Talk:Hindu terrorism

article title

This article used to be at Saffron Terror, which is objectionable already for reasons of capitalization. The term is certainly in use, but less recognizable than "Hindu terrorism" or "Hindutva terrorism". "Hindu terrorism" was the term appearing in headlines in November 2008, always associated with the question "is there such a thing as Hindu terrorism" or "Hindu terrorism is a contradiction in terms because Hinduism is inherently peaceful". This mirrors discussions surrounding "Islamic terrorism" exactly. Many people also sTay that "Islamic terrorism is a contradiction in terms because Islam is inherently peaceful". Which is why we keep on Islamist terrorism used to be at that title for years, although presently exiled to Islamic terrorism. "Hindutva" is to Hinduism what Islamism is to Islam: both are political movements based on a religion, as distinct from the religion itself. The progress from religion to religious terrorism is always via such an intermediate step. You can be a Muslim/Hindu without deriving political chauvinism from your religion. If you do derive political chauvinism from your religion, you are an Islamist/Hindutvavadi, but that doesn't necessarily mean you endorse religious violence or "terrorism". If fron there you proceed to a creed that endorses violence, you will be a militant Islamist/Hindutvavadi, and if you further progress to acts of violence yourself, you will be into Islamist/Hindutva terror.

Obviously, the existence of an article on Hindu terrorism doesn't imply that Hinduism is prone to terrorism in any particular way, any more than Christian terrorism, Jewish terrorism or, for that matter, Islamic terrorism, imply that Christianity, Judaism or Islam has any sort of particular penchant for terrorism or violence. Some people will simply be violent bullies, and some people will be religious, and it is simply a matter of combinatorics that for some people these features will coincide, no matter what culture you are looking at.

--dab (𒁳) 06:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Saffron terror is the more common name and is the most accurate depiction as well. Purohit and the members of Abhinav Bharat do not fit within the rather institutional framework of Hindutva in India. Infact there are allegations he was both in cahoots with the Wahabis and a Zionist. I do not doubt your rationale otherwise, and agree that extremism does not necessarily follow logically from religious belief. However, the use of a neologism to describe events over which there is no consensus over the identity of the perpetrators is problematic. The Samajhauta express bombings an example of "Hindu terror", were found to be the work of Pakistani based infiltrators, while the Malegaon blasts still have Muslim suspects.Pectore^talk 23:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

obviously, each event will have to be assessed on its own merit. This can only be the article on the "alleged" connection of a number of events to Hindu nationalism. Like at Islamophobia, the article can discuss the term without endorsing its use. Any judgement on how well established the term or the concept is will obviously depend on the references cited. --dab (𒁳) 20:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Reverting my edits

Why are you removing my edits I've provided enough references (They are reliable)--owner wikipedia (talk) 10:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Because they are poorly cited and make absolutely no sense in the context of the page. "Saffron" as a metaphor for Hindu nationalism was not even the same term when thuggee actually occurred. Plus calling people "POV pushers" for reverting utter garbage unmasks you as one yourselfPectore^talk 14:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Conflict over POV

It has not been proven that Hindu nationalist groups were actually involved in the bombings or other events, it is only suspected, which is why the wording was "suspected to have been".

The sentence "It is also viewed as a term mooted by self declared secular elements to balance Islamic terrorism and thereby save Muslims from being scapegoated in the name of terrorism." comes from the source and is accurate, as it is viewed by some as such. Because we are dealing with purported nationalist terrorism, it is necessary to also have opposing viewpoints in the article, in order to maintain NPOV. That is what this sentence does. Silverseren^C 21:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking to the discussion page.

"....and is accurate, as it is viewed by some as such" who are those some? Why it is accurate because of being viewed by some? Every one will have their own view. But when coming to a common encylopedia POV statements are not acceptable. You yourself have mentioned that "it is viewed", which is very much obvious. So now the ball is on your court to tell whether is it acceptable by wikipedia? Wasifwasif (talk) 12:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

We have to rely on the sources at hand. That statement was referenced. I said some, because one reference is not enough to say most, so it is more proper to say some instead. I also believe the sentence should say some as well. But, either way, we are only here to report what the sources say, not impose our own opinions on the matter into the article. Silverseren^C 12:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I quote the Wikipedia essay on Neutral point of view: "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each". Therefore, a substantial view point that is sourced does belong to the article. As for the question of "who is this some" - seems it's a portion of the academia; and for that matter a portion of the general-population would have such a view. I would say that a plain some is enough. Arjun^codename024 17:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Taking your point "...seems it's a portion of the academia". The view of the rest of general-population should also be considered. Particularly when dispute arises, the view of "some" will not help in building a neutral wikipedia article. Wasifwasif (talk) 13:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

yes, I Agree, and that is what i have been saying and i believe Silver seren is also saying the same thing. Both the views have to be accommodated.

View1: Saffron Terror as terror per se, perpetrated by .............................

View2: term mooted by self declared secular elements to balance ............................

I think we have a consensus here, don't we ? Arjun^codename024 16:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, all views that are supported by reliable sources must be expressed in an article about the subject if we want the article to be truly neutral. Disavowing a viewpoint unbalances the article toward a POV, which is what we don't want to happen. Silverseren^C 18:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

^{^} Yes. Me too agreed. Again don't use "suspected to be...." for one group's view and "done by..." for the other's. Wasifwasif (talk) 10:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Done by? I don't see that wording anywhere. I see suspected to be for the Hindu group and then viewed and self declared for the other side. They are both presented with a little sense of skepticism, as there is no definitive proof for either viewpoint. Silverseren^C 11:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

If there is no definite proof and if it is skepticised, then is itn't better in good sense to keep those views away from wikipedia that too in a most sensitive article.? Wasifwasif (talk) 13:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Then that would mean having no articles about theories. All we do is present the information neutrally based on the information in the sources. That's all. Silverseren^C 20:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Just as a suggestion, if you think there isn't enough material to warrant a standalone article, you could always consider merging this into a section at Religious violence in India. While it is always a subjective decision whether something should qualify as "terrorism", there is certainly plenty of religious violence in India, and the incidents dubbed Saffron terror "by some" can be accommodated there. --dab (𒁳) 20:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

We're not discussing the notability of the article, we're discussing the necessity of including a specific sentence or two. There is more than enough coverage and information on Saffron terror to legitimize having this article. Silverseren^C 21:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as Silver seren rightly pointed out, the discussion is about a few disputed words and sentences and not about the warranty of entire article.Wasifwasif (talk) 09:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, there exists no evidence that the blasts like Malegaon blast were organised/perpetrated by Hindu nationalists. Some Hindus were arrested but not evidently Hindu nationalists. Since, Hindu extremism in India has come off mostly as a product of Hindu nationalism; it is suspected so. Remember that Lt Col Shrikant Purohit disclosed under narco-analysis that he conspired with Islamist groups for the Malegaon blasts.("Is Purohit the man who knows too much?". The Times of India. 2008-11-27. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)) Therefore, the word suspect is a must here. Arjun^codename024 11:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Or as dab suggested, we have the option of merging this to Religious violence in India. (i know we are not talking this here, though) Arjun^codename024 11:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Most of the reports clearly says that RSS has links with Malegaon blast.. Also I don't understand the ideology behind calling the people who are followers of Gandhiji's assasin as Nationals. Its just a hype created by the Extreme terrorist calling themselves Nationals. Wasifwasif (talk) 13:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

If Wasifwasif has a problem with calling the exponents of Hindu nationalism as "Hindu Nationalists" - he may talk that up in its talk page!!!!, not here. The ref you submitted above says : "one lost link in the whole case appears to be Sunil Joshi, who was RSS pracharak in Madhya Pradesh's Mhow with whom Devendra Gupta, the first suspect to get arrested in the Ajmer Dargah case, was associated".

The news-article clearly emphasizes the "suspicion". In my earlier post, i pointed out that suspicion also went towards other groups including Islamist groups. It's because of this that the article mentions that this terror is the one that is suspected to be perpetrated by Hindu nationalists (RSS is a Hindu nationalist org). Arjun^codename024 14:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding this edit ([1]) of Wasifwasif - In your 3rd reply in this thread, you have agreed to it. So, i request Wasifwasif to immediately undo his edit. The only reason i am not doing it is because i am committed to stick by the WP:3RR guideline.

@Wasifwasif: Be advised -- In the 24 hours prior to <19:55, June 8, 2010> you have done more than 3 reverts, in effect breaking the WP:3RR rule.Arjun^codename024 15:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

(od) If the bone of contention is the removal of this statement It is also viewed as a term mooted by self declared secular elements to balance Islamic terrorism and thereby save Muslims from being scapegoated in the name of terrorism then I agree with that removal. A single opinion piece does not a 'it is viewed as' make. It is also rather heavy interpretive baggage for what is declared to be a neologism. Academic discussions on the purpose of this term would be acceptable if available. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Arjun024, Thanks for reminding about 3RR. I forgot and failed to notice.

I already agreed to for the word "Suspected..." My objection is about the sentence It is also viewed as a term mooted by self declared secular elements to balance Islamic terrorism and thereby save Muslims from being scapegoated in the name of terrorism. As RegentsPark has rightly pointed out (he/she has never involved in the discussion earlier) that is to be removed. Wasifwasif (talk) 09:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Wasifwasif in his reply^{[this reply]} agreed to keep the "it is also viewed as .." view (at that time he opposed mentioning the "suspicion") - Exactly opposite to what he claims in the just previous post. I do not firmly support keeping that sentence based on one rediff piece; My revert was more to the point that he made a sneaky removal of that sentence even after having agreed to keep it, which i deem very uncivil. Now, having obtained a consolation from RegentsPark, Wasifwasif tries to come clean. I felt that since we are talking about an alleged/suspected activity, opposing opinions are needed in the lead for the sake of neutrality. Suspicion in these cases has gone to other elements as well. Honestly, i do not think that much of scholarly/academic writings will be available on this - rather whats available are news reports and fourth-estate blogs/editorials. Arjun^codename024 13:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

At the outset let me request you to discuss only about the article and not about a user. this will help wikipedia as well.

I havve agreed to User Silver seren's following comments.

Yes, all views that are supported by reliable sources must be expressed in an article about the subject if we want the article to be truly neutral. Disavowing a viewpoint unbalances the article toward a POV, which is what we don't want to happen..

Supported to add all views, not someone's. And below that i raised my concern for suspicion for particular group alone. Pls don't come to a conclusion on your own and please avoid commenting other users personally which will in no way help wikipedia to build articles.Wasifwasif (talk) 14:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

"Hindu Nationalists"

Wasif,

"Hindu Nationalists" does not mean "nationalists whose religion is Hinduism". Hindu Nationalism is a separate ideology, which advocates Hinduism as a basis for a nation state. These two have nothing in common. No one is comparing Gandhi and other leaders with "Hindu Nationalists".

Also anyone can be a nationalist. A terrorist, pacifist, murderer, saint all can be nationalists. It is not a stand alone trait. One can assassinate the father of the nation and still be a nationalist. It just means his idea of a nation is completely different from Gandhi. Dont get emotional here.

(Other than that i have no input on the POV dispute).--Sodabottle (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Nothing to get emotional here. Its better to call them Sangh parivar rather than Hindu nationals which is a misleading term. Wasifwasif (talk) 09:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not misleading. It is a well used term. Like i said, they are a separate brand of nationalists (the "nation" they are "ists" of is not the republic of india). Anyway this discussion should be in that article's talk page--Sodabottle (talk) 09:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion

section heading changed later by Arjun024 on 2010-Jun-17
I oppose the merging of this article as the matters discussed in the target article is different from this. Wasifwasif (talk) 14:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a neologism, three articles in the reference list mention the term and all only in passing. It is better discussed in context (that of Hindu nationalism - I'm not sure how it can be discussed independently anyway). --RegentsPark (talk) 17:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to suggest merger to Terrorism in India; but its kinda messy and it details incidents by state and doesn't really go into the motivation part. Well, there is another article Hindu Taliban but it happens to be a neologism as well, may be we can merge both to something like "Neologisms associated with Hindu Nationalism" ? Arjun^codename024 20:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Hindu Taliban may be a kind of Neologism but Saffron terror is never. So this article be as such.Wasifwasif (talk) 08:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The earliest reference to "saffron terror" i can find is this 2002 praveen swami article. Where as "Hindu Taliban" occurs as early as 1999. So if "Hindu Taliban" is a neologism, then "saffron terror" surely is. --Sodabottle (talk) 19:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I told "may be" and not "is" that too in my view since i never came across. Then both are not according to me. Wasifwasif (talk) 06:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Reading through the article again, i feel this article has no legs to stand on its own. It should be merged with Terrorism in India and a given a summarized header in Hindu Nationalism. If sufficient material get written on it, then it can be spun out in the future.--Sodabottle (talk) 07:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with merging into Terrorism in India. I guess, my this edit ([2]) shows how incompetent this article is on standing on its own. I more of feel the opposing argument to be the WP:IDONTLIKEIT way. Arjun^codename024 08:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Its better to keep it here and improve it rather than, merging and spunning. Wasifwasif (talk) 11:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thats the problem. There is nothing concrete to improve. Every addition will mean adding "alleged" "said to be" "but disputed by". In short it will be a "he said she said" collection bordering on libel. For a separate brand of terrorism we should be able to establish a)concrete motive b) concrete examples. Current inclusions are a)ongoing court cases b) allegations that are now contested. The article reads like an editorial instead of an encyclopedic article. What would be required to keep this article? At the least references from a)scholarly articles/books discussing "Saffron Terror" as a phenomena with proven examples. All said we have 3 in favour or merging 1 against. We need more opinions. Arjun, can you post this in the India noticeboard asking for more opinions?--Sodabottle (talk) 12:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics apprised. Arjun^codename024 13:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

From the article on Hindu nationalism: "Hindu nationalism has been collectively referred to the expressions of social and political thought, based on the native spiritual and cultural traditions of historical India"- that would certainly not include Saffron terror. The reference cited by Arjun above ([3]) is an opinion piece, appearing in TOI- Narcoanalysis is deemed unscientific by a recent Supreme Court judgment. The article should not be merged, there are enough references to prove it as a recurrent neologism. Cool hindu (talk) 11:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• Merge. "Saffron terror" is a catchy newspaper phrase, not an article subject in its own right. Fences&Windows 14:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Rename, no merge'. The actual problem now I look again is the title. We do need an article on "Hindu terrorism", whatever title it is at. Fences&Windows 02:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
• Merge. "Saffron terror" is used commonly by journalists and social scientists. One should ask the right people if a term is common or not. A contributor working only on football, would have not idea that the term "chucking" is "commonly" used in Cricket. Anyway, Saffron Terror, has nothing to do with Hinduism or nationalism. Some of our contributors are becoming emotional with their POV. One should understand that, if these minds had any other religion, they would have been doing the same thing. Don't Mother Teresa and Hitler share their religion? Khan.found (talk) 06:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Rename, no merge! Its absurd to merge Hindu Terrorism with Hindu Nationalism. Perhaps a rename is required here like Hindutva Terrorism. On a personal front, I would be ashamed if we talk of Hindu Nationalism and Hindu Terrorism in the same breath! --SuchiBhasin (talk) 12:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Rename, no merge! thats what i am keep on telling from the beginning. Hindu nationalism and Hindu terrorism are different. But Arjun024, and Soda Bottle are very consistent in this and are giving a misleading explanation. Wasifwasif (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I said merge with terrorism in india and give a mention in hindu nationalism. You are the one mis-representing what i said. My opinion was this article as it stands now is full of allegations full of "he said she said". Every single incident mentioned as a "terror act" has a counter argument saying it is not. My opinion still is the same - this has no legs as it stands. Even if it is renamed as "hindu terrorism", this needs better content.--Sodabottle (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh and BTW, if i wanted to do away the article by misleading explanations as you seem to imply, i wouldnt have asked for other opinions by posting in india noticeboard. Misleaders were indeed the majority - there were 3 of us arguing for merger against you arguing for keeping. I must be getting sloppy with my misleading skills. duh--Sodabottle (talk) 16:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

What i see here is (1) an effort to brand extremism/violence as terror/terrorism and (2) deriving conclusions from some suspected activities and branding them Saffron/Hindu terror. Let me point out this revert of mine ([4]) where i removed contents discussing about extremism/violence in an article that is supposed to have contents on terror. User:Wasifwasif tells me^ "Hindu nationalism and Hindu terrorism are different". Is this about the extremist violence? or is their any concrete evidence that acts by like Malegaon blasts were motivated by Hindu religion. It is a "suspected to be" make, even for the nationalist motivation. Also i gave accounts to how suspicion have fallen on other groups as well, mainly from the narco results of the accused. (Don't tell me now that narco results are not accepted in India from this month onwards). This ([5]) news piece says that one of the accused used to frequent anti-Muslim websites - Then why don't you call it Anti-Muslim terrorism because the motivation can be suspected as "anti-Muslim". sounds funny.. eh? . The media doesn't need concrete evidences to bring up catchy words especially with terrorism-suffix; they bring it up even on fringe suspicions. They still don't go anywhere more than inferences.

User:Khan.found tells me^ "Saffron Terror, has nothing to do with Hinduism or nationalism." - well then obviously it cannot be branded as Saffron/Hindu terror, because the terror has nothing to do with it; as he put it !!!!!. Well, i say - it's a neologism that's come out of a popular suspicion on Hindu nationalists. But, do you go and write a wikipedia article on this basis? Arjun^codename024 18:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Rename, no merge - Rename it to Hindu Terrorism, lets face the reality. I agree with an editor above that personally speaking, I would be ashamed if we talk of Hindu Nationalism and Hindu Terrorism in the same breath!... remember, we do have Christian terrorism, Sikh-extremism and Islamic terrorism. Let's be NEUTRAL in our thinking and editing--DawnOfTheBlood (talk) 05:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hiding never gives any change

Hiding a history and truth will not give a change to the society. Dear Users, who ever want to hide the truth - better keep away from wiki.Akilash (talk) 00:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Platitudes aside, did you have a point? Fences&Windows 02:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)