Talk:Persecution of Hindus

Will Durant

Highpeaks35, Will Durant's analysis reflects the early 20th century, European prejudices. It is not current. WP:HISTRS requires modern historical scholarship, which did not exist in his time. If current scholars have endorsed this view, then you need to cite them. And, you also need to cite the contrary opinions such as this one:

Quite apart from Akbar, most Indian medieval communities experienced harmonious relations, as Stuart Gordon explains: "No Muslim or Hindu enclaves were seized; populations were not expelled on the basis of religion. No prince publicly committed himself and all of his resources to the annihilation of the Other. Both Hindus and Muslims were routinely and without comment recruited into all the armies of the period."

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:49, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree, FWIW; scholarship about colonized countries during the colonial era frequently reflected the prejudices of its authors more than it did reality. Also, works that had a very broad scope are often not the best for understanding very specific phenomena. Where contemporary scholarship exists, that should be given more weight. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

References

All that can be said about Muslim invasions is that their laws of war allowed them to attack civilian populations and plunder them, and also capture them and enslave them if they resisted. The "booties" the invading forces gathered are well-documented. This was certainly below the standards of war that the Hindus practised at that time and, for this, the Muslims received a terrible reputation. Beyond that, ideas like Muslims having killed millions of Hindus and persecuting them day in and day out are all wild imaginations. Ibn Battuta's shock at the Madurai Sultan's conduct shows that it was an extreme case, and by no means standard among the Muslim rulers of his time. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean by "European prejudices"? The violence committed by Muslims against Hindus during the conquest of India is well documented and most of our understanding of what happened comes from historical Indian and Muslim sources, not European. Will's work echoes what Indian historians have long said so discounting his work under the grounds of a baseless accusation of being prejudice and not containing proper scholarship with no justification is not grounds for that source to be invalidated. If you are going to claim that sources "require modern historical scholarship, which did not exist in his time" then you have to actually provide a lot of detail and citations as to why, where as all you have provided is the claim itself. Also, contrary opinions can be cited but don't NEED to be cited, especially the one you cited as it does not attempt to refute what Will Durant claimed. I see no reason to discount Will Durant as a source as you have not provided adequate reason to do so. 76.184.220.115 (talk) 23:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Modern historical scholarship is a raquirement for reliable sources for history. Historical scholarship prior to 1950 is deemed to carry inadequate standards of history. Modern scholars may not pay attention to or critique such works except when it is part of their research to do so. If what Durant says is true, you would find modern historians repeating it, and if they do, you can cite them. And, don't bother citing Koenraad Elst because he is considered WP:FRINGE.

For European prejudices, see for example: Metcalf, Thomas R. (1997), Ideologies of the Raj, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-58937-6, especially the discussion starting p. 6.

I will not be responding to your personal critique of Nicholas Gier below because it is not Wikipedia's purpose to analyse scholarly assessments. If you think there is value in your analysis, you may submit it to a journal. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Nicholas F. Gier Source not cited accurately

"Will Durant called the Muslim conquest of India "probably the bloodiest story in history",[15] but this is not accepted by some contemporary historians.[16]"

Nowhere in the source 16 (The Origins of Religious Violence: An Asian Perspective) does it give any refutation to Will Durant nor the claim that the conquest of India was one of the most bloodiest in history. It seems to emphasize the times of peace between the Hindus and Muslims after the conquest rather than claim that the conquest itself wasn't as violent as Will Durant claims. I think it's appropriate to change that to "citation needed".

That source itself also makes some bizarre claims: "No Muslim or Hindu enclaves were seized; populations were not expelled on the basis of religion"

This claim is objectively false https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_India this list gives multiple examples of Hindu enclaves being attacked by Muslim armies and the population being ran out and killed along with Hindus being forcefully removed from their land to be put into slavery based on their religion.

Another claim is "There is in fact no evidence of any rebellion toward the Dehli Sultanate..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebellions_against_Alauddin_Khalji One leader of the Dehli Sultanate faced three rebellions alone.

So I would also like to call into question this source as being up to scholarly standards as it does contain pretty glaring factual errors. 76.184.220.115 (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Ram Punyani

Ram Punyani was a Professor of Biomedical Engineering, IIT Mumbai. He's not a historian by any stretch of the word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rioter 1 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Aurangzeb

Rioter 1, here is the passage you deleted from the article:

Scholar Ram Puniyani states that Aurangzeb was not fanatically anti-Hindu, that he continuously adapted his policies depending on circumstances. He banned the construction of new temples, but allowed the repair and maintenance of existing ones, and even made generous donations of jagirs to many temples to gain the goodwill of his Hindu subjects. There are several firmans (orders) in his name supporting temples and gurudwaras, including Mahakaleshwar temple of Ujjain, Balaji temple of Chitrakoot, Umananda Temple of Guwahati and the Shatrunjaya Jain temples, among others.

References

Please state what your objections are, to this passage. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I have reservations about the authority of this source. If you have any alternate citations from a reliable soruce, pls feel free to include those and remove this. Rioter 1 (talk) 04:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, I take strong objection for your allegation of sock puppeting, here

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2019

In the "India" section please insert the following:

In September 2019, 17 Hindu students were suspended by the Christian-run "Church School, Beldih Triangle" in Jharkhand for chanting Jai Shri Ram in the schools, lading to the protests by the Hindu organisations.
222.164.212.168 (talk) 13:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for a couple reasons: 1) There's nothing in your request that this is persecution; and 2) This is a recent news item that doesn't really fit into the scope of the rest of the section. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

References