, you shouldn't have removed a well sourced statement. Lavkare says that the subject of the clemency plea and Savarkar's involvement in Gandhi's murder is a has been raised by the prejudiced and pernicious cocktail of Congress and the Communists indulging in a perversity, very much what Punya's edits were.[5] I wish to have this in the article after you have looked at itYogesh Khandke (talk) 12:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

To Indian Chronicles....

Reply No point of view mentioned by me were POV, but were in fact supported by the books by Keer and Harindra Srivastava. If you were in Maharashtra state, you would have known Maharashtra Govt, made Veer Savarkar movie Tax free, what is POV about it? Can you name any congress politician whose was sentenced to two life imprisonments (25 years each) for a political cause of waging a war against british King? Refer Keer, Srivastava, Or book by Chakravarti Rajagopalachar(his pen name- Chitragupta) "Life of Barrister Savarkar". When a person is acquitted(freed) by court of Law and is freed from all the charges, we have no right to defame him as a criminal on the basis of hearsay, as Kapur commission one man commission and their political supporters tried to defame. When the person is no longer alive to defend himself. What would you call if a person is freed from all charges, and still people defame and accuse him as criminal with no trial? Indian chronicles, and some other others on like abdul like tried to the same strategy. Veer Savarkar's poineering work is not my POV, but a fact which remains because of works and actions performed by him during his lifetime. Please refer to following books. 1. Life of barrister Savarkar 2. Veer Savarkar by Dhananjay Keer (padmabhushan author, title given by Govt of India.) 3. Five Stormy years, Savarkar in London. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.61.48.229 (talk) 13:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive threading by Punya6666

(1)Please understand Punya that your breaking of threads is very disruptive, action may be taken against you for that. See this page has a sub-topic list, 1 - 25 now, 1 should be the oldest and 25 the latest, please place your edits at the bottom of the page and not the top of the page as you have been doing. Also sign on the page by pressing the signature and time stamp or typing four tildes (~). (2)About content (A)Tax free, please find a reliable source that informs that the movie was tax free and provide citation, understand that verifiability and not truth is criteria for inclusion please see wp:V. (B)Please provide citation for your statement that no congress politician was awarded two life sentences, the onus lies on you to provide citations, you should not ask others to find them for you, please provide page numbers if you are quoting a book, it will give it authenticity, also be careful about WP:SYNTHESIS. (C)Kapur Commission: There is a reliable source quoted that supports the statements. What you have written is your view, it has no place here. (D)Your allegations against Indian Chronicles and Abdul may cause you to be blocked/ banned from Wikipedia, please do not pass adverse comments against editors.(E)The list is from Godbole's Five Stormy Years in London, it may not be considered a reliable source, you may go ahead with it if you wish, please see other Featured Articles - Biographies, this biography should be like that in style. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Indian Chronicle's last edit

(1)You have called Punya's edits nonsense and untruths, (2)Have written that the International court at Hague, existed only since 1945, (3)Have cast apprehensions whether the said text is Keer's, (1)I wouldn't use abusive words like nonsense even if another editor was wrong. (2)Please see this source, it has the entire case, and is dated crica 1911, it refers to an International court in Hague.[6] (3)You have to prove that Punya is mis-representing sources such as Keer. (4)In view of the above I am reverting your edit.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Yogesh, pls read peoperly. It is not international court of Justice as claimed by Punya but some Permanent arbitrartion court. ICJ came in existance after 1945. Hence due to this misrepresentation I had my doubts. Furthermore Punya and not providing page numbers where this occurs in Keer's book. Hence onus is on him to prove it. Furthermore List types is unencyclopedic and should be in article form. Furthermore you had only deleted this section.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 10:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting me. The case was refered to the Permanent Court of Arbitration, based in The Hague, Netherlands. You are also right that Punya should give page numbers. Your edit summary imo should have carried that request, as the reason for the deletion. Thanks again.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually I didn't say it was the ICJ, all I wrote was that it was an, International court in Hague, the court is international, the court is in Hague, please check my previous edit, thanks again, your pressure has made an interesting addition to the article, one more article now links to it, and it carries links to one more article. Thanks again. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks now its much more accurate.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 06:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Image

An image needs removing from this article but I don't know how to do it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.76.235 (talk) 18:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Blatant POV in the Kapur Commission subsection

"All these facts taken together were destructive of any theory other than the conspiracy to murder by Savarkar and his group."

If this isn't an an example of a outright POV in an encyclopedic article, I dont know what is. You cannot say that this quote cites a "source", since you shall always find arbitrary sources that make such claims.

Editors, please make necessary changes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.201.187.164 (talk) 14:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

That is what the Kapur Commission said apparently, disprove it with wp:RS, if you have them?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)