Talk:Hindutva

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject India / Politics (Rated B-class, Mid-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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Indian politics workgroup (marked as High-importance).
 
WikiProject Hinduism (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Politics (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Conservatism (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

The categorisation of Hindutva under religious fundamentalism is unfair[edit]

It is surely unfair and based on ignorance. Hindutva must not be confused with Hinduism, exactly like Zionism is not confused with Judaism. Some Zionists are relgious Jews, some others defend the identity and the culture of the Jewisih people, without accepting Judaism as a religion. Sharon is undoubtedly a Zionist, but he cannot be considered a Jewish fundamentalist, since he does not even believe in Judaism as a religion, but openly declares his atheism. The same applies to Veer Savarkar, too. He was the founder of the notion of Hindutva, but was not a believing Hindu, but an atheist.

The categorisation of Hindutva under religious fundamentalism is unfair. There might be people who have different opinions about this, but let us go by a neutral interpretation.

The Supreme Court of India has observed that "Ordinarily, Hindutva is understood as a way of life or a state of mind and is not to be equated with or understood as religious Hindu fundamentalism."

I suggest that this page not be categorised under religious fundamentalism. โ€”Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabriel N (talk โ€ข contribs) 14:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


well, as it goes with fundamentalism, fundamentalists believe they are "only" doing it properly. "Hindutva" of course means "being a Hindu". But it won't do to just merge Hindutva into Hinduism. "Hindutva" is clearly a term for radical Hindu chauvinism or ethnic nationalism, not for the "state of mind" of being a Hindu. Similarly, adherents of Islamic fundamentalism of course believe they are "only" being good Muslims. It is outside observers who categorize Islamic fundamentalists as apart from normal, bona fide adherents of the religion, just as you need outside observers to classify Hindu chauvinism as apart from normal, bona fide practice of Hinduism. It's the way religions work, for some they are spiritual enrichment, for others, they are merely an excuse for switching off the neocortex and start hatemongering. It's the same with Christian fundamentalism vs. bona fide Christianity: meaning, it's human, and found in every religion, but not inherent in any particular religion. --dab (๐’ณ) 07:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with you on fundamentalism, but then you should have a page on Hindu Fundamentalism and not group Hindutva and Hindu Fundamentalism together. Although there are many who see an element of fundamentalism in Hindutva, academically speaking they are two different terms.Gabriel N (talk) 08:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hindu Extremism[edit]

need a separate page for hindu extremism and hindu terrorism --134.151.0.13 (talk) 19:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)--134.151.0.13 (talk) 19:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "Hindu Terrorism" in a scholarly sense, and the page saffron terror already exists anyways. If you look at the talk page for "Christian Terrorism," (talk:Christian_terrorism) you will see that we've argued significantly regarding the definitions of "religious terrorism." The terrorism has to be motivated by religious scripture or ideology, and you won't find any Hindus (in the RSS, or anywhere else) advocating terrorism based specifically on Hindu religion. You'll certainly find "Hindus" who have engaged in "terrorism," but just as the Irish Republican Army is a Catholic Christian group that commits terrorism does not fit into the "Christian Terrorism" category, you'll never find any scholarly resources showing that these alleged groups could be considered under that banner. Trust me, I had to do a lot of research just to get the NLFT and NSCN added as "Christian Terrorist" groups, and those are flat-out, hardcore terrorists. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

This page needs serious restructuring[edit]

I believe this section needs restruturing. The section names hardly correspond to the content in the sections. The content in many sections lack continuity. Nihar S (talk) 05:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

it has been tagged for merging for ages. This article is simply a WP:CFORK of Hindu nationalism. We should finally sit down and do the merger properly. --dab (๐’ณ) 07:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, when I said it needs restructuring, I did'nt mean it was a WP:CFORK. The Hindu Nationalism page too is equally poor in content. Comming to whether hindutva = Hindu nationalism? Hindu Nationalism is a generic term and will include lot of movements while Hindutva is very specific to some organisations. For the moment, I believe, both the pages (minus the rethoric that has been put by both supporters and opponents) are stubs and need more and better referenced content. Deciding whether to merge can be put off for some time, till we can clean up and restructure at least this page. I would try it over the next few days. Anybody there to help? Nihar S (talk) 12:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I will try and add references to unreferenced content. Can we also divide the "Views on other faiths" section into subsections and try to bring in some continuity. That section looks very very messy. Gabriel N (talk) 03:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit request from Atheist9, 4 August 2010[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}} The following is wrongly attributed without any reference.Hindutva seeks to eliminate caste system and bring a sense of unity among the Hindus which it can never accomplish if it accepts caste system. Therefore this is wrong.

"Protection of caste systems

Caste is embedded in Indian culture for the past 1,500 years, the caste system follows a basic precept: The ranks in Hindu society come from a legend in which the main groupings, or varnas, emerge from a primordial being. From the mouth come the Brahmansโ€”the priests and teachers. From the arms come the Kshatriyasโ€”the rulers and soldiers. From the thighs come the Vaisyasโ€”merchants and traders. From the feet come the Sudrasโ€”laborers. Each varna in turn contains hundreds of hereditary castes and subcastes with their own pecking orders."

Atheist9 (talk) 07:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done: There is no indication what change is suggested, nor any explanation as to why the existing version is contradicted by the above statement. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 9atheist, 5 August 2010[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}} Hindutva wishes to remove caste system. http://www.savarkar.org/en/social-reforms/abolition-caste-0 9atheist (talk) 04:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Not a reliable sources; please show e.g. newspaper. To appeal, use WP:RSN. X mark.svg Not done  Chzz  โ–บ  02:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 9atheist, 5 August 2010[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}} The term 'Hindutva' has been coined by savarkar. He did express his wish to abolish caste system.

9atheist (talk) 04:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Requests to edit semi-protected articles must be accompanied by reference(s) to reliable sources.

X mark.svg Not done  Chzz  โ–บ  02:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Sangh Parivar[edit]

The Sangh Parivar isn't an organisation in any real sense (i.e having a clear objective, office bearers etc.) but a loose aggregation of organisations with overlapping points of view. It is more a term of convenience. An equivalent would be the UPA in India or the coalition Government of Britain.Wogsinheat (talk) 09:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)wogsinheat

Merger proposal[edit]

  • Procedural close; Hindu Taliban has been deleted at AFD, so there's nothing to merge. Otherwise we would have had a consensus to merge. If you remember anything from that article that would be useful here, ask the deleting admin to restore it for merger. Nyttend (talk) 00:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request for Views on History section[edit]

Indo-Aryan Migration and Aryan invasion theory are controversial academic subjects. Regardless of the amount of scholarly papers and biological and anthropological studies done that refute the idea of an "invasion" the main idea is that this was the idea propagandized by British colonialists to encourage the indigenous population to acquiesce to the idea of a civilizing, conquering outsider.

ALSO on the grand scale of sourced McCaulay quotes in which he talks about (and denigrates) the Hindus and their education system these are by far the most tame.

And forgot to make not of the role of the Oxford Sanskrit chair to prsent indian literature to indians in a way favourable to their conversion to Christianity.

You are definitely writing on the bias of suppressing important historical information.142.59.203.143 (talk) 21:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)Rajimus123

Tags[edit]

I tagged this page for several reasons, many of which are readily apparent in the intro itself; 1) The lack of academic sources. RSS sources are not RS in any case, but especially here. 2) The vocabulary used is very often POV; saying "Shri Ram," for instance, is not acceptable. 3) There is a generic acceptance of Sangh Parivar depictions of terms like "Hindu." again, obviously problematic.

This is plenty to go on for now. Obviously a major cleanup effort is needed. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Not even a single place, it's pushing any propaganda or POV. Just because you saw some WP:HONORIFIC, you can simply remove. You don't have to make it's issue by tagging. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Bladesmulti, what exactly is that supposed to mean? You haven't addressed any concerns I brought up. Yes, I could fix all those issues instead of tagging, but only if I had had infinite time and resources, which I don't. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Vanamonde93 tags are the last resort, you first need to discuss the issues on the talk page, only if you do not find any solution you should put those tags. You have mentioned issues that seems to be very generic. You nee to put specific issues here. What do you mean by following The vocabulary used is very often POV; saying "Shri Ram," for instance, is not acceptable this is a very minor issue and doesn't deserve a POV tag, There is a generic acceptance of Sangh Parivar depictions of terms like "Hindu." again, obviously problematic. where? what exactly is problematic? -sarvajna (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Of course the issues are generic; it's the reason why I tagged the article. For a specific issue, I could come here, and sort it out quickly. This article, on the other hand, will require a major cleanup effort (not content, necessarily, but language). I cannot sort that out on the TP; I would need to make the changes myself. Pending that, I tagged it, so that a) other users might make a cleanup effort and b) casual readers don't assume everything in the article is compliant with wikipedia policy. I can begin to list specific issues if you wish. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
tags are NOT the last resort. problematic content can be flagged by anyone at any time OR it can be fixed OR removed OR first discussed on the talk page. some flags also require issues to be identified on the talk page for discussion, but in those cases the flags also stay on the article during the discussion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

โ”Œโ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”˜ Since you want specific points, here they are. Remember, though, these are examples of a general problem of tone.

1) The sentence about the supreme court, in the intro. They may have said that, but a substantial number of scholars have said exactly the opposite, that Hindutva is an attempt to marginalise some aspects of India, and so it cannot mean Indian culture in general. Without getting into an argument about who is right, I can still say that the intro cannot include only one of these interpretations.
2) The intro refers to the Babri masjid (which I think it should not, but anyhow) but it doesn't mention its demolition; how is this NPOV?
3) Definition section; again, the problem I mentioned above. Others have contested this interpretation, and that needs to be included.
4) No rebuttal given to the RSS idea of a common culture, although many such exist. See Amartya Sen, for starters. Also, a mention of Hindu oppression under Muslim rulers (presumably to distinguish them from one another) but no mention of the fact that the major pre-Islamic Indian empires were Buddhist and Jain, not Hindu in the religious sense.
5) Mention of opposition to the caste system, but no mention of the fact that historically Dalits have not voted for the BJP in large numbers.
6) In the Hindutva growth section, the uncontested assertion that BJP ruled states have grown faster than national average. The source is a dubious one, and moreover refers only to Gujarat, HP and Uttarakhand, and EVEN IN THAT CASE does not support what the article says.
7) In the Organizations section, the uncontestes statement that the Sangh supports Sikh interests.
8) The statement in the criticism section, where the idea that Hindutva is purely cultural is presented in Wikipedia's voice.
9) A very large number of sources are either RSS affiliated sources, or unreliable online ones. There is a remarkable lack of books/articles by historians and sociologists, who are in general far less sympathetic to the ideas presented here as fact. See Ram Guha, or Sen, or Christophe Jaffrelot, or Martha Nussbaum, or Arundhati Roy, or Romila Thapar, or any number of others.

Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The word itself is highly unpopular and unused. Only those uses it, who have some clear purpose, its mostly used in journals, logs, etc. Not really in news, events. You don't write like "That hindutva said this to me", because it's not a common word. Now about the RSS sources or relation, its usually RSS who has to do with this word mostly. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
You have not answered any points I made. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Apologies for the late response, Vanamonde93, you should realize that most of the Wikipedia articles are "work in progress" that doesn't mean that we should tag each and every article. This article is about the definition of Hindutva, there cannot be many interpretations, yes if people have used Hindutva as an agenda to do something else put it in the Criticism, again the article lacks information not that it is not neutral. Why there are many RSS source? Well, that is where you get to know more about the definition. Criticism can be found in other places. You added the tags on 16th Jan and still I do not see a single source presented by you. You should also read the usage of the template before using it. Read it here. It says Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article.. You are doing a good job of identifying the issues, if you feel that there is an issue correct it, discuss it on talk page. I am removing the POV tag as of now. Thanks.-sarvajna (talk) 15:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
The reason I tagged the article for POV is not simply for lack of information, but also statements that shouldn't be there, or need to be rephrased. I don't want to repeat myself; see points 6,7 and 8 above. I can supply plenty more, if you so wish. And although I did not supply sources, I did mention authors; I am not spouting hot air. If you want specifics, then these are a good starting point.[1] [2] Don't misquote the template page at me. It also say "The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight" which is the attempt here because I don't have the time to clean it up alone. The page also talks about the need for reliable, secondary sources, which are noticeably absent here, which was indeed one of the points I brought up. Therefore, I am replacing the tag. Once the issues are cleaned up, I will be happy to remove it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Will you ever edit the main article? You must, so we can know that what you actually want it to be like. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Vanamonde93, the Economic Impact section is more about the definition of the Hindutva rate of growth and less about the assertion that BJP ruled states have grown faster than national average. Also it is not a very well known term and the sentence used an opinion piece, so I have removed the whole section.Coming to your other point about Organizations section, it doesn't say that sangh represents the well being of sikhs it says followers of Hindutva believe that they represent the well-being of Hinduism, Sikhism(emphasis mine). I don't think that should be an issue issue. Your other points, I think you are just nitpicking. Lets see where this goes with the tags. Also note, the next time you provide a source, give something specific like page number. None of us have enough time to read the whole book just to correct something that you perceive as incorrect.-sarvajna (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit request on Hindu and Judaism relations[edit]

Please put inside the article this text:

Hindutva groups are overwhelmingly supportive of the Jewish State of Israel, including Savarkar himself, who supported Israel during its formation.[3] RSS is the most pro-Israel group in India at present and actively praised the efforts of Ariel Sharon when he visited India [4][5]. R.S.S spokesperson Ram Madhav recently expressed support for Israel (when the far left Marxists and Islamists in India routinely attack Israel and Jews and have, in fact, accused Israel and Zionists of "fascistic" inclinations as well[6][7]) when he said:

The entire world acknowledges that Israel has effectively and ruthlessly countered terror in the Middle East. Since India and Israel are both fighting a proxy war against terrorism, therefore, we should learn a lesson or two from them. We need to have close cooperation with them in this field.[8]

I have found this deleted text by a pov warrior while perusing a wikipedia forum. Thank you.--Clapkidaq (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The content as presented above is properly removed as being POV. Try re-writing with less spin. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Citation dump[edit]

  1. ^ Sen, Amartya. The Argumentative Indian. 
  2. ^ Guha, Ramachandra. India After Gandhi. 
  3. ^ Hindu-Zion
  4. ^ The Hindu
  5. ^ Rediff
  6. ^ Press spotlight on Sharon's India visit,BBC
  7. ^ [4]
  8. '^ RSS slams Left for opposing Sharon's visit,Rediff

Questionable citation[edit]

The 13 March version of the text starts:

Hindutva (Devanagari: เคนเคฟเคจเฅเคฆเฅเคคเฅเคต, "Hinduness"), a word coined by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar in his 1923 pamphlet Hindutva: Who is a Hindu?, is the set of movements advocating Hindu nationalism. Members of the movement are called Hindutvavadis.[1]
  1. ^ Ghanshyam Shah; Centre for Rural Studies (Lal Bahadur Shastry National Academy of Administration) (1 January 2002). Dalits And The State. Concept Publishing Company. pp. 186โ€“. ISBN 978-81-7022-922-3. Retrieved 16 April 2012. 

I have checked the book and I cannot see how it supports either the first or the second sentences.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the citation from the article and replaced it with a fact tag.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:14, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
The statement "the set of movements advocating Hindu nationalism" is not supported by the main body of text. It says that Hindutva is an ideology and a way of life, not that it is a set of movements. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

citizens vs. people in[edit]

Is there a potential problem when considering the following statement: "Leaders subscribing to Hindutva have been known for their demands for a Uniform Civil Code for all the citizens of India." In the US everyone is subject to the law and its protections -- not just citizens therefore in India are its laws and protections for only citizens of the country or do all inhabitants while in the country therefore citizens would be a word that should be eliminated/avoided from a number of WP articles when defining relationships of laws and people. Now, I do not want to be placed in a position that might prompt some to say that bribery us the means by way to determine if or when a law or its protections are applicable to a person that may or may not be a citizen of a country. That is another article.66.74.176.59 (talk) 15:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Original research[edit]

I have tagged this article for WP:OR. It cites almost no scholarly sources for what "Hindutva" means, even though the list of sources in "Further reading" is growing by leaps and bounds. Somebody needs to read them and write a proper article. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Which paragraph is or? Entire article is or? --AmritasyaPutraT 02:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I have removed unreferenced content. You can cleanup too. Thank you. --AmritasyaPutraT 09:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
The whole article is OR, basically. It has been synthesized by cherry picking primary sources. No secondary sources have been cited or read by the authors of this page. The whole article has to be rewritten. That is why so many Further Reading entries have been given. If you have the energy, please do it. But, no bandaids please. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't see a reason to removed those suggestions for further reading. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Why the hastiness to revert? WP:FURTHER is not a dumping area. 21 books? Same authors repeated? And you prefer to keep it that way instead of a valid trimming? mm --AmritasyaPutraT 06:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Agree with the changes of AmritasyaPutra, we don't have to list every possible article or book into further reading. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

โ”Œโ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”˜ So, why remove these books and articles? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Because we don't need every of them, Kautilya3 first said that there are many in the further reading, and when someone removed the unnecessary ones, he reverted that change when it was actually required. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
And why remove the tags? They don't say that 'the entire article has to go', as you state. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
You mean AmritasyaPutra? I haven't investigated or touched the tags, but we can probably solve that matter if more points are addressed. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I have put back the tag JJ, I had nuked a bulk of unreferenced content. I also tidied up the article. Kautilya3 above said the reason he put the tags is "The whole article is OR", "The whole article has to be rewritten". Putting OR and Too few Opinions same time is self-contradictory, but if you insist, you may put both as well. While I try to read up Hindu Nationalism: A Reader By Christophe Jaffrelot to further improve the article, specific inputs are welcome as claiming that entire article is OR and has to go is not a way forward. --AmritasyaPutraT 06:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for putting them back, and thanks for reading sources to improve the article. I don't think Kautilya3 is saying he wants the article to be removed; he probably means it needs improvement. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks JJ for trying to improve the article. It is a pity that the page got locked while you were in the middle of it. I never understand AP's issues or why he edit wars so often. The article had lots of Further Reading entries because, I presume, people found it to be one-sided and gave other references for people to look up. This is a complicated subject. So it is not going to get fixed in a day. To answer AP's questions specificically:
  • It is OR because primary sources have been cited and not scholarly opinions about them. Where opinions were cited, they were typically of the Hindutva-proponents, not third party sources.
  • It has to be rewritten by taking into account scholar's opinions. The Further reading entries listed a whole bunch of good sources that the article should be taking into account.
There is clearly work to do. Edit warring isn't going to help us. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Sources & references[edit]

May I suggest to use here the sfn-tags also? It gives a quick access to find sources, like AP's Hindu Nationalism: A Reader by Christophe Jaffrelot. And what would be relevant academic sources here anyway? I'm becoming interested now. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Nope, sfn is not required here. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Citevar should not be casually ignored/violated. --AmritasyaPutraT 12:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Mass revert[edit]

Mass revert diff: "we don't bring sfn style everywhere, these changes clearly require agreement". What a lousy reason to remove sourced content. At least you could have politely noticed so, and asked me to change the style of reference. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

JJ wasn't converting existing references to sfn. He was adding new sources, typically books, which need to be cited by sfn because the same book be cited many times. I don't see what the problem is. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

โ”Œโ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”˜ JJ, Unfortunately for us, "Hindutva" is not an academically important term. The academics call the concept "Hindu nationalism." It is only in India, where the leftists who dominate the discourse can't bring themselves to put "Hindu" and "nationalism" next to each other, that they have resorted to calling it "Hindutva" instead of "Hindu nationalism." So, what this article really needs to describe is the Hindutva brand of Hindu nationalism. The sources for that are hard to find. That is why the Further Reading list of page is important. Perhaps they talk about it. I don't know. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

At least I'm getting an impression of the "source" of ideas like "indigenous Aryans". What made modern people think that the world would become secularized? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't think this is an issue of "religion" vs "secularity." The Nazis weren't particularly religious. This is ethnic nationalism, or what is called in India "communalism". Religion, or culture, or religio-cultural history has been used to forge an ethnic identity. Why did that happen?According to Gyanendra Pandey, colonialism was the cause. But I myself think that there is an inherent "clash of civilisations" in the Hindu-Muslim relations and I believe this would have happened sooner or later no matter how the history went. But, with the British in control, things went more out of control with greater speed. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Jyotirmaya Sharma is good. That is what I have been reading to understand things. But the book only goes up to Savarkar, but we want to understand what happened after him. Note that the version of the book on Google Books Amazon is the 2003 version, which is, I think, better than the 2011 version. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Definition[edit]

The "definition" section didn't contain a definition, but it does contain quotes which serve to argue that Hindutva is not nationalistic. OR indeed, and POV-pushing. And a lack of editorial skills: where's the argument these arguments arge arguing against? The statement "Hindutva is nationalistic" is missing. I've moved these quotes to a new section. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

They do discuss the definition, I have reverted your changes because they were clearly one-sided and again distracting from the actual definition. We don't have to mention its sentiment regarding Islam as the definition or change the reference style when the current one is easier to access. Also because they were major changes, I believe that you should be proposing them here first and reach to an agreement. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it was clearly incomplete and unique. I got a sample of semi-definitions and definitions from peer reviewed journals and academic books that are much more recent than 1999, in fact, as recent as 2014. I need to analyse them in context and probably present more than one definition in use, along with their affiliation. I have reproduced in accordance with copyvio policy:
  • Hindu nationalists have proposed that Hinduism is not a religion but a civilization, which they call hindutva (Hinduness). Peter L. Berger. The Political Management of Pluralism. Society, Volume 51, Issue 6, pp 602-604. Print ISSN 0147-2011. Publisher Springer US, December 2014.
  • Over the following decade [1980s], โ€œHindutvaโ€ would become a major political force to reckon with. Srinath Raghavan. Makers of Modern Asia Edited by Guha, Ramachandra. Harvard University Press (2014). Pages: 215โ€“243 ISBN: 9780674735781.
  • Hinduism is above all a way of life and a philosophy of life. Andreea Gradinaru, Mihaela Iavorschi. The Hindu Economic System. Human & Social Studies. Research and Practice. Volume 2, Issue 2, Pages 41โ€“58, ISSN 2285-5920, July 2013.
  • ..The third criterion of Hindutvaโ€”a โ€˜common cultureโ€™โ€”reflects for Savarkar the crucial importance of rituals, social rules, and language in Hinduism. Sanskrit is cited by him as the common reference point for all Indian languages and as โ€˜language par excellenceโ€™. Hindu Nationalism, A Reader. Edited by Jaffrelot, Christophe. Princeton University Press. 2009. Pages: 85โ€“96.
  • ..Hindutva requires you to control your sexual urges. Menon, Kalyani Devaki. Everyday Nationalism. Women of the Hindu Right in India. University of Pennsylvania Press. 2010. Pages: 131โ€“156. ISBN: 9780812202793. --AmritasyaPutraT 12:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Reply by JJ: The definition I offered here is very clear: "Hindutva, "Hinduness," [...] refers to the idea that Hindus are vulnerable in comparison to other "Pan-isms" such as "Pan-Islamism," and need to consolidate and strenghten their Hindu identity."
  • @Blades,
  • They discuss an anti-Hindutva statement which is lacking from the text;
  • you mention "the definition" and "the actual definition"; where are these in the article? I'm looking forward to "the actual definition," with sources;
  • Islam: This is what this source says;
  • Reference style is not a reason to remove sourced info;
  • "proposing them here first": if you think that sourced info can be removed with this "argument", you miss a basic policy of Wikipedia. Removing sourced info, and requesting to discuss the addition of sourced info before adding it, comes close to WP:OWN and POV-pushing. But alas, here's the discussion: Wikipedia requires WP:RS; this is RS; this is what this source says; ergo this info should not be removed;
  • @ AP:
  • "clearly incomplete and unique" - so, adding a definition, when there is lacking one, is "incomplete and unique"?
  • Your "definitions" are not definitions:
  • "Hindu nationalists have proposed" - unclear and selective;
  • "โ€œHindutvaโ€ would become" - that's not a definition, but a description of a historical development;
  • "Hinduism is above all" - that's also not a definition, but a statement about Hinduism; as quoted in this way, it's OR;
  • "Hindutva requires you" - even less than a definition, but a statement about how to live.
So, I think it's clear that this version should be restored. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

โ”Œโ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”˜ Last lead[1] was copied(violated copyrights), from [2] Bladesmulti (talk) 13:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Wrong source. It's from Jaffrelot, Christophe (1999), The Hindu Nationalist Movement and Indian Politics: 1925 to the 1990s, Penguin Books India. This source says "His book rests on the assumption that Hindus are vulnerable in comparison to or vis-a-vis other 'Pan-isms' such as Pan-Islamism: ["]O Hindus consolidate and strenghten Hindu nationality." So, even if this is too close to the original, a few simple quotation marks would have solved the problem. Finally some info from a serious source, and it's reverted right away. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
JJ, I disagree with you. The definitions I presented are valid. In fact, if you notice, I have better description from Jaffrelot himself from more recent book. And I have peer reviewed articles too. I would appreciate you do not find novel meaning and twist to my statements. If I did not find your 'definition' in five more recent academic books and peer reviewed articles they are indeed incomplete and unique. I am going to use them too, they are more recent, academic, and deal with the subject directly and not about a book. --AmritasyaPutraT 16:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
The "better description" by Jaffelot is part of a list of criteria; where are the other criteria? Your comment "do not find novel meaning" is strange; does it mean that only "your" "definitions" should be used? Just like your next comment, "If I did not find your 'definition' in five more recent academic books and peer reviewed articles they are indeed incomplete and unique"; that's not an argument; the only thing you're saying here is "other sources give other definitions" - which might be expected, not? Your choice of arguments is rather peculiar. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
What's more, your Jaffelot-quote is also about Savarkar's book. Some quotes:
  • "Savarkar wrote this book in prison, after he had come in contact with Khilafatists whose attitude apparently convinced him โ€” a revolutionary till then โ€” that Muslims were the real enemies, not the British. Savarkarโ€™s book rests on the assumption that Hindus are weak compared to Muslims." (p.85)
  • "Drawing some of his inspiration from Dayananda and his followers, Savarkar defines the nation primarily along ethnic categories. For him, the Hindus descend from the Aryas, who settled in India at the dawn of history and who already formed a nation at that time. However, in Savarkarโ€™s writings, ethnic bonds are not the only criteria of Hindutva. National identity rests for him on three pillars: geographical unity, racial features, and a common culture." (p.86)
Your choice of quotes is selective. As for the other "definitions," please explain why you think they are valid. Merely stating "The definitions I presented are valid" won't suffice. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I put ellipsis before that sentence -- I cannot paste the entire page as per our copyvio policy. Recent academic and peer reviewed definition have to be taken into consideration. That is what I said. No, it is not expected that I did not find your definition in any of the five more recent academic sources, including the author's own more recent work. He very explicitly talks about Savarkar's definition of Hindutva in this one (derived from an understanding of his book, yes), in your 'definition' he is primarily discussing about the whole book itself. The other academic references are also contextual and relevant apart from being more recent. --AmritasyaPutraT 17:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

โ”Œโ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”˜ Regarding the other definitions:

  • The article by Peter L. Berger does not contain the quote you've given.
  • "Makers of Modern Asia" does not seem to contain the quote you've given here. Please specify the page-number.

I'll check the other sources too, but this is troublesome, AP... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Gradinaru & Iavorschi, "Hinduism is above all a way of life and a philosophy of life." - this is the opening sentence of the abstract of this article, which is about economics, not about Hindutva.
  • Jaffrelot: I've already commented on this quote, which is selective.
  • Menon contains only one sentence with "sexual urges": "While Hindu nationalists associate Christians with sexual freedom, they suggest that Muslims, by permitting polygamy, cannot control their sexual urges." (p.141)

So, your "definitions" seem to be your personal fabrication. If these are not quotes, but summaries, then they're unacceptable, since they can't be verified, or where they can, are simply irrelevant. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Go check again. The quotation I gave from "The Political Management of Pluralism" Peter L. Berger is there. You can find it here also: The Many Altars of Modernity, Toward a Paradigm for Religion in a Pluralist Age, De Gruyter, 2014, Pages: 79โ€“93, ISBN 9781614516477. And same for the quote from Makers of Modern Asia also, page is 228. Same for Menon, page 140. How are you checking? I have already commented on your fabrication and denial of more appropriate and more recent discussion by Jaffrelot. --AmritasyaPutraT 17:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the specific page-numbers. I used Google Books for the books; the jourbal I accessed directly. Google Book sgave limited views, unfortunately. Nevertheless, your "definitions" are selective and hardly definitions; it would be better to have a straight definition from a source, instead of putting bits of quotes together. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for acknowledging your mistake. I not only dislike but strongly disapprove of your quickness to allege that I fabricated source. You can find each of the five quotes letter for letter. I must say you are trying to push me, I clearly said "I got a sample of semi-definitions and definitions from peer reviewed journals and academic books that are much more recent than 1999, in fact, as recent as 2014. I need to analyse them in context and probably present more than one definition in use, along with their affiliation". It has been clearly shown to you by me and Kautilya3 that the "definition" that you are propeling is more about the book review and not about the concept. I never said I will put bits of quotes together. What I did say I have just now repeated. It is very disruptive on your part to repeatedly pu up a strawman like this. You must stop doing this. --AmritasyaPutraT 06:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I've been watching this discussion, and it seems to me to be getting a little esoteric; perhaps we need to take a step back to regain perspective a little? Here's one thought that occurs to me; Savarkar's definition of Hindutva is somewhat different from the conventional academic interpretation thereof. Savarkar coined the term, and NPOV policy requires reporting the academic views; ergo I feel we need to include both definitions, separately, if need be. We shouldn't attempt to reconcile them into one grand definition; that's impossible. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
YesY You echo my sentiments. --AmritasyaPutraT 09:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

โ”Œโ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”˜ Apologies for the term "fabrication." Google Books is not perfect. I do have access to "Society" though; it does not contain the sentence AP has given. What it does contain is the following:

"As of 1948 independent India has defined itself as a secular state, in conscious contradistinction with Pakistan, with strong legal guarantees of religious freedom. โ€œCommunalismโ€, the political expression of different religious and ethnic groups, has been strongly condemned. It exists nevertheless, in the powerful movement to define the state in Hindu terms (hindutva) and by a counter-movement of Islamic fundamentalism in the large Muslim minority." (p.604)

This is different from

"Hindu nationalists have proposed that Hinduism is not a religion but a civilization, which they call hindutva (Hinduness)."

Maybe the quote or phrase is in De Gruyer 2014, but it does not seem to be in this article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Comparison of definitions[edit]

The definition I offered here is very clear:

"Hindutva, "Hinduness," [...] refers to the idea that Hindus are vulnerable in comparison to other "Pan-isms" such as "Pan-Islamism," and need to consolidate and strenghten their Hindu identity."

Compare it to these two "definitions:

"Hindutva [...] is the prominent set of movements advocating Hindu nationalism in India."

and

"Hindutva ('Hindu-ness'), [is] an ideology that sought to define Indian culture in terms of Hindu values". (source: EB)

The third "definition" is an addition to the first; the second refers to the movements that promote, and isn't a definition of Hindutva an sich. The EB-definition is contradicted by the Savarkar-quote:

"Hindutva is not a word but a history. Not only the spiritual or religious history of our people as at times it is mistaken to be by being confounded with the other cognate term Hinduism, but a history in full. Hinduism is only a derivative, a fraction, a part of Hindutva. ... Hindutva embraces all the departments of thought and activity of the whole Being of our Hindu race."

The Supreme Court statement is misplaced here. It belongs to the "Criticism and support" section, or, together with the third definition and the Savarkar-quote in a section on "Development of the concept", which should make clear that "Hindutva" had a non-religious meaning for Savarkar, bit has been branded by opponents as religious fundamentalism; which may be true, given the stance of the BJP. This is, more or less, also what Ram Jethmalani is arguin in "Hindutva is a secular way of life," from which the Supreme Court-quotes were taken. Some thoughts, and some more effort than hitting the revert-button, might have been given to these defintions, before simply removing sourced info. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the term is used for multiple purposes in multiple contexts. So, it is not easy to say one thing definitively. Here is my take:
  • Hindutva, as a concept, means that India is a Hindu nation. (That is what "Hinduness" is referring to, India. It was probably referring to the whole of Indian subcontinent because it was formulated before independence.) It is also important to recognize that the word "Hindu" has dual meaning,
    • first that it is the indigenous Indian culture, and
    • second that it is the Hindu religion.
The Hindutva-proponents pick and choose what they want it to mean in a given context. (cf. Arvind Sharma)
  • Hindutva, as a political ideology, means that Islam and Christianity are foreign to India. What is to be done about them depends on various things. The mild version of Hindutva says that Muslims and Christians in India must own up to their Indian heritage (their "Hindutva") and thereby accept various things that they don't currently accept, e.g., vande mataram.
  • Hindutva, as a political movement, essentially means Hindu supremacism, but you would be hard put to find a source that says it in those words.
I believe the wording you have taken from Jaffrelot is probably out of context. I can't see the page on the Google Books at the moment. So I have to check it when I go home. Blades/AP are right that he was probably talking about the book Hindutva, rather than the concept Hindutva. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your clarification. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Confirmed. Jaffrelot is talking about the book Hindutva on page 25. Kautilya3 (talk) 07:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Definition Proposal #2: ambiguity of the term "Hindu"[edit]

The "Definition"-section should also mention the ambiguity of the term Hindu, as Kautilya3 also noted: it may refer to both Hinduism as a religion, and to '(being an) Indian.' When this is made clear in this section, it also becomes clearer why there are different interprettaions/definitions of Hindutva: either focussing on Hinduism, or rejecting this focus. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't think there is this kind of ambiguity. Hindutva has always referred to cultural nationalism. But religion is part of culture. So, religious issues would crop up from time to time, and the Hindutva activists might expoloit them. They might also dress up religion as "culture" on occassion (e.g., Rama is an Indian "hero"). But note that they also dress it up as "science". (Mahabharata had test tube babies.) They don't always know where culture ends and religion begins. Sometimes, nobody knows. (Is cow protection "culture" or "religion"?) But the fundamental motivation is cultural identity, not for propagating particular relgious beliefs or to carry out religious persecution.
I think it is useful to remember Nazis. The Nazis and Jews didn't have a religious conflict. They had an ethnic conflict.
But I agree that the definition section should mention that "Hindu" means indigenous Indian. Occasionally, it might also mean the Hindu religion. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
It's funny that you mention the Nazis. In Holland, when we remember the war, it's simply "the Germans". No nuances at the 4th of may. The rest of the year, they're simply our appreciated neighbours who defend the solidity of the European economy. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Don't we read enough German indologists who equate the Hindu nationalists with the Nazis, including our favourite Michael Witzel? Cultural nationalism was invented by them, along with the Italian Fascists, and warmly copied by the Hindu nationalists. Golwalkar even says explicitly that the idea of nationalism then current in India was wrong, the "correct" idea being the German-Italian variety. I need to find out some time why the Americans don't understand the problems with cultural nationalism. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
The Americans don't? "Political correctness" seems to be invented by them. And they had their share too, didn't they, with their warm feelings toward Afro-Americans, and related clubs like the KKK. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Americans care about human rights. They care about religious freedom. Other than that, if Hindus want to feel nationalist, they think it should be perfectly ok. The Andersen & Damle book is the most sympathetic book I have read about the RSS, and Andersen went on to work for the State Department later. Kautilya3 (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for lead[edit]

Here's a proposal for the lead:

"Hindutva, "Hinduness," is an Indian nationalistic ideology which seeks for unifying factors in the diversity of the Indian subcontinent. It argues that there is an underlying cultural unity, dating back to the Vedic people, which unifies the various people and religions of India. The concept was introduced by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar in his 1923 pamphlet Hindutva: Who is a Hindu? It is the guiding ideology of the Sangh Parivar, an umbrella of various organizations advocating Hindu nationalism in India."

The first two lines are based on the subsection on "Cultural nationalism". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Most of the part is undue. There is no identification like the cultural unity would date back to Vedic people. I also think that there is no problem with the present lead. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
"Dating back to vedic people" is sourceable. Hindutva is an ideology, not just a "set of movements." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I think you are missing the key term "indigenous." Only the indigenous cultures of India are attempted to be unified and other cultures ("foreign cultures") are expected to be assimilated. You can't call it "Indian nationalistic" because that term includes, by definition, all the cultures in India, both indigenous and foreign. The right description is "Hindu nationalistic" or may be just "nationalistic". I also think you are overstressing the "unification" idea. Unification may have been the motivation for introducing the concept in 1920's but those motivations are now obsolete. The Indian constitution defines "Hindu" exactly the way Savarkar wanted it and this is now universally accepted. So, that kind of need for unification doesn't exist any more. But the more important motivation for defining "Hindutva" today was to stress the separation of indigenous and foreign. That motivation continues to exist. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
So, that's also why it is important for nationalists to stress the "indigenousness" of the Vedic culture? To admit that the Vedic culture came from outside of India shakes the very foundations of the whole enterprise, doesn't it?โ€” Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Jonathan (talk โ€ข contribs)
Indeed, yes. But, there are also variations on the theme. I think Aurobindo (who is normally not regarded as a "Hindu nationalist") first proposed that the Vedic people were indigenous to India. Golwalkar was responsible for implanting it in the Hindu nationalist ideology. But, even the people that accept that the Vedic people came from the outside, generally hold that the Vedic culture developed indigenously after the people settled down in India. However, the Indo-European scholars are telling us that the essentials of the Vedic culture itself were formed outside India, and it spread far and wide (as far as Syria and Wusun). That is why it becomes important to maintain now that India was the home of these people, and they spread from India to other places, ergo the Out of India theory. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Hindu nationalism[edit]

Can we not just define Hindutva as meaning Hindu nationalism? What would be the reasons for not doing so? Kautilya3 (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

No. Hindu nationalism has its historical origin in Shivaji, Hindutva has its in Savarkar. Again, Hindu nationalism constitutes a part of Hindutva propagated by Savarkar in 1920s.Ghatus (talk) 12:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Are there any historians that say that Shivaji was a "Hindu nationalist?" To me Hind Swaraj means Hindu Statehood, which would have been deemed to be accomplished when Indian attained independence. Hindu nationalism is a much deeper and all-inconclusive concept for which I don't see Shivaji as having been a subscriber. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
1) Many. Even "socialist" Nehru wrote in "Discovery of India" in the chapter "New Problem" under the title "Aurungzeb Puts the Clock Back. Growth of Hindu Nationalism. Shivaji" (p.291, ISBN 978-0-143-03103-1). Both Nationalist Historians( J.N. Sarkar, R.C. Majumdar) and Marxists like (Thapar & B. Chandra) as well as the Hindu Right thinkers(Savarkar etc) considered so.
2) Hindu Nationalism is like any other religious Nationalism. It focuses on more on Nationalism because Hindus constitute 80% of the nation India. So, well being of the nation is directly proportionate to the well being of Hindus and Hinduism. These terms are like camouflages. It happened many times in history and also in many nations. Ghatus (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
1) Ok, thanks. As always, more specific references that we could actually go and find would be useful. If I made the argument that "nationalism" is a modern concept that arose in Europe after the break up of the empires and it doesn't make sense to retrofit all the previous historical events into that frame, how would your historians respond? (This is not an empty argument. This is how the political scientists like Jaffrelot, Bruce Graham, Thomas Blom Hansen etc. view the phenomenon.) Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
2) As for the 80% argument, the Hindutva-proponents would respond by saying that this is not a question of the majority, but rather that the Hindu culture/religion is the original culture of the land, and they are trying to preserve and protect it. I don't see how you can brush this aside as simple majoritarianism. Even minority cultures have a right to preserve and protect their cultures. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Kautilya3, your understanding seems good. I wanted to point a few things, Shivaji's hindavi swaraj and the connection of Indian Independence (1947) is completely(totally) misplaced. If you can read marathi you may find lot of relevant and very comprehensive work. The analysis on the lines of 80% or the European definition of nationalism is also misleading. How Golwalkar or Hedgewar put Hindu Nationalism can be best understood by a direct analysis of their work. Or the analysis of the subsequent leaders who claim they are only repeating it. --AmritasyaPutraT 18:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

โ”Œโ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”˜ The question I am asking is, are there differences between "Hindutva" and "Hindu nationalism" in the 20th century? The BJP web page certainly seems to say that they are the same. If they are the same, then it will help us to write this web page because there are plenty of academic sources for Hindu nationalism. There are pretty much none for "Hindutva." I think the Shivaji issue is better fought out on the Shivaji page. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

More to it than meets the eye[edit]

I have been banging on for a while that "Hindutva" means cultural nationalism, not religious nationalism. But I have missed a whole bunch of subtleties.

  • Savarkar defined Hindutva, which inspired Hedgewar to form the RSS to realize the Hindu rashtra (Hindu nation) that he proposed. However, Hedgewar explicitly rejected the proposal to use the word "Hindu" in its name and called it Rashtriya (nationalist). RSS has often used the term Hindu rashtra, but not "Hindutva".
  • Hindu Mahasabha used both the terms "Hindutva" and "Hindu rashtra", especially after Savarkar took control of it. But Syama Prasad Mookerjee wanted the party to be broadened to non-Hindus. When Hindu Mahasabha didn't agree, he quit. This was in 1950-51.
  • Mookerjee used the term Bharatiya (Indian) to name his party and his discussions with Golwalkar explicitly equated the terms Bharatiya and Rashtriya. No "Hindutva" there. The term Bharatiya was then inherited by the BJP. There was no "Hindutva" in its ideology then. So, where did it come from?
  • It turns out that the term Hindutva came back into use via the VHP, which used it as far back as 1968. After the Janata party split up (1980), Balasaheb Deoras (the-then Chief of the RSS) charged the VHP with developing a "Hindu vote bank." The VHP formulated the Ram Mandir movement and a host of other religious movements in response. These movements were adopted by the BJP only after Advani became the President (1984) and the term "Hindutva" along with them. Apparently, this was done in a famous "Palampur resolution" in 1989. [3]

So, there are two "Hindutvas", the Savarkar version which is cultural and the VHP version which is religious. The BJP adopted the latter. Since "Hindu" meant religion in 1984, not a "culture," much less the idea of "Indian-ness", this "Hindutva" seems to be a religous nationalism, not a cultural one. [Forgot to sign originally.] Kautilya3 (talk) 18:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

It appears that the RSS has also adopted the term "Hindutva," probably around the same time as the BJP did. A recent reference to it from Mohan Bhagwat here.[1] Kautilya3 (talk) 23:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

References