Talk:Hindutva

Why does this start with a prejudice?

This article is prejudiced, and designed to perpetuate prejudice. Why do I say that? Because it pins the loaded, pejorative label "fascist" at the very beginning. That's a priori prejudice. How can a movement with roots in ancient Eastern culture be associated with an essentially European label? The Hindus that Savarkar derives Hindutva from had never heard of Europe.

It is a fundamental Orientalist fallacy to view Hindutva through the lens of fascism. At the very root, Hindutva is the search of a national identity in the incredibly, unbelievably diverse Indian subcontinent. It is fundamentally not, and cannot be shown to be, an exclusionary, majoritarian, oppressive and racist movement like fascism.

Please remove the early sentences containing fascism. They make a neutral reading of the article impossible. It is mischievous to start with a highly charged label associated with years of atrocities and millions of deaths. Sooku (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the above points. Also it states more details from a 3rd party observers making opinion based remarks on the underlying ideology, rather than quote from the source material. One should avoid any prejudices on a subject and keep the article as close to the source as possible. Trixon123 (talk) 00:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Hindutava indeed is in accordance with the fascist theocratic ideology and it was proven when the the prominent Hindutava leaders expressed their desire to replicate what Mussolni did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.66.105 (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

This page has some serious bias. Looks like it has been created/edited by a Hinduphobic person. The citations provided are unreliable. National Herald, a newspaper closely linked to the Nehru-Gandhi clan has been provided as a citation. This source is politically motivated and should be removed immediately. Parlebourbon (talk) 16:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

You can try to correct the bias yourself. Wikipedia pages aren't created by a single entity, they are grown by an entire community. Several scholars have refered to Hindutva as "a meddling of Hindu Fascism and Hindu Fundamentalism," as has been cited several times in the article. Furthermore, Hindutva is not the same as Hinduism, and many Hindus condemn this ideology. Therefore, it would be wrong to simply call the article Hinduphobic without refutation. A source's origins from decades ago do not matter if they provide reliable enough information in the present. MBFC rates it "Mixed." Also, can you pinpoint where exactly National Herald was cited in the page so a more reliable source can be added? — The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 ^{talk stalk} 07:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

A July 2020 article with 0 citations has been used to make a blanket statement. Doesn't align with Wikipedia values. WP:SOAP. Cwarrior (talk) 01:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC about the introduction quotation

Need guidance in deciding to remove Prabhat Patnaik in the introduction, who apparently is a Marxist economist, it would be opinionated to cite him on right-wing cases like Hindutva. Neutral standpoint from a Marxist economist is not possible as it is still controversial if Hindutva is "almost fascist" or not due to different POVs. I believe political/ideological sources should be removed as per WP:BIASED. --Jenos450 (talk) 06:55, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose removal of fascism - There are no Wikipedia policies that prohibit "Marxists" or Leftists or the so-called "BIASED" sources. There is a large section on "Fascist and Nazi undertones" in the body. Hindutva fascism gives 182,000 hits on Google. So, this is not some isolated political view being propogated by supposed "Marxists". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
• Procedural comment - Jenos450, please re-sign your first statement so that the RfC bot can pick it up properly and transclude just your opening sttatement instead of everything through the end of Kautilya3's vote. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
• As Kautilya3 has made clear, we do not discount sources based on POV, only on reliability. I'm not seeing any policy-based reason for this removal. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
• Comment – well, we could also discount sources if they represented cherrypicking of reliable sources expressing views of a tiny minority, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. @Jenos450: imho, your only avenue here is to demonstrate that the statement currently in the lead is so far out of step with majority and minority opinion, that it cannot be included in the article at all. That's a pretty high bar, but if you want to make any progress, that's what you're up against. The fact that you don't like it, or that it sounds critical or opinionated to you, isn't a reason for it not to be in the article. A person or group does not have to announce, "I am/we are fascist" in order for Wikipedia to say that, if it is reliably sourced and in compliance with WP:DUE WEIGHT. The criteria for inclusion of quoted, attributed material is even easier to satisfy. Mathglot (talk) 23:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment

Kautilya3, Taj mahal is a Hindu temple gives 45,00,000 hits on google. This doesn't signify anything, that is why it is controversial and not something that is widely upheld. The apex court of India (Supreme court) defines Hindutva as a way of life rather than anything. The Bench had further added, “no precise meaning can be ascribed to the terms `Hindu’, `Hindutva’ and `Hinduism’; and no meaning in the abstract can confine it to the narrow limits of religion alone, excluding the content of Indian culture and heritage”. Now, the statement "Hindutva being fascist is widely upheld" is a controversial statement. Thanks, kind sir. Jenos450 (talk) 11:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Support i agree with jenos450 (talk · contribs) भारत का प्रतिहार (talk) 07:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock 13:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2020

change sakha to shakha in the ideology>adoption section Azad Richa (talk) 04:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done Kautilya3 (talk) 13:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Edits by Saumyalakhani - subsection on pseudoscience

Research Exists for Cow urine Benefits

Writeup under section Psuedoscience is not up to date. Benefits of cow urine has been discussed in research, and it is incorrect to say that no scientific backing has been found. See for example https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4566776/.

Vishwajeet103 (talk) 22:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps. But the ideologues didn't cite any science for their adocacy. They only cited faith. And that is peudoscience. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

But the statement made in article in factually incorrect. "No scientific evidence has been found" is factually incorrect. If the ideologues did not quote science, mention exactly this in the article that "Research has shown benefits from Cow urine but ideologues did not quote science". Moreover, dismissing ancient medicine practices as faith is pejorative. It is only due to the ancient practices, modern science took notice of this and started research. The same is true for many practices like "Mindfulness Meditation", "Yoga", "Nostril Breathing" etc. You cannot write since ideologues of Yoga did not quote science, "there is no scientific evidence" :) Vishwajeet103 (talk) 07:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

See WP:RSN#Is this journal a reliable source? Would its use be a violation of WP:MEDRS?. Looks like a fringe journal to me. Doug Weller talk 08:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Rollback

I have removed the section as a whole diff because the unexplained edits recently done by Saumyalakhani fail WP:V, WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. The first sentence alone in this section is not supported by the sources even after using Frontline Hindu[1] which makes no mention of "pseudoscience" and other one is Scroll which makes only one mention on title and only one mention of "Hindutva", thus fails WP:RSCONTEXT. Also see RSN discussion about Scroll. Aside from this, the rest of the information of the section just makes the connection of RSS and BJP leaders with whatever news sources say in violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR while the source does not make the connection of the subject (Hindutva) with personal and political beliefs of these leaders. Compared to the rest of the article that has used WP:SCHOLARSHIP sources. Dhawangupta (talk) 13:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Please provide exact quotes; what exactly does The first sentence alone in this section refer to? I guess this part:

Hindutva organizations have been criticized for their belief in statements or practices that they claim to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method, and therefore are categorized as pseudoscience.

References

Some additional sources:

• Srinath Perur (2019), Science and the rise of nationalism in India, nature
• Sanjay Kumar (2019), In India, Hindu pride boosts pseudoscience, Science

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: I am obviously referring to that first sentence. It is not supported by the sources as I already described. All other sources that have been used here, including Indian Express, Guardian,Al Jazeera, The Print, Hindustan Times and others have just made no mention of 'Hindutva' or 'pseudoscience'. Thus indeed, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:V is being violated here. While your sources[[2][3] don't make mention of "Hindutva", they appear to be targeting India as well as BJP as a whole. But subject here is "Hindutva" and it is necessary to follow WP:RSCONTEXT. What you are certainly looking for is the section that already exists on the article for years, and it is Hindutva#Ahistorical premises,_mythology as history, which already covers the content your links are showing but has used higher quality sources. Dhawangupta (talk) 15:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, you object wholesale against the subsection on pseudoscience? In that case, you shouldn't have done a mass-revert, or roll-back, but removed the subsection in question. And then, still, it might have been wise to first start a discussion... I'd rather raise the question if the examples given in that section aren't WP:UNDUE - eventually in addition to your objections. It can all be summarized in the first statement: "Hindutva organizations have been criticized for their belief in statements or practices that they claim to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method, and therefore are categorized as pseudoscience.", which is supported also by the sources provided by me. To state that those sources "don't make mention of "Hindutva" is sophistery; they obviously are about Hindutva. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Dhawangupta: I respond to your message on my talk page. Hindutva is well covered topic in peer-reviewed, high quality scholarly papers and books. The older versions of this article, worked on by Fowler&fowler, others and I, cited numerous scholarly sources on Hindutva. That is what this article should predominantly rely on, as it is a sensitive, controversial and potentially harm or hate-inciting to proponents or opponents of Hindutva. Please see community discussions on topics related to other sensitive and potentially harmful misinformation, such as medicine/health (WP:MEDRS). Newspapers and news-weeklies (magazines) are not appropriate or reliable sources here... Indian newspapers and news-weeklies in particular (we have discussed their widespread paid news problem, political bias, etc on RSN and elsewhere over time).

JJ, others and you should work together to develop a good summary based on high quality sources. JJ offers quality sources such as one from Nature and another from Science, which is worth reading in full and summarizing here in a neutral way. For example, the Nature article is not a pure or universalized criticism, but a carefully worded one. It states, among other things:

Ancient India abounded in scientific advances, in fields from astronomy and mathematics to metallurgy and surgery. The Sanskrit text Sushruta Samhita, dated to the first millennium BC, discusses techniques for skin grafts and nose reconstruction. These achievements, along with traditional Indian knowledge systems, were egregiously sidelined during colonial rule. Yet some nationalist rhetoric overstates or distorts history. Subramaniam shows how modern science has been bolted to Hindu mythology [...]

Note that the author, Srinath Perur, is careful in presenting the context and including the words such as "some" and "overstates or distorts", which editors of this article should try to incorporate. Context matters, is essential for neutral and fair summary. Our goal should be to properly summarize this and other high quality peer-reviewed scholarly sources: the context, the good and the bad as stated, not cherrypick phrases or criticism or support out of their context. Here is another well stated point in the same Nature article. Note the context and critical commentary together:

Many nationalists, who believe that the roots of Hinduism are vastly more ancient, have claimed that genetic research has debunked the theory. But, increasingly, studies such as a 2017 meta-analysis do point to relevant influxes around four millennia ago (M. Silva et al. BMC Evol. Biol. 17, 88; 2017).

Finally, we should not ignore the fact that the Nature article is a book review, and Perur is writing about and in the context of Subramaniam's book published by University of Washington Press in 2019. It is still relevant here. But a good summary should attribute and admit this in the summary here, avoiding new conclusions or novel allegations (OR or SYNTHESIS) beyond what Perur actually states.

Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@JJ, on "you object wholesale against the subsection on pseudoscience", I would say I support the removal of that whole section as I have laid out above that why it needs to be removed and I already analyzed the used sources that they don't mention "Hindtuva" or "pseudoscience" and even if they mention either word they don't connect these established separate subjects with each other thus violating WP:SYNTH. Rest of the section just targets views of politicians (related to BJP or other Hindu politicians), court, etc. which is completely WP:UNDUE and unrelated to this subject in hand. Dhawangupta (talk) 09:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

user:Dhawangupta I agree with Dhawangupta carefull examine of sources should be done and only sources which are related to "hindutva" and £Pseudo science" should be kept. and article should be made neutral.Pseudo Nihilist (talk) 11:45, 30 January 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 13:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I think the opening-sentence, quotes above, with the sources I provided, can stay. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, wow! That section is backed by something like 50 citations. It merits its own page, as far as I am concerned. And it doesn't even begin to talk about Indigenous Aryans and Sarasvati River. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

What would be title of that page? Religiously driven science related views of Sangh Parivar members? See WP:WWIN. Dhawangupta (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@JJ: But those sources don't make mention of "Hindutva", also see comment by Ms Sarah Welch above. If you want to add an additional sentence on the next section, then you can, but the section about pseudoscience needs to go. Other than that, you should also see what your sources want you to believe. If you read your sources more carefully, then you would find it nothing different than what the next section (Hindutva#Ahistorical premises,_mythology as history) already say: "According to Jeffrelot, the Hindutva ideology has roots in an era where the fiction in ancient Indian mythology and Vedic antiquity was presumed to be valid. This fiction was used to "give sustenance to Hindu ethnic consciousness"." I don't think any more explanation is necessary. Dhawangupta (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

We have two articles: Hindu nationalism and Hindutva. Please keep that in mind when deciding what should go in which article. Dhawangupta: you have some well reasoned concerns, but JJ is right that there are good scholarly sources on this. For example, please consider this Numen journal paper published in 2012, a secondary source by Cynthia Humes. It is recent but a bit dated as much has unfolded since 2012. Pages 188–198 of Humes repeatedly use the term Hindutva, wherein she discusses the (mis)use of "pseudoarchaeology and mythistory" by some Hindutva adherents. Once again the context is important... she discusses the historic Hindu-Muslim conflicts including those in the context of Pakistan and Bangladesh, and the colonial era one-sided narratives on race and other topics, how that has played a role. A careful summary of Humes etc would be along the lines JJ is suggesting, one that includes the context as stated in scholarly sources. Such a careful summary should be included in this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

ps: Humes summarizes parts of Witzel's work, which anyone interested in this topic, should read too. Witzel makes very good points on Hindutva, IVC, how some Hindutva proponents have distorted and peddled myth as history, acknowledges "for the past five decades or so, the best specialists have no longer seen the influx of IA speakers as an 'invasion'. Linguists first, and archaeologists somewhat later, have stressed that such a scenario is too simple-minded and largely wrong", and such (p. 214, Rama's realm). But most scholars disagree with some of Witzel's strange "universalized" allegations in the passing, one he includes without strong persuasive evidence. For example, Witzel alleges every individual in Hindu society "suppresses, denigrates, exploits, persecutes" every other, it has "always been the guiding principle and practice", and "even among the Dalits there is always someone below them to denigrate and exploit" (p. 225, Witzel's paper). Witzel goes too far, and does not provide strong scholarly evidence for such sweeping claims. Most Hindu diaspora we meet, or those we meet while visiting India or Bali Indonesia, including the "ëudra and Dalits" Witzel refers to on p. 225 of Rama's realm, disagree that he or she, their family members or their parents or their friends have or currently "suppress, denigrate and exploit" others, or any human being for that matter, or that Hindu society or Hinduism illustrates or asks or teaches them to do so. More importantly, that is not mainstream scholarship, and most scholars disagree with Witzel there. In other words, this is a difficult and controversial topic. Don't rely on a single source, consider different sides. A good NPOV summary requires that we carefully read multiple sources, the context therein and the conclusions, and develop a summary that reflects the mainstream scholarship. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Hindutva Ideology is followed by BJP leaders and they believe in religious nonsense and pseudoscience like benefits of Cow dung, cow urine which has made India a laughing stock in the whole world. There are article on Hindutva anti-science stance.

https://frontline.thehindu.com/science-and-technology/hindutvas-science-envy/article9049883.ece
https://www.thequint.com/voices/opinion/indian-science-congress-hinduism-hindu-right-wing-pseudo-science
--Saumyalakhani (talk) 14:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

On the first paragraph

Request to replace "described as" in first paragraph with "described by some" as the sources cited have very little secondary sources, and seem to be biased when describing the BJP, using terms like extremist, which reflects the author's opinion, and therefore may be subject to debate, and not necessarily an objective fact. Also, when referring to people suggesting Hindutva as a form of "conservatism" or "ethnic absolutism", the source cited is weak, and I cannot seem to find any information suggesting the existence of the authors anywhere outside of the article at all. It's outdated as well, as it is from 2000, and the site is in basic HTML.

I request that the first paragraph be revamped completely, and be open to editing, as to pointing out the errors in it in the future. Based47 (talk) 06:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPOV. "may be subject to debate" is not good enough. You need to provide evidence of actual debate. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

References