Talk:Bengali Hindus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject India / West Bengal (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject West Bengal (marked as Mid-importance).
 

Confusing Article[edit]

This article introduces unnecessary confusion into the topic of "Bengalis" in general. Doing a quick wikipedia search for other commonly accepted Indian ethnic group + the "hindu" modifier (e.g. "Marathi hindu", "Gujurati hindu") only yields an article for "Punjabi Hindu". In this case the word "Hindu" is used in the commonly accepted form of one who adheres to the religion of Hinduism. What "Hinduism" refers to and what "religion" connotes are topics of another debate; however it is apparent what the English world's vast majority thinks of Hindus as followers of a religion. If the author insists on having a separate article for this group of people, would it not be more appropriate to be entitled "Indian Bengalis" or "Bengali Indians" as a sub-topic of overarching "Bengali People"?

If the author wishes to resurrect the archaic use of "Hindu" or "Hindoo" as a reference to people who are native to the subcontinent, he is welcome to do so. Note, though, that doing so would mean that even Sikhs, Jains, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Animists, etc. would then also be called "Hindus". If the author wishes to resurrect "Hindu" as only referring to "Indians", he is also welcome to do so; however the above religious groups in India would object to this, I'm sure, because of the overwhelmingly common notion that "Hindu" refers to practitioners of Hinduism. If the author wishes to define "Hindu" as Indians who remain loyal to the millenia old traditional practices that fall under the term "Hinduism", well then the author has failed in his ultimate purpose of redefining "Hindu" as an overarching ethnic group rather than a religious group. Though the author does not see "Hindu" as a religious term, the fact that non-dubious religious groups such as Sikhs, Muslims, and Buddhists would reject its application to them suggests the word "Hindu" has gained an inherent religious connotation by exclusion. The author will have to convince these, now assimilated, Indian religious groups that applying "Hindu" to them is appropriate. If the author rejects the idea that "Hindu" can apply to any of the mentioned religious groups, then he is betraying the fact that he, in fact, subscribes to the notion that "Hindu" refers to a separate religious group. In that case would the author be willing to create articles for each religious sub group? After all, they all have very different cultural practices and habits and therefore must be considered separate ethnic groups. Just think, we could have "Konkani Christians", "Assamese Animists", "Bengali Roman Catholics", etc.

It seems rather inappropriate that there should be an article presented as un-debated fact when it runs contrary to commonly accepted notions. Perhaps the article should discuss the movement to reclaim "Hindu" as an ethnic identifier, rather than using "Bengali Hindus" as a pawn in the debate.--Taajikhan (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Same thing has been talked over many times but the only contributor always insists. You make take this to AFD. » nafSadh did say 08:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
What is AFD?--Taajikhan (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Simply visit: AfD » nafSadh did say 19:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
This is high time that the much debated unverifiable untrue biased article is deleted. Please help objectivism to prevail. I have enlisted this article in the Articles for deletion list. I presume most of the contributors will agree with me. RegardsNaved77 (talk) 07:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Hindu is not only a religious identity, but also an ethnic identity[edit]

Hindu is not only a person who adheres to Hinduism, but also a person who resides in the Subcontinent and adheres to native belief systems. In India, the official definition of Hindu is given in the Hindu Marriage Act, wherein it states that Hindu is a person who is not a Muslim, Christian, Jew or a Parsee. By that definition Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Brahmos all are Hindus. Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Brahmos do not have any separate personal law, all of them are governed by Hindu personal laws. Accordingly Rabindranath Tagore, Ram Mohan Roy, Atisa Dipankara all are ethnic Hindus. BengaliHindu (talk) 09:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Ambiguous interpretation should be avoided."Hindu" now primarily denotes a religion. No other religious group or any person belonging to any other religion ever mentioned or agreed to mention them as belonging to Hindu-ethnicity.Mainly a section of fanatic Hindus are demanding this. The word might be a coming from Sindhu > Indus > Hindus etc. In that case it has nothing to do with Bengali Ethnicity other than a religious context .It is a deliberate misleading attitude .Bengalis are linguist group ,not a ethno-linguist group. It never was so. The definition of Hindu Marriage Act as you have mentioned , if it really be so , then it is an unfortunate and misleading definition . There are many other religions which haVE NOT BEEN MENTIONED .The basis or reason of the definition is not clear. To define something by saying what it is not is not assertive and incomplete .It is hard to use such definition in the concrete sense. It becomes metaphysical. A wrong thing or a blunder or mistake should not be used for to the fulfilment of any vested interest .It causes greater damage to Humanity in the long run.117.194.204.201 (talk) 06:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Dear brother, please refer to sub-clause (b) of clause (2) of article 25 of the Constitution of India, which clearly explains that the Hindu identity encompasses Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists also.[1] The Supreme Court of India in its landmark verdict has stated that Hinduism is not a religion, it is a way of life.[2] Do you think that the writers of the Indian Constitution or the Division Bench of the Supreme Court have vested interests? BengaliHindu (talk) 12:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Rabindranath Tagore described the Hindus as a jati i.e. an ethnic group or a nation. He had stated that, "হিন্দু শব্দে এবং মুসলমান শব্দে একই পর্যায়ের পরিচয়কে বুঝায় না । মুসলমান একটি বিশেষ ধর্ম কিন্তু হিন্দু কোনো বিশেষ ধর্ম নহে । হিন্দু ভারতবর্ষের ইতিহাসের একটি জাতিগত পরিণাম । ইহা মানুষের শরীর মন হৃদয়ের নানা বিচিত্র ব্যাপারকে বহু সুদূর শতাব্দী হইতে এক আকাশ , এক আলোক , এক ভৌগোলিক নদনদী অরণ্য - পর্বতের মধ্য দিয়া , অন্তর ও বাহিরের বহুবিধ ঘাতপ্রতিঘাত - পরম্পরার একই ইতিহাসের ধারা দিয়া আজ আমাদের মধ্যে আসিয়া উত্তীর্ণ হইয়াছে ।"[3] (The word Hindu and the word Musalman doesn't refer to the same category of identity. Musalman signifies a particular religion, but Hindu doesn't signify any particular religion. Hindu is the manifestation of the national identity in the history of Bharatvarsha.) Rabindranath further elaborated on the Hindu national identity. "প্রশ্নকর্তা হয়তো জিজ্ঞাসা করিবেন, আমরা হিন্দুজাতি বলিলে যাহা বুঝি, সে জাতিত্ব কিসে স্থির হয়? তাহার উত্তর, ধর্মে। কতকগুলি ধর্ম হিন্দুধর্ম বলিয়া স্থির হইয়া গিয়াছে। হিন্দুধর্ম নামক এক মূল ধর্মের নানা শাখা-প্রশাখা চারি দিকে বিস্তারিত হইয়াছে, (তাহা হইতে আরও অনেক শাখা-প্রশাখা এখনও বাহির হইতে পারে) এই-সকল ধর্ম উপধর্ম যাহারা আশ্রয় করিয়া থাকে তাহারা হিন্দু। কিন্তু যখনি কোনো হিন্দু এই-সকল শাখা-প্রশাখা পরিত্যাগ করিয়া একেবারে সর্বতোভাবে ভিন্ন ধর্মবৃক্ষ আশ্রয় করেন তখনি তিনি আর হিন্দু থাকেন না।"[4] He stated that Dharma was the essential feature of the Hindu nationality. Hindus adhere to any number of sects and creeds emanting out of the root of Hinduism. A Hindu ceases to be Hindu if he embraces a different religion other than those under the umbrella of Hinduism. BengaliHindu (talk) 09:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Dear Sir , Your reference does not provide any clear or concrete idea.Some debatable comments are there .But at the ground level the people ( from Brahman to The outcast ) of every community follows some common norms what they believe as religion and at the ground level it is not a debate or undefinable it is definite .Some political forces are trying to project the ideas you have mentioned .Not every National political organisation agree on such issues neither they want such debates .I do not know what is your purpose.If it is like a platform then let it be .
In India many people of this country is doubtful about this debates.
Again your Reference does not mention the verdict of the court and the case .It contains only some person' s articulate and selected mentioning of some writings. I also do not understand what is the debate or what they want to say .The whole thing seems to be creating a great nonsense for our future generations.Let us hope God may have mercy on us and also may give all of us a Good Thinking .May God bless you .117.194.197.107 (talk) 12:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Dear brother , Then will you please tell me, those people who mention their religion as Hinduism ,what exactly their religion is , You believe ?
In Indian Constitution , In the articles you referred , it is not written that Hinduism is not a religion , It is also not written that Brahmoism( sometimes mentioned as Adi-dharm) and those others sects believed to be originated from or extracted from ideas of ancient Indian writings are same as or may be reduced to or merged with Hinduism : It is only written there that A Marriage Act named as Hindu Marriage ACT will be applicable for them and NOT more than that .
No Constitution of Any Country can have vested interest .The interpretations may be different. I have mentioned the practical sense of the word.What people understand or mean to be or assume to be the meaning of it .If a word can have more than one meaning then definitely it has to be clearly mentioned in which sense it is written and also when officially someone asked to write to what religion he belongs , the sense in which The Govt wanted to know has to be mentioned and also when you are writing as Hindu you must mention that.And that why don't you name the page as " Bengali Ethno-Hindu People " or rather " Bengali Ethno-Indus People " then we can include our all ethnic brothers (including the other religions as well ) irrespective of so called religion and consider Bengal as extended Steppe by including the Ganga river valley .Don't push someone to the interpretation of court verdicts ,several times these issues would be raised in different contexts and with time and social value systems these verdicts may change many times.
Regarding the Religion Rabindra Nath Tagore Practised there is well documented social history.He was not born Hindu neither ever he practised Hinduism in his personal or social life as practised by religious Brahmins. He maintained caste system in marriage. That was a failure in his life to obey the Brahmo religion strictly.Most of the followers failed in this respect.This is an old and well known issue.Tagore himself asked his father of rectification.His father expressed his inability and asked the poet if he can do so.The rest you know.Whether you will accept the hard truth or not that is your choice.
As the question in respect to Tagore's own declaration "He declared himself not belonging to any religion" . In that respect and with due honour to the poet his name should be in the page "Bengali People " if at all he has to be included in any small community concepts like this but definitely not in " Bengali Hindu People " .
There are many other Religions which originated from some other religion.They may be categorised on the basis of their identical origin but not same .As a believer in Hinduism as you have boldly declared in your name as Bengali Hindu , you may feel some emotion but that does not seem much rational.117.194.197.241 (talk) 06:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Rabindranath himself admitted that he belonged to the Hindu society and Brahmo sect. He therefore considered Brahmos a sectarian denomination of the Hindus. In his essay Atmaparichay he stated, "পূর্বেই বলিয়াছি সমাজের স্থান সম্প্রদায় জুড়িতে পারে না । আমি হিন্দুসমাজে জন্মিয়াছি এবং ব্রাহ্ম সম্প্রদায়কে গ্রহণ করিয়াছি — ইচ্ছা করিলে আমি অন্য সম্প্রদায়ে যাইতে পারি কিন্তু অন্য সমাজে যাইব কী করিয়া? সে সমাজের ইতিহাস তো আমার নহে । গাছের ফল এক ঝাঁকা হইতে অন্য ঝাঁকায় যাইতে পারে কিন্তু এক শাখা হইতে অন্য শাখায় ফলিবে কী করিয়া?"[5] Rabindranath therefore contended that while being Brahmo, he doesn't cease to be a Hindu. He clearly states that Brahmos are a sect within the Hindu society. BengaliHindu (talk) 13:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
There is Being-in-itself and Being-in-the world and Being -in-others(samaj) . Tagore's statement of identity of being is superficial.117.194.200.95 (talk) 04:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Regarding Tagore's statement of identity being superficial or not, please cite relevant verifiable sources to substantiate what you are trying to say. Do not try to promote your own point of view. What do want to mean by saying that Tagore's statement of identity is superficial? When he himself clearly says he belongs to the Hindu society and Brahmo sect, how can we refuse to acknowledge that? BengaliHindu (talk) 06:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
This article has lots of misinformation. For example, Bangladesh was never declared an Islamic Republic. Please correct it. This article also connotes a latent communal tone.122.144.14.134 (talk) 13:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
But practically Bangladesh is an Islamic Republic. Under International pressure they have retained officially as "Peoples of Republic ...... etc." .What is the difference between Present day Bangaladesh and "That would it have been an Islamic Republic": most probably no difference.117.194.206.242 (talk) 07:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
In 1988, Islam became the state religion of Bangladesh. But the official name of Bangladesh continued to be "Peoples Republic of Bangladesh". The article has been edited accordingly. BengaliHindu (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Holy Lord ! Where does the editor find that Bengali means Bengali hindus ony? Majority of Bengalis are muslims then ? You mean to say majority bengalis who are muslims are not bengalis??? This is totally unacceptable. 122.144.14.134 (talk) 13:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Bengali doesn't mean Bengali Hindus only. Both Hindus and Muslims and Bengalis. However, in India there is a tendency to consider only the Hindus as Bengalis. It is not the view of the editor. Proper citations has been provided. BengaliHindu (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Bengali Hindus represents the Ground reality[edit]

Yes there is a cultural integrity and that is more close to ethnicity and may be represented by the word Hindus.We should not get into debate for nothing.The correct source of informations should be given. Any sect believing in origin from Brahma May be thought of as belonging to Hindus or Indus group.117.194.197.7 (talk) 07:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

This article is a highly biased one which sounds like Hindu Mohashobha propaganda. The references are also from highly partial politically motivated sources. Please correct the tone or else it has to be merged with 'Bengali People' article. ThanksNaved77 (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I think you are biased to tag it with Hindu Mahasabha.Mention the portions and references. It is a free editing article.Bengali speaking people following Brahmic religions is a ground reality ; it can not be denied.However some individuals editing the article may be biased . Everyone will be happy if you correctly mention the wrong portions.117.194.213.103 (talk) 15:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Height of Misinformation[edit]

The article has a communal epitome innate in its style and is full of misinformation. Bangladesh is officially named as "Peoples Republic of Bangladesh". Despite the rise of religious fanatics in Bangladesh, it is not and was never I repeat never an Islamic Republic. Secondly, since the first Indian census of late 19th century, Sylhet was a slightly majority muslim district. Currently it is overwhelmingly muslim majority district of Bangladesh.So mentioning it as a hindu majority district is sheer lie. Thirdly, the article mentions incorporation of only one Hindu majority district i.e. Khulna to Bangladesh, but remains deliberately silent about awarding two muslin majority districts i.e. Murshidabad and Malda to India. Therefore it is a parochial article which certainly requires re-writing.Al-minar (talk) 06:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

In 1988, Islam became the state religion of Bangladesh. But the official name of Bangladesh continued to be "Peoples Republic of Bangladesh". The article has been edited accordingly. BengaliHindu (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
The article connotes that the Baro-Bhuyans were also hindus so wrongly while we all know most of the Bengali Baro-Bhuyans were muslim in faith including the most glorious and courageous one, the great Isa Khan of Sonargaon. This misinformation must be removed!!!Murad67 (talk) 09:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Historians differ on who exactly were the twelve Baro-Bhuyans. There were both Hindus and Muslims among them. Therefore it is wrong to state that all Baro-Bhuyans were Hindus. The article has been edited accordingly. BengaliHindu (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks ! But how could R. Upadhyay's partisan parochial write up in the blog South Asia Analysis Group be used here as reference while the blog editors themselves denied explicitly to take the responsibility of the article's opinion and confirms it as the writers personal veiw? Bengali Language movement was propagated in East Bengal by Bengali muslims, right? Bengali is the state language of Bangladesh, not of India, right? Amar Sonar Bangla written by Tagore is the national anthem of Bangladesh, right? So the hypothesis that muslims of Bengal tend to adhere to there religious identity is a sweeping remark which does not hold water.Please remove the unreliable onesided reference. Al-minar (talk) 07:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you dear brother Al Minar for raising a very pertinent question. Your are correct - Bengali Language Movement was started in East Bengal in 1952. Bengali is the official language of Bangladesh. The Bengaliness of Bangladeshi people is perhaps more than the Indian Bengali people. Therefore any hypothesis that states that the Muslims of Bengal tend to adhere to their religious identity is wrong. But the cited reference, clearly speaks of historical times, especially before the Partition of India and not the present. However, I do understand that such citations may cause unnecessary confusions and possibly it is not absolutely necessary while discussing Bengali Hindu identity. So it has been removed. BengaliHindu (talk) 12:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for accepting the truth! We are all Bengali first and then muslim or hindu or budhdhist. Mankind is one!!!Al-minar (talk) 08:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Weasal words and Peacock sentences[edit]

The article sometimes violates Wikipedias NPOV policy. The point of veiw expressed here should adhere to neutral pont of view. Morover it must avoid Weasal words and Peacock sentences.As for example it is stated that Bengali is the most richest language of the sub continent. This style contradicts Wikipedia policy. Unmesh Bangali (talk) 07:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Weasal words and possible POVs removed. BengaliHindu (talk) 08:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

WORST ARTICLE : STRONGLY INTENTIONAL[edit]

Most informations of this article are wrong. Some communal sentiment is working behind the concept.Many cultural and religious ideologies have been marginalised. It strongly expresses a Religious cultural Hegemony.This is highly condemnable. People of many different religions have been shown under the Banner of Hindu to marginalise one particular religion. This could be a propaganda of some communal forces. Wikipedia should not promote such article.

Rabindra nath Tagore was not born Hindu and he never adopted Hinduism .Many other such names are there.Shame ! 117.194.193.47 (talk) 15:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Please read the article Hindu. There it has been clearly mentioned that as per the Constitution of India, Indian religions like Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism and others are considered under the umbrella of Hinduism. Therefore according Indian Constitution Brahmos are Hindus. The main principles of Brahmo philosophy are derived from the Upanishads, one of the basic texts of Hinduism. Brahmos don't have a separate holy book or personal laws. Brahmos are considered a sect just like Arya Samajis, Lingayats etc and not a separate religion. Can you site any reliable source, preferably from Rabindranath's own writings which state that he was not a Hindu? You have claimed that most of the information in this article is wrong. Would you kindly specify them? Before jumping into conclusions like worst article, communal etc, who don't you edit the article citing proper references? NPOV is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. There is no room for any kind of propaganda. Articles should have proper citations. Any unsourced content may be challenged and removed. BengaliHindu (talk) 07:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Hindu Trinity is Brahma , Vishnu and Maheswar (Shuva) .The clans are from Their Manasputras ( Rishish getting Human Life as they wished) .Any community belonging to these clan system and obeying the Trinity are Hindu .The two sects Vaishnab and Shaktas are larger in number.Tagores were believer in Brahmo , so they definitely belong to Hinduism.Some sects are their those who mention Brahma as Parameswar.117.194.192.192 (talk) 11:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Limitless Stupidity ; is it that?[edit]

3. Are Brahmos Hindu ? What is the legal position ?

A. That the Brahmo religion is a separate religion - distinct from Hinduism has been repeatedly upheld by the highest Courts in the land.

The 1903 Privy Council Judgement in the matter of "Rani Bhagwan Koer and Ors v. J.C.Bose and Ors." {30 Cal 11} is the landmark caselaw. It was held here:-

  1. that "if a Brahmo declares (for the purpose of the Special Marriage Act,1872) that he is NOT a Hindu it must be taken as conclusive evidence that he is NOT a Hindu",
  2. that "if a Hindu follows the Brahmo Samaj it does not mean that he ceases to be a Hindu",
  3. that "there are at least 3 branches of the Brahmo Samaj and that only the original (Adi) Brahmo Samajis (a very small minority today) consider themselves to be Hindus". It is important to understand the significance of these rulings:-
  4. "Conclusive Evidence" is the highest form of evidence of a particular fact.
  5. Certain legal authorities like Maynes have misrepresented that "all Brahmos are Hindus and nothing but Hindus" because they continue to be Hindus after "conversion". Since Maynes' treatise "Hindu Law" is otherwise such an authority this canard has been widely spread. Firstly J.M.Maynes represented the "losing" Hindu side in this particular matter. Secondly the Brahmo Samaj does not require renunciation of your existing religion to "follow" the universal core principles of the Brahmo Samaj in one's day to day life. Thirdly "followers of the Brahmo Samaj" are not neccesarily Brahmo religionists (who exclusively have faith in the Brahmo religion)
  6. Maharshi Debendranath Tagore (the founder of the Brahmo religion), being part of an old and extended Hindu family, continued to permit certain Hindu religious rituals in his Adi Brahmo Samaj out of deference to his family. However, today all Brahmo religionists would unhesitatingly declare that they are not Hindus by religion. Additionally they would fail the so-called Bal Gangadhar Tilak "test" for Hinduism in every respect.

Insofar, as the various Hindu Laws are concerned:-

  1. These Hindu laws are certainly applicable to those Hindus who are also "followers" of the Brahmo Samaj, just as similarly as the Islamic Laws would be applicable to any Mohammedans who are also "followers" of the principles of the Brahmo Samaj etc. Since membership of the various Brahmo Samajes is freely open to persons of all religious faiths - the personal law of members of the Brahmo Samaj is not an issue for the Samaj. It is important to realise that the Brahmo religion is separate and distinct from the Brahmo Samaj.
  1. Brahmos (ie. exclusively Brahmo religionists) are governed by the secular laws of the country of their residence. For example in India, they would be governed by the "Special Marriages Act 1872, or 1954", "The Indian Succession Act", "The Guardians and Wards Act", etc. In addition Brahmos are also free to opt for relief under any personal laws applicable to them. In laws of Bangladesh - Brahmoism is recognised as a separate religion distinct from Hinduism or Islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.199.244 (talk) 17:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

No followers of Brahmo rligion only The Brahmosamaj[edit]

Now-a-days hardly there will we find any follower of Brahmo religion .There may be a Brahmo-samaj .Some official bodies and few organisations. Then why to create so much chaos by wanting them to bring under the same umbrella of Hinduism ( irrespective of whatever may be sense of the word) .We don't understand the people engaged in the debate.If the followers of Brahmo Religion is the main people of renaissance then what is the wrong in it.Why the Bengali Hindus can't accept the truth.What is the problem in identifying the Brahmos as Brahmos.What good a lie would do to us.117.194.199.167 (talk) 08:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The Balloon of Lies Has Burst[edit]

We knew the truth.Why Kesab Sen came to Brahmo samaj that is also clear as daylight .And later these people converted back to Hinduism and carried out the propaganda to malign Brahmo religion.Now the Hegemony of Hindu Culture.Mr. Bengali Hindu you are becoming a symbol of that .It may be very unfortunate for you but that is what we see clearly.117.194.195.114 (talk) 05:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I fail to understand why it is getting personal. Instead of personal attacks, it would be better for you to put forward your view with proper references. That would be most appreciated. BengaliHindu (talk) 18:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Fact vs Myth[edit]

Where did the editor find that Budhdhists are Hindus? Atisha Dipankar, the great teacher of Bengal who went all the way to Tibet to preach the Budhdhist religion is tagged here as Hindu. This opinion is narrow, parochial and against historically accepted facts.Majority of Bengalis, whether muslim, budhdhist or even hindu do not subscribe to this view. Minority's view can not be propagated by citing some unreliable biased source. This article therefore should be removed or atleast merged with the article Bengali People.Murad67 (talk) 09:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear brother Murad, please don't be agitated. This is not a forum for causing any inter-religious disputes. Please refer to sub-clause (b) of clause (2) of article 25 of the Constitution of India, which clearly explains that the Hindu identity encompasses Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists also.[1] The Supreme Court of India in its landmark verdict has stated that Hinduism is not a religion, it is a way of life.[2] Would you call the Constitution of India and Supreme Court of India's verdict unreliable and unbiased source, narrow, parochial and against historically accepted facts? Moreover, how do you come to the conclusion that majority of Bengalis - Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus don't agree to this view? Do you have any evidence thereof? BengaliHindu (talk) 11:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I dont find Murad to be agitated. Rather he is absolutely right. Followers of religions indegenous to India do not have any separate personal law. Fine but that does not mean they are religion wise Hindu.Furthermore the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 has defined the legal status of Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs as legal Hindus but not "Hindus by religion".[6]. Mr. Bengali Hindu, you are rather agitated in propagating a back dated hagemonist communal view. Please wake up. Budhism, though originated in India, is one of the four major world religions. You can no way embrace them in the domain of hinduism. Millions of Budhhist worldwide follow teachings of Atisha as their spiritual leader. Therefore, I am deleting the photo of Atisha from this article. I earnestly request you to behave with tolerance. Thanks.Unmesh Bangali (talk) 08:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Dear brother Unmesh, I guess you have the misunderstanding that Hindu is only a religious identity. It is not. It is a geo-ethnic, cultural and legal identity. The Constitution of India, includes the Buddhists within Hindus, but doesn't include Buddhism within Hinduism and that is what I have iterated. I have nowhere tried to embrace them in the domain of Hinduism. As per the Constitution of India, to be a Hindu you don't have to strictly adhere to Hinduism, you can follow either the Buddhist, Sikh or Jain religion and still be a Hindu. The term 'world religion' is very ambiguous; the Wikipedia doesn't have any article on it. And Buddhism is followed as a official religion only in four countries - Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Cambodia. I wonder if that is a criteria for 'world religion'. I find it disturbing, the tendency to construe individual identity, solely from the perspective of religious belief. Does a person only have a religious identity and nothing else? BengaliHindu (talk) 17:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
And what I don't understand why it is getting personal. On the one hand you are accusing me promoting hegemonic and communal views and again asking me to behave with tolerance. What a shame can that be! BengaliHindu (talk) 17:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Rabindranath Tagore has clearly stated in his essay Hindu Vishwavidyalaya that Buddhists and Jains are also Hindus - "সেই বৃহৎ বিচিত্র , জীবনের - বেগে - চঞ্চল , জাগ্রত চিত্তবৃত্তির তাড়নায় নব নব অধ্যবসায়ে প্রবৃত্ত হিন্দু সমাজ — যে সমাজ ভুলের ভিতর দিয়া সত্যে চলিয়াছিল ; পরীক্ষার ভিতর দিয়া সিদ্ধান্তে ও সাধনার ভিতর দিয়া সিদ্ধিতে উত্তীর্ণ হইতেছিল ; যাহা শ্লোকসংহিতার জটিল রজ্জুতে বাঁধা কলের পুত্তলীর মতো একই নির্জীব নাট্য প্রতিদিন পুনরাবৃত্তি করিয়া চলিতেছিল না ; বৌদ্ধ যে সমাজের অঙ্গ , জৈন যে সমাজের অংশ ; মুসলমান ও খ্রীস্টানেরা যে সমাজের অন্তর্গত হইতে পারিত ; ..."[7] Therefore Atisha Dipankar was a Hindu. Dear brother, Unmesh, I therefore revert your deletion of Atisha's image. BengaliHindu (talk) 09:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Tagore's writing has different meaning .Integral Part of a society and Part of a religious society do not mean the same thing. Tagore's writng is based on a realisation of belonging to the One.ArijitS (talk) 06:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I think it is crystal clear what Tagore wanted to mean. Dear brother Arijit, if you read the entire article you'll find that Tagore has clearly stated that the Hindus are a nation and not just a religious community, just like the Muslims and Christians. Tagore always referred to the Hindus as a people, as a nation who has a shared history, shared culture and shared ancestry. What Tagore has said is reflected within the writings of Swami Vivekananda, Sri Aurobindo and Bankim Chandra Chatterjee. You would perhaps appreciate the fact that the word Hinduism is derived from the word Hindu and not the other way round, which makes it clear that the term Hindu referring to a people had been in usage prior to the coinage of the term Hinduism. Therefore the term Hindu doesn't just mean somebody to adheres to Hinduism. Accordingly Tagore has justified that the Jains and Buddhists were a integral part of the Hindu society. Dear brother, just because what Tagore had said contradicts what you popularly believe, you should think twice before concluding that Tagore was sentimental, or his thoughts were not based on reasons, or call him Brutus! Don't get emotional. Try to accept the reality that Tagore had wanted to convey. BengaliHindu (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey brother Bengali Hindu! Go through 'Oxford High School History' book series. You will find 4 major religions of the world as : Cristianity, Islam, Buddhism & Hinduism.Countries like China, Japan, Thailand, Vietnam, Myanmar- all have a vast buddhist population.Budhism therefore is as important a religion in the global context like Christianity or Islam.Ok? Unmesh Bangali (talk) 11:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Buddhism may be practised in some East Asian countries, but in the Sub-continent the Buddhists are considered ethnic Hindus. Rabindranath himself stated that Buddhists were a part of the Hindu society. See my comment above. BengaliHindu (talk) 10:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
The affirmation that the Bengali hindus form a different ethno-linguistic identity is totally incorrect.Because we all know that the Bengali muslims also belong to the same ethno-linguistic group. Bengali muslims are ethnically and linguistically same as their Hindu brothers. They also share the heritage of same ethnical forefathers. So why do we have to create the artificial division between them as propagated by the British rulers based on their Divide & Rule policy? Therefore I also suggest that the article should be merged with Bengali people. Thanks to all!!!Naved77 (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
The Bengali Hindus and Bengali Muslims have different social structures, cultural aspects, historical perspectives and more importantly constitute different political entities. The boundary line between India and Bangladesh bears a mute testimony to that fact. Language alone doesn't make two people ethnically the same. If it were so, then the Dutch and the Flemish would have been the same people, the Germans and Austrians would have been the same, Kashmiri Muslims and Kashmiri Pandits would have been the same. Dear Naved, if you believe that the division between the Bengali Hindus and Bengali Muslims are artificial, would you please explain why did the Bengali Muslims support the creation of Pakistan by voting en masse for Muslim League in 1946? Why didn't independent Bangladesh make any effort to join the Indian Union? Why did the Bangladeshi state rob the Bengali Hindus using the Vested Property Act? Why the population of Bengali Hindus in Bangladesh is decreasing day by day? As long as the Bengali Muslims and Bengali Hindus would continue to exist as distinct entities in social, cultural and political aspects, the article would have all the reason to exist. BengaliHindu (talk) 10:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Very well said bengali hindu.these bangladeshis try to present themselves as the sole representatives of bengal.in britain they try to spread rumors about islam being the sole religion of bengalis. Plz keep up the good work. It is ESSENTIAL TO TELL HOW BENGALI MUSLIMS HAVE AS A COMMUNITY TREATED BENGALI HINDUS. All talk of bangaliana holds as long as they find fellow muslims.just don't be disheartened by these bangladeshi agents -sockpuppets of jamat-e -islami.

Buddhist are not Hindus But Hindu Acts are applicable for them[edit]

Application of act( Hindu Marriage Act) 1) This act applies

(a) to any person who is a Hindu by religion in any of its forms or developments, including a Virashaiva a Lingayat or a follower of the Brahmo, Prathana or Arya Samaj,

(b) to any person who is a Buddhist, Jaina or Sikh by religion, and

(c) to any other person domiciled in the territories to which this Act extends who is not a Muslim, Christian, Parsi or Jew by religion, unless it is proved that any such person would not have been governed by the Hindu law or by any custom or usage as part of that law in respect of any of the matters dealt with herein it this Act had not been passed.117.194.206.159 (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Please also read Article 25 of the Constitution of India. It says - reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion. This clearly means that the Buddhists are considered within the Hindu fold. The Hindu Marriage Act complements the Article 25 of the Constitution of India. BengaliHindu (talk) 15:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Article 25 Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion
(1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the otherprovisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion.
(2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law -
(a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice;
(b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu reli- gious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus.
Explanation I: The wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion.
Explanation II: In sub-Clause (b) of clause (2), the reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly.
I think your Interpretation is wrong .The constitution clearly acknowledge the Identity of the Religions Like Sikh, Jain or Buddhism as distinct from Hinduism. They only mentions of the common implication of the term " reference" .I think you should consult constitution expert and academician.I personally don't believe that any constitution can define The Identity of A Religion as by itself.117.194.208.8 (talk) 16:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Dear brother can you show where does the Constitution of India clearly say that Buddhism is distinct from Hinduism? Please correct yourself. The Constitution doesn't use the words Buddhism or Hinduism. Moreover the point is not about Hinduism. Its about Hindu. Hindu is a geo-ethnic identity and has been in use from ancient times. Hinduism is a relatively recent coinage having had no clear definition until the honourable Supreme Court of India concluded that it can only be defined as a way of life. The Constitution has clearly defined adherents of Buddhism to be Hindus in legal terms. The 1950 Scheduled Castes Order explicitly allows only Hindus to be classified into Scheduled Castes. But adherents of Buddhism and Sikhism have also been admitted into Scheduled Castes. Dr. Ambedkar, who framed the Constitution of India and a Scheduled Caste Hindu himself and his followers didn't lose their Scheduled Caste status when they embraced Buddhism in 1956. But if a Scheduled Caste person converts to Islam or Christianity he/she loses the Scheduled Caste status. This proves that Buddhists are considered Hindus in India. BengaliHindu (talk) 07:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
The truth I got , The Constitution has said nothing in regard to Whether A particular sect is Hindu or Non -Hindu .The issue of Scheduled Cast or rather of cast system is unique or peculiar of Indian system .Even isolated tribes and people of other religions living in India obeys cast system although it is not in their religion.The present debate is much simpler than that .The issue of cast system is one of the four pillars of Hinduism ,some say , but this can't be taken as a basis for bringing other sects of religion under Hinduism .The documentation you have mentioned is ,you know, based on pure Humanitarian ground And I think from the discussion above it is clear that Constitution has not defined that , naturally.However I have no objection of the page Bengali Hindu People. And also not that I am much interested to who belongs to what. I sense some sort of cultural hegemony so I thought the voice should be raised in the age Globalisation.117.194.203.96 (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for Tagore[edit]

U have done a great job by giving the reference of " Hindu Viswavidyalay" by R.Tagore. It makes your stand substantiated but we think Everyone would feel pity for Tagore. Alas ! U too Brutus at last !117.194.196.141 (talk) 09:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC) arijit

Let Him Be[edit]

The idealisation of Indus Land Civilisation is an intellectual construct .Tagore's article is an wonderful example of that .We Bengalis( irrespective of any religion) are very fond of such practice .It is like fashion of our intellectualism. What Tagore wrote , he never practised that in real life. The beautiful slokas and hymns , we Hindu Bengalis , quote whenever it is required that we have to be great , is not the Hinduism we practice .Why for nothing quote such people and creating a nuisense .!!???117.194.199.0 (talk) 11:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Bangaliana, not communalism here please[edit]

Dear youngman,

While I was looking at your article & editing in wikipedia, sometimes I was impressed because of your style of sourcing and citations. I was also impressed to see your efforts at this young age. I was proud to see your well articulated linguistic expressions.

I was overwhelmingly proud because you are a Bengali.

Suddenly, I became depressed by realizing that you are infected with the virus of COMMUNALISM! Its true----the dogma of communal feeling has made a brilliant young man like you parochial.

I wish you all success in academic persuits. But at the same time I pray to God that you become a non-communal great human being following the footsteps of Netaji or Bangabandhu- following the ideals of Rabindranath or Nazrul.

The epitome of 'Bangaliana' centres around secularism, for which all the Bengalis are proud of. Neither Jamat-E-Islami nor 'Hindu Mahashbha' can destroy that spirit.May God bless you with true 'Bangaliana' Al-minar (talk) 05:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear Al Minar, you have transgressed the limits of Wikipedia etiquette by making a personal attack on me. Besides you are also attempting to promote Bangaliana which may violate the Wikipedia NPOV policy. BengaliHindu (talk) 07:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
This article definitely has a communal tone which needs to be corrected. Or else it sounds like a highly motivated propaganda material of "Hindu Mahashobha". Citing references from unreliable parochial sources are randomly done. I propose merger of this extremely biased article with "Bengali People".It is misguiding the readers readily. Naved77 (talk) 19:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

M.F.Hussain Is the Last Ambassador[edit]

If you have realised what Tagore realised then U will find that M.F.Hussain was one of the most eminent and sincerest worshipper of that archetype of civilisation which may be thought of having as much originality similar to that of European continental civilisation .But then why branding it as Hinduism instead of Indus Land Civilisation.117.194.196.47 (talk) 07:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear anonymous friend, this article is about the Bengali Hindu people and not Hinduism. We are not arguaing about Hinduism. We are arguing about the Hindu people, specifically the Bengali Hindu people. I hope its clear. BengaliHindu (talk) 06:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Dear friend, I doubt the term Indus Land Civilization. Maybe you want to mean Indus valley Civilization or Sindhu Saraswati Civilization. Whether M.F. Husain was a sincere ambassador is debatable, and you haven't provided any reference to it, it is totally irrelevant in the context of the Bengali Hindu people. Please carry on the argument in the relevant talk pages. BengaliHindu (talk) 06:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

New sections in the end, please[edit]

ArijitS and others commenting as anonymous users, please try to main proper indentation in the discussion and do not insert new sections in the middle of existing sections. This destroys the readability of the existing discussion. Please create new sections at the end. BengaliHindu (talk) 06:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Bengali Hindus are an ethno-linguistic group[edit]

The Southern Baptist Convention is the largest Protestant body in the United States. Their journal is a recognized publication. Therefore citation from their journal can't be termed dubious. Therefore I am removing the dubious tag. BengaliHindu (talk) 07:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Nafee, let me quote from the SBC journal. The Indian state of West Bengal is home to most of the 68 million Bengali Hindus in India (another 11 million live next-door in predominately Muslim Bangladesh). They comprise one of the world's largest ethnolinguistic people groups.[8] Please read the reference properly before making the hasty edit. I am therefore removing the dubious tag. BengaliHindu (talk) 18:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Hindu Ethnic[edit]

Ethnonym section opens with The Hindus are an ethnic group cited with

But, these two sources fail to verify the claim “Hindus are an ethnic group”. rather sources says “Hindu is a person who adheres to Hinduism” with alternative meaning: “an inhabitant or native of Hindustan or India, esp one adhering to Hinduism” . So the claim is nothing but WP:OR. Instead of simply cleaning up, waiting a while for strong source backing this claim (as the whole article grounds on this POV). But, we have to remove unverified sources. » nafSadh did say 20:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Nafee, I am once again quoting from Rabindranath, as I did earlier. Rabindranath Tagore described the Hindus as a jati i.e. an ethnic group or a nation. He had stated that, "হিন্দু শব্দে এবং মুসলমান শব্দে একই পর্যায়ের পরিচয়কে বুঝায় না । মুসলমান একটি বিশেষ ধর্ম কিন্তু হিন্দু কোনো বিশেষ ধর্ম নহে । হিন্দু ভারতবর্ষের ইতিহাসের একটি জাতিগত পরিণাম । ইহা মানুষের শরীর মন হৃদয়ের নানা বিচিত্র ব্যাপারকে বহু সুদূর শতাব্দী হইতে এক আকাশ , এক আলোক , এক ভৌগোলিক নদনদী অরণ্য - পর্বতের মধ্য দিয়া , অন্তর ও বাহিরের বহুবিধ ঘাতপ্রতিঘাত - পরম্পরার একই ইতিহাসের ধারা দিয়া আজ আমাদের মধ্যে আসিয়া উত্তীর্ণ হইয়াছে ।"[3] (The word Hindu and the word Musalman doesn't refer to the same category of identity. Musalman signifies a particular religion, but Hindu doesn't signify any particular religion. Hindu is the manifestation of the national identity in the history of Bharatvarsha.) Rabindranath further elaborated on the Hindu national identity. "প্রশ্নকর্তা হয়তো জিজ্ঞাসা করিবেন, আমরা হিন্দুজাতি বলিলে যাহা বুঝি, সে জাতিত্ব কিসে স্থির হয়? তাহার উত্তর, ধর্মে। কতকগুলি ধর্ম হিন্দুধর্ম বলিয়া স্থির হইয়া গিয়াছে। হিন্দুধর্ম নামক এক মূল ধর্মের নানা শাখা-প্রশাখা চারি দিকে বিস্তারিত হইয়াছে, (তাহা হইতে আরও অনেক শাখা-প্রশাখা এখনও বাহির হইতে পারে) এই-সকল ধর্ম উপধর্ম যাহারা আশ্রয় করিয়া থাকে তাহারা হিন্দু। কিন্তু যখনি কোনো হিন্দু এই-সকল শাখা-প্রশাখা পরিত্যাগ করিয়া একেবারে সর্বতোভাবে ভিন্ন ধর্মবৃক্ষ আশ্রয় করেন তখনি তিনি আর হিন্দু থাকেন না।"[4] He stated that Dharma was the essential feature of the Hindu nationality. Hindus adhere to any number of sects and creeds emanating out of the root of Hinduism. A Hindu ceases to be Hindu if he embraces a different religion other than those under the umbrella of Hinduism. Rabindranath made himself amply clear that Hindus are a ethnic group or a nation and not just a religious community. BengaliHindu (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Tagore's argument invalidates to be a reference for defining an English term as he asserts "ইংরাজেরা Nation বলিতে যাহা বুঝেন, আমরা জাতি বলিতে তাহা বুঝি না" (What English means by 'Nation', we do not mean the same by 'Zati'). Furthermore, If you cite a source that shall be coherent with your argument, while your claim tries to establish that reasoning some other sources - which ultimately is OR. » nafSadh did say 03:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Please, try improving the article.[edit]

Greetings! The facts expressed in the article were from the creator's own point of view and doesn't have an universally accepted neutral point of view. Please, add reliable sources. Please, DO NOT remove the ref improve and unreliable sources tags until the issue has been fixed. Thanks, NickAang 05:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickaang (talkcontribs)

Facts are facts. A fact can't have any point of view. Do not confuse between fact and opinion. Nearly all the facts mentioned in the article have been supported with proper citation from reliable sources. BengaliHindu (talk) 14:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • So, the article contains facts that do not have any point of view? Okay, but from where do you get those facts? Those are more likely your personal opinions. Are you sure it meets NPOV? --NickAang 10:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
    • There are many sections in the article such as ethnology, renaissance period, literature, religion etc. which does not cite a single reference. I've added ref improve for improvements of references. Please, don't feel offended rather try improving the article both from reliable third party sources and the views expressed.--NickAang 16:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickaang (talkcontribs)
  • Please be focused on the article subject and stop adding biased for Bengali Muslims without any reliable sources. Thanks, NickAang 05:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickaang (talkcontribs)
There is absolutely no bias towards any community or group. Citations have been made from the works of distinguished scholars from Calcutta University, Dhaka University etc. BengaliHindu (talk) 14:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Okay, I'm not able to check all the references at the moment due to my hectic schedule but I'll surely check them and will let you know. Thanks, --NickAang 10:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

References[edit]

  1. ^ a b "Religious Rights - India". UNESCO. Retrieved April 27, 2011. 
  2. ^ a b Bharati, Swami Jnaneshwara. "Religious Rights - India". Yoga and the Words Hindu and Hinduism. SwamiJ.com. Retrieved April 27, 2011. 
  3. ^ a b Tagore, Rabindranath. "Atmaparichay". Society for Natural Language Technology Research. Retrieved June 8, 2011. 
  4. ^ a b Tagore, Rabindranath. "Jignasa O Uttar". Society for Natural Language Technology Research. Retrieved June 8, 2011. 
  5. ^ Tagore, Rabindranath. "Atmaparichay". Society for Natural Language Technology Research. Retrieved May 31, 2011. 
  6. ^ Diwan, Paras (1981). Modern Hindu law: codified and uncodified. Allahabad Law Agency. Retrieved 15 July 2010. 
  7. ^ Tagore, Rabindranath. "Hindu Vishwavidyalaya". Society for Natural Language Technology Research. Retrieved May 31, 2011. 
  8. ^ "The Unfinished Task: Dispelling the Darkness". Journal of the Southern Baptist Convenstion (Southern Baptist Convention) 19 (3). December 2000. ISSN 1081-8189. Retrieved March 27, 2011. 

Untouchability![edit]

Hi! Are you sure the unaccountability was not there in ancient Bengali Hindu culture? As far as I know many sects such as "Chandals" were untouchable.[1] --NickAang 16:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

In Bengal, there was no untouchability unlike in other parts of India. In other parts of India, untouchability was based on physical contact, sometimes contact with one's shadow. If upper caste people especially Brahmins touched certain lower caste people or even trampled on the shadow of the lower caste people, he had to purify himself. In that sense there was no untouchability in Bengal. However, there was ban on taking water from certain castes, not only Chandals but even upper castes like Sahas or Subarnabaniks. In Bengali this was referred to as জল অচল. Jal Achal and untouchability is different. BengaliHindu (talk) 05:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
    • You're seriously making me laugh! How do you support there was no untouchability in Bengal and among Bengali Hindus? Jal Achal is a form of untouchability, do you disagree? We can find the untouchability among Bengali Hindus in numerous books including those written by Swami Vivekananda, Amedkar, Niharranjan Ray etc. By the way, why haven't you included the Jal Achal fact in an encyclopedic article? Apart from Chandals, Yogis, there was a caste itself knows as "Untouchables". Regards, NickAang (talk) 17:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Most of the sources used in the article are books written by some less known writers. I think we should remove the sources which are written by some extremists as they don't pass WP:SOURCES and may contain biased views! I'm also attaching a POV tag and the article needs to be edited a lot to remove the tag. --Zayeem (talk) 13:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Many sections contain questionable facts without a single citation. References from some books have been cited but I've references from other published books against those citations. Many web references are not third party independent sources at all. The article also doesn't meet NPOV. Thanks, NickAang (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
          • Yes, Can you specify the parts of the article that are questionable? Also can you post the links of those references that can counter them? That would be helpful to improve the article. Thanks --Zayeem (talk) 04:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
            • Sure, at present please, check:
  • http://www.banglapedia.org/HT/C_0055.HTM
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogi_Nath
  • http://www.iheu.org/untouchables-bangladesh
  • http://www.rediff.in/news/nov/17dalits.htm
  • http://www.ambedkar.org/ambcd/39A.Untouchables who were they_why they became PART I.htm

The untouchability was strongly there among Bengali Hindus. We don't have to go far as one can easily know this if they read the childhood of Swami Vivekananda as we did in our schooling. I'll be giving more references from the books and elsewhere with 3 to 4 days. I'm sorting them out. The article have numerous facts that are questionable such as "Bengali Hindus wanted a free India while Bengali Muslims wanted a Pakistan", "No untouchability was there among Bengali Hindus" etc. and without a single reference! Anyways, I've fixed the first issue with proper references (ref. 14 & 15). Please, check each section and you'll find. Thanks, NickAang (talk) 05:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

    • Untouchability is surely present in the Bengali Hindu community especially in west Bengal. This surely deserves a mention in the article. Besides, there are severe biased views in the History part of the article. I'm currently looking at the books used as references in the article which make some controversial claims, many of them undoubtedly lacks reliability. --Zayeem (talk) 07:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Jal Achal is a form of untouchability but the creator didn't mention it within the article. It seems that the article was written intentionally. Some sources are first-hand sources from some blogs written by some blogger without any references. The article needs some third-party independent sources for the facts mentioned. Thanks,NickAang (talk) 13:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Needs deletion[edit]

Most of those who are contributing in this talk page appears to be agreeable to the proposal of deletion of this article. RegardsNaved77 (talk) 05:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Limitless bias have been expressed in the article. And why not since, the article creator declares himself as a BengaliHindu. This obviously raises questions of neutrality for articles particularly on "Bengali Hindus". Its a issue of BengaliHindu-fanaticism. The article needs to be re-written from a neutral point of view from non-Bengali Hindu editors with the help of scholarly-researches avoiding unverifiable references (like, books with page nos. Anyone, can mention a book and cite a page.). Thank you, An ordinary Bengali (neither Hindu nor Muslim) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.196.170 (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

References[edit]