Talk:Hindu nationalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hindu Nationalism[edit]

Hello All Wikipeople,

This article aims to elaborate not only the political nationalism, which is covered by Hindutva, also more the historical foundations, and the religious, cultural expression of nationalism. Thus this is a much larger project and beyond just Hindutva.

This article is also closely linked to the projects on Indian Nationalism, Hindu and Hinduism - Nirav Maurya —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rama's Arrow (talkcontribs)

>>> why is there no single link to Hindutva from the article? It seems to be visibly absent from the whole article, it should be explained in first paragraph (talk) 10:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Rama's Arrow, First, I would like to express my thanks to you for the enormous work you seem to have put into this article. However, unfortunately, it doesn't work. The article is highly misleading. "Hindu nationalism" can only mean defining nationalism on the basis of Hindu identity. The article's definition of "Hindu nationalism" as any "expressions of social and political thought" rooted in Hindu culture/religion is too broad. Does Girilal Jain actually give such a definition? Where? It is misleading to put all kinds of personalities like Raja Rammohan Roy, Vivekananda or Mahatma Gandhi as proponents of "Hindu nationalism". Raja Rammohan Roy and Vivekananda did not profess any "nationalism" and Gandhi did not base his nationalism in Hindu identity. So, this article confuses more than it enlightens. A serious surgery is needed in my opinion. Uday Reddy (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Reddy, it would appear that we agree on something for a change; the insertion of a lot of major figures in the article, including those you mentioned above, seems like classic OR. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


My main case, as the author and creator of this article project, for Hindu Nationalism's disctinction from Hindutva rests on three points:

(1) There are large numbers of Hindus in India who do not accept Hindutva as their political expression or idea of patriotism or nationalism. Yet these are Hindus, and impact the expression of Hindu society and India as a whole.

(2) Hindu nationalism is far more diverse than the just expanding the formulations of Savarkar, Syama Prasad Mookerjee and the RSS, VHP and the BJP. It is rooted in the ancient history of India, with the period of Islamic invasions and empires.

(3) Lokmanya Tilak, Mahatma Gandhi, Sardar Patel and Purushottam Das Tandon were not Hindutva adherents, but were with a different kind of Hindu pride. Why should they be crammed into Hindutva?

Jai Shree Rama,

Nirav Maurya—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rama's Arrow (talkcontribs)

typical hindutva deception[edit]

The above apology for Hindutva is the kind of deception and whitewashing generally displayed by Hindutvavadis. Specially see the sign off with Jai Shri Ram (talk) --- a POV if I ever saw one. Sooku (talk) 02:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Lots of people think Vivekananda promoted nationalism. E.g., -- Unknown user, 14 November 2014

Indeed, Vivekananda had unsurpassed moral and spiritual authority and every word of what he said was true. He single-handedly put Hinduism on the map of world religions. I am sure it did a lot to uplift the spirits of Indians and Hindus, and awakened "national" feelings in them. But that is not to say that he was a nationalist, least of all a "Hindu nationalist!"
I am sure the Hindu nationalists love him, mostly because they still suffer from the low self-esteem that the Hindus of the 19th century colonial India had. However, the Hindu nationalists haven't read even a single speech of Vivekananda, except for those pithy slogans that arrive in the RSS pamphlets. Kautilya3 (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Use of {main} template[edit]

Do not use more than five articles with the main template. --Stbalbach 17:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

verify tag &pov issues[edit]

"brutal Muslim kings", "Valiant Hindu monarch-warriors", "heroes of Hindu nationalism" are pov.

verify tag because no sources are provided and for statements such as

  • "Hindu nationalism is the political and cultural expression of Indian nationalism distinctive to the Hindu people, adherents of Hinduism who form the vast majority of the population of India" (is "hindu nationalism" universally subscribed to, by all hindus, as implied here)
  • "roots of Hindu pride and nationalism go back to the history of India and the days of the Islamic empires in India" (do they? how does one verify that they do?)
  • when a small but militarily powerful Muslim population was economically and politically dominating the vastly Hindu populations of India. (was there economic domination? was there political domination of all india by muslims?)
  • "Hindus draw inspiration and pride from the Hindu empires of ...", (do they? how does one verify that they do, can sources be provided, again, do all hindus subscribe to this view?)
  • "Sikhs were the prime military forces protecting Hindu communities from Muslim pogroms and the vagaries of the Mughal Empire."

Doldrums 12:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

pov issues remains unaddressed, can u please post relevent quotes from sources provided which substantiate
  • economic domination of hindu population by muslims
  • the "sikhs were the prime ..." statement
Doldrums 07:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
ALL OF THESE POINTS are verified in the sources mentioned sir, and in most Indian history textbooks.

Perhaps you are not aware of the 1,000 years of the Delhi Sultanate and the Mughal Empire, which will answer all your points on Muslim economic and political domination.

The Khalsa was formed as a retaliation against Muslim pogroms of Sikhs and Hindus.

However, I understand your point on POV language which I will now edit out.

Jai Sri Rama!

Rama's Arrow 16:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

my search of the online sources provided did not turn up any support for the above assertions. perhaps you can be good enough to point them out individually, and to provide relevant quotes from history books which support these claims as stated in the article.

imo, this article suffers from problems of pov and verifiability and needs to be tagged as such. sample this from the opening paragraphs.

  • Hinduism has been the seen by many as the definitive element of ... life of the ordinary Indian for over five thousand years.
who is the ordinary indian? is he/she restricted to be a hindu, in which case this is a tautology. for a non-hindu indian how is this claim going to be verified?
  • The politics, science and learning, and the economy and administration in India evolved from Hindu tenets of religion, statecraft and culture.
not to the exclusion of classical european, islamic, modern european influences.
  • The roots of Hindu pride and nationalism go back to the history of India and the days of the Islamic empires in India, the Delhi Sultanate and the Mughal Empire, when a small but militarily powerful Muslim population was economically and politically dominating the vastly Hindu populations of India.
sources supporting a "hindu pride and nationalism" going back to the days of the sultanate & the mughals.
sources for blanket "economic domination", for that matter, "political domination" of hindus by muslims. at no point was all of india under muslim rule, economic domination in the form of revenue collection or trade regulation was practiced, even under muslim rulers, by both hindu and muslim feudetories and officials.
  • The main incitement of Hindu passions arise from the mass destruction of Hindu temples such as the Somnath Temple in Gujarat, the descretion of holy Hindu institutions in Ayodhya, Kashi, Mathura, Allahabad and Haridwar and the killings, lootings and rape of an indeterminate but large number of Hindus during a series of Islamic invasions from Afghanistan and Persia, by Muslim kings like Mahmud of Ghazni, Muhammad Ghori, Ahmed Shah Durrani and Nadir Shah.
how do u support this? opinions polls? of which period? do the sample attempt to cover all hindus?
what is a "indeterminate but large" number? 5? 500? 50,000, 5,00,000? is it larger compared to the killings, lootings and rape during conflicts between hindu rulers? sources.
  • Hindu monarch-warriors like Shivaji, Maharana Pratap and Prithviraj Chauhan were the earliest heroes of Hindu nationalism. Hindus draw inspiration and pride from the Hindu empires of the Gupta Dynasty, the Rajput kings of modern Rajasthan, the southern Vijayanagara empire of Karnataka and the Maratha Empire of modern day Maharashtra.
hindu nationalism of which period? modern-day? how do you know what hindus draw inspiration from? source opinion polls or quote these as statements of individuals or hindu leaders.
the maratha empire is not of "modern-day maharashtra".
  • The Sikh empire of Maharaja Ranjit Singh in Punjab and Kashmir is also key to Hindu pride and inspiration, as the Sikhs were the prime military forces protecting Hindu communities from Muslim pogroms and the vagaries of the Mughal Empire.
which "pogroms"? were sikhs the prime military forces protecting hindu communities everywhere in the mughal empire, from muslim pogroms?
  • Religious and conservative Indian Muslims considered the mainstream Indian nationalism of the 20th century to be the political expression of India's majority Hindu communities. Indeed, the rising Islamic fundamentalism and Muslim suspicion of the Indian National Congress caused conservative Hindus to re-define their own expression of nationalism and patriotism, precipitating of the formation of a more distinctly Hindu political and cultural nationalism.
these are unsupported claims. require quotes from those who u ascribe these views to.

Doldrums 13:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Answer to above questions[edit]

Dear Doldrums,

Let me first say that I'm already studying how to improve this article and others I've created to conform better with Wikipedia standards. I'm working on eliminating POV, but understand that this is a contentious issue and people will want to remove a lot of material that is justified in its presence.

Having said that, I must state that I disagree with you on virtually every point.

The status of this article should remain "NEEDS EXPANSION" becuase there is a lot of ground to cover before you can make any judgment on the article. It needs more information.

if u also feel that this article needs much work before it achieves npov and verifiability standards, i suggest that those tags be added to the article. another alternative is for u to develop the article "in peace" in ur user space and post it here once u feel that it has achieved the required degree of npov, verifiability. Doldrums 14:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


First off, all the sources I've listed are books, not online materials. I don't know what research you've done.

Arrow of the Blue-Skinned God discusses many things about Hindu nationalism, about Hindu and Indian history in the context of the Ramayana in modern Indian life.

Patel: A Life is a biography of Sardar Patel, but gives a plethora of information about the political environment, the events, and most importantly for here, the views of Congress politicians like Gandhi, Tandon and Patel himself on Hindu-Muslim questions, and the all important partition.

In addition, if you can procure the book you should check out the section regarding the annexation of Hyderabad, which concurrently discusses Hindu-Muslim history in India in several passages.

Hindutva is Hindutva, as per Savarkar.

Links to biographical and historical articles within Wikpedia are also references. Indeed, most of your questions would be answered simply by studying those articles.

statements in the article which are only substantiated by works such as the above must be quoted as such. there is a difference between saying "Hindu passions are aroused by <insert cause>" and saying "In his work ..., <insert author> asserts that hindu passions are aroused by ...". this is an issue of verifiability that i suggest u examine closely, as it crops up repeatedly in the article. note also that a wikipedia article cannot be the sole source of a statement in another wiki article.

Factual accuracy and NPOV[edit]

Sikh history=[edit]

  • Please read of Sikh history, the formation of Khalsa in a reputable book or right here on Wikipedia, to understand how Sikh military efforts and the Sikh kingdom helped avoid Muslim pogroms, of the likes perpetrated by Aurangzeb.

Note especially Guru Tegh Bahadur, who gave up his life to protect Kashmiri Hindus.

Destruction and Pogroms[edit]

Please read of the Ram Janmabhoomi Mandir dispute in Ayodhya. Understand that WHILE the dispute IS A DISPUTE, it is the assertion and belief of Hindu nationalists that a Ram temple is the right thing in terms of history and righteousness. Since this article is about Hindu nationalism, we cannot but help discuss the Hindu nationalist way of thinking clearly.

This article is about Hindu nationalist thinking - if talk Hindu nationalism regarding VHP, RSS, they claim its about all Hindus.

You are right that the language should be changed to distinguish the fact that not all Hindus subscribe to all this, but Hindu nationalism does.

Influence of Hinduism in India[edit]

  • Please see History of Hinduism. Especially note how Hinduism has been the largest religion in India for over 5,000 years, and it has deeply influenced and has been deeply influenced by religions like Sikhism, Jainism, Buddhism.

The existence of the caste system on a massive scale across India is one strong proof of the widespread influence of Hinduism on Indian life.

Please note that Islam and Christianity only came into picture 1,000 years ago. And even today, Hindus form over 80% of all Indians.


  • Please see the articles and books on the shastras, which were the formative body of knowledge in India. People like Aryabhatta whom we appreciate as ancient Indian scholars all studied this body of work, and worked by it.

The shastras are not exempt from Hindu classical studies, which includes religion, and things like Dharmasastra, which is the Hindu law body.

In freedom struggle[edit]

Muslim suspicion of Congress[edit]

Hindu heroes[edit]

  • You simply have to click on the links for Shivaji and Maharana Pratap to understand how they are heroes in India. If the material is already covered in other Wikipedia articles, then there is no need to prove it here, apart from providing the said link.

Hindu nationalism stretching far back=[edit]

The book by Rajmohan Gandhi incorporates a lot of material that describes how a lot of Hindus viewed the rule of Muslim monarchs in the 19th century and the 20th century.

The book by Jonah Blank incorporates feelings of ordinary Hindus he interviewed on historical Muslim rule, the temple issue, etc.

Hindutva gives you the data on how Hindu nationalists view Indian history, Muslim involvement, etc.

You must view this in the context of Oppressor - Oppressed. Hindus hailed people like Shivaji as heroes becoz they prevented Muslim rulers from conquering their lands, assailing their religion and life with things like jaziya tax (a classic example), and destroying their institutions.

Again, a lot of it is modern perspective from modern accounts, but Shivaji and Maharana Pratap are stuff of legends passed down hundreds of years in Rajasthan and Maharashtra.

They are a stuff of pride stretching hundreds of years, and this pride feeds Hindu nationalism. That's the assertion here. If its not correctly written, I will re-write it.

Definition of Hindu nationalism[edit]

You make a point about the definition applying to all Hindus. It is a valid query, but this article does not try to discover if Hindu nationalism is followed by all Hindus, but asserts the fact that Hindu nationalism is a body of expression adopted by millions of Hindus - as is evidenced by the popularity and membership of BJP, RSS, VHP.

The POV of Tilak, Shivaji, Savarkar, Patel, Maharana Pratap etc. are widely hailed and influencing of Hindus in the politics of India.

While there are millions of secular, liberal Hindus - most of the Congress Party is Hindu - this expression of idea is clearly the nationalism of Hindu society.

The language is erroneous, which I will correct now, but the assertion is valid.

Process of Improvement[edit]

Let me assert that this article is in the process of a major expansion, in which I plan to add a lot of materials.

You are right that especially the first section Foundations is not written well. It contains contentious assertions becoz there is no space to discuss all of Indian history, which is full of contentious materials.

Assertions of Hindu nationalist thought must be pointed out as such, and not as a generally accepted fact. At the same time, what is fact should be left as fact.

I will strive to improve it. Over the next month, this article will undergo a major renovation and expansion.

Jai Sri Rama!

Rama's Arrow 16:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Personal Note[edit]

At this point, there have been thousands of debates across Wikipedia that degenerate in a frenzy of hot language and defiant assertions.

I would like to say right now that I respect your POV and your work, and I do not desire for this to happen here, for then we will get nowhere.

You have many good points, upon which I'm acting, but I've provided the reference and backing for the data I've put into the article. If you can bring in referenced material as well, it will help the article's growth.

Jai Sri Rama!

Rama's Arrow 17:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


Hi Doldrums,

I will make the necessary corrections and re-organize and expand the article better with Wikipedia conventions. However I strongly object to posting any signs except the Expansion one, because I stand by the material I've put in, which is basically referenced and accurately founded, even though there are mistakes and problems. Please understand that books are considered better sources than most others.

I hope you understand that I will be able to make the corrections/expansion after one week. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you.

Jai Sri Rama!

Rama's Arrow 15:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

'Plain English' is written & read faster[edit]

There are a few examples of needlessly complex language on this page. This encyclopedia is for everybody, not just the linguistic elite. 'Plain English' is language that the intended audience can understand and act upon from a single reading.


What 'plain English' is NOT[edit]

  • It's not 'cat sat on the mat' or 'Peter and Jane' writing. Almost anything - from leaflets and letters to legal documents - can be written in plain English without being patronising or over-simple.
  • It doesn't mean reducing the length or changing the meaning of your message. Most of the UK's biggest insurance companies produce policies that explain everything fully in plain English.
  • It's not about banning new words, killing off long words or promoting completely perfect grammar. Nor is it about letting grammar slip.
  • It is not an amateur's method of communication. Most forward-looking senior managers always write in plain English.
  • And finally, it is not as easy as we would like to think.

Plain-English translation[edit]

  • Before: High-quality learning environments are a necessary precondition for facilitation and enhancement of the ongoing learning process.
  • After: Children need good schools if they are to learn properly.

See also Wikipedia:Guide to writing.

Veej 22:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

What this article needs[edit]

Can we present what this article needs to become a Good Article at the very least. It seems like there's a heap of potential for information. Please tell me what we want and I'll be happy to help. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

This article should acknowledge the nontrivial intellectual and political dissent within India with regard to Hindutva, and note that India is a pluralistic republic with a Hindu majority but not a Hindu nation. That said, in the long history of Hindus, violence against non-Hindus has been the exception, not the rule, and for good reason: Hinduism decrees respect (not merely tolerance) for all religions. By contrast, monotheists have butchered each other in the name of religion, and the carnage continues. These are all verifiable facts supported by references. The article should admit that Hindus have rioted at times, and minorities have genuine grievances, but the overall record of Hindutva is anything but bigoted. Sooku (talk) 02:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The article also needs to address a core foundational issue: how can you have Hindu nationalism without a Hindu nation? I submit that there is no such thing. Although the term "Hindu nationalism" is used by political opponents to discredit the so-called "Hindu nationalist party", the BJP, in fact the BJP's members and leaders include Muslims and Sikhs, and "inclusive development" is its election theme. This article should be re-titled simply "Hindutva" Sooku (talk) 03:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

who is savitri devi[edit]

the savitri devi part in this text is irrelevant. and to be frank, unknown in india. i shall be removing it if i dont have opposition, nids 13:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I support it's removal. "Savitri Devi" (not her real name) was a French woman named Maximiani Portas who had some pretty whacky ideas about National Socialism and has little to do with current Hindutva ideology.Netaji
I think you should leave a link somewhere. It's interesting article even she is a bit whacked.--D-Boy 18:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


I've added a lot of references. A lot more need to be added. I'll take this up slowly. Much weasel words have been replaced. Many remain :) Lot of work to be done! --BabubTalk 05:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Where does this 10,000 figure come from?[edit]

Provide references that the death toll during the Babri Masjid riots was 10,000 or thereabouts or off it goes into the abyss.Netaji 08:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Swatantra party[edit]

Swatantra Party was never associated with Hindu nationalism. It was essentially a pre-capitalist offshoot of INC. Minoo Masani, a Parsi, was the main leader of Swatantra Party after Rajaji.--Vikramsingh 17:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


Something should be said about Nepal, were a small Hindu nationalist movement exists. Like in India, it strives to define the country as 'Hindu Rashtra'. --Soman 15:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


I note Rama's Arrow's note on top that

This article aims to elaborate not only the political nationalism, which is covered by Hindutva, also more the historical foundations, and the religious, cultural expression of nationalism. Thus this is a much larger project and beyond just Hindutva

however, this is unclear. "Hindutva" is used synonymously with "Hindu nationalism", and Hindutva should also treat its history and religio-cultural expressions. Is this the "history" sub-article for "Hindutva" or what? Please try to figure out how exactly the scope is to be divided between the articles, and at least point out in what way "Hindu nationalism" is "much larger" than "just Hindutva", or merge them. thanks, dab (𒁳) 16:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


I am not a Muslim nor a Hindu, nor especially familiar with the history of the Indian sub-continent, but it is obvious to me that the following passage is just the outpouring of a Hindu nationalist. The last sentence especially is self-caricature. Can we not find some serious Indian historians to edit and correct this important topic?

"Moreover, the atrocities which resulted in killings of more than 50 million Hindus and raping and enslavement of millions of women, and several thousands others who were forced to self immolate themselves when faced with the inevitable prospect of capture. Worse, the Muslims had no sense of Indianness in their blood. They were more interested in the events of Turkey, and reestablishment of the disgraced Ottoman empire's Caliph rather than India's independence. The separatist Muslim mindset fueled by the fires of certain inflammatory passages of the Quran, looked upon Hindus as their chief enemies and maintained aspirations for converting India into an Islamic nation. Unfortunate anti national leaders like Gandhi and Nehru kept on appeasing such gory thinking"

Doug1943 06:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Doug1943

This is certainly inappropriate language. I have toned it down a bit, and it needs more work. BobFromBrockley 12:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
the article certainly needs constant monitoring and cleanup. The only topic with a comparable activity of nationalist editors is the Macedonia complex. It also needs to be merged to Hindutva, since, by both articles' admission, the terms are used interchangeably (see section above). dab (𒁳) 14:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

A lot of what is said on this page seems connected with the language and ideology of religious intolerance in current-day India. The term "Hindu nationalism" is itself problematic. Will we accept "Muslim nationalism" or "Sikh nationalism" or "Christian nationalism" in India? Or would we just call them what they are -- forms of sectarian (or, to use an Indian term, 'communal') ideology? Who decides?

The problematic aspects of Hindutva ideology seem to be systematically explained away or deleted, which I think is unfair too. Wikipedia's credibility could be dented if such propaganda gets through. --fredericknoronha (talk) 23:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Recent reverts[edit]

Laxman and Khatria edits, while sourced, do not belong in this overview article. Appropriately framed, they might be relevant elsewhere. Hornplease 12:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Hornplease will you please let me know where is the Appropriate place to put my edits? with Love John Paul 10:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
We have an article on the Tehelka scam, you might want to help contribute there. The Katara information can be added to Babubhai Katara or human trafficking-related articles. It isn't appropriate at this level, where we are talking about general characteristics of an ideology. Hornplease 06:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, it turns out we dont have an article, or at least I can't find it. Go ahead, create one. Hornplease 07:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for greate idea but sadly these great people are holding BJP highest posts and their character should be defined only under BJP. I know none would like talk about these great people but as citizen of India, I had respect their contribution to India and let the world know about it. with Love John Paul 11:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk about Sangh Parivar can be moved to the page created for it[edit]

This page has a huge section on Sangh Parivar here. The contents could well be moved to the Sangh Parivar page with just a mention of it in this page. Nihar S (talk) 12:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The Sangh Parivar can be dealt here in the context of this article. Yes, lot of content relates to the organisations and may not be of interest to this article. I will try my luck at changing it and putting some referenced content. Unrefernced content can be deleted Unspokentruth (talk) 16:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I see that most of it is the duplicate of the lines in individual pages. I am replacing it with some referenced content which fits the context of this page. Please let me know if there are any concerns. Unspokentruth (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Removing referenced content[edit]

I am waiting to see the discussion which has been suggested as justification for deleting well referenced and relevant content. While there is so much of unreferenced POV content in the article, it is sad that some would like to delete well referenced content. I have been trying to put content from renowned academics like Chetan Bhat, Manini Chatterjee etc to this page that has hardly any referenced content. I am waiting for the comments before I undo the deletionsUnspokentruth (talk) 13:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Removing unreferenced content[edit]

I am removing content that is unreferenced and has been challenged for monthsUnspokentruth (talk) 18:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Is the third paragraph of the lead true?[edit]

"In India, the term 'nationalism' doesn't have the negative connotations which it has in Western intellectual circles of post-Marxist orientation. On the contrary, the term is hallowed by its association with the freedom movement against British colonialism and the establishment of democracy."

I don't think that's totally correct. There is a notion of nationalism in India that might be a.) more socially-acceptable than nationalism is typically in the west, and b.) is, in some ways, anti-colonial, but I think there certainly are negative connotations to Hindu Nationalists in India. Further, India is as post-Marxist as any Western nation--far more so, in fact, considering things like the Naxalite movement. I get that there's something along the lines of the lead as it stands that is probably true, but right now, it's eyebrow-raising. I don't have access to the source, though. Any thoughts on ways to change it? (talk) 05:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Saffron Terror vs Hindu Nationalism[edit]

Saffron Terrorism is totally different from Hindu Nationalism. Hindu Nationalism is a feeling about the nation, culture etc., and has nothing to do with terrorism. Nationalism is an action or feeling to protect its uniqueness, the speciality. Terrorism is act of violence. While Nationalism has knowledge about the country, culture etc., terrorism does not has anything to do with that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akilash (talkcontribs) 03:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree. Hindu Nationalism has nothing to do with terrorism. Why Hindu Extremism redirects to Hindu Nationalism ? Extremism and Nationalism are different words with different background. I am removing redirection from the page. If anybody has an opinion to that please follow this discussion. Sarmadhassan (talk) 09:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree, Hindu nationalism has nothing to do with Saffron terror, Christian Terror, Islamist terror etc. The redirection is baseless.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 12:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


Great. "Hindu nationalism" is not in the text, nor is there the gratuitous reference to selectively quoted Golwalkar works. This is definite linkspam.Pectoretalk 01:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. Hindu nationalism has often flirted with fascism. The fact that a father of fascism seems to be accepted in India may be relevant. — goethean 02:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, "a father of fascism" is vaguely pejorative but nonspecific; a POV at best. The phrases "often flirted" and "seems to be accepted" fall in the category of suggestive innuendo. You need to back them up. Sooku (talk) 02:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

An "Out of India" section is called for.[edit]

Hindu Nationalism has spawned challenges to main stream scholarship of the Indo-Aryan and Indo-Iranian migrations. The central motivation was to challenge the self-image of Hindus as a perennially colonized people. Unfortunately, that is what the linguistic, archaeological and most critically, genetic evidence shows. People from Central Asia moved into the Indus River Valley and took over. It deserves a mention. (talk) 05:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


@Ghatus: I am not sure of the rationale for this edit: [1]. Are there any reliable sources that link these historical facts to "Hindu nationalism"? And, why is the medieval stuff removed? Kautilya3 (talk) 11:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

1) Medieval Hindu history was being repeated. So, I removed the first, and let the medieval history remain in the template and gallery form. The ancient history was not mentioned at all. So, it was added.

2) BJP publicly says in their website-History is the philosophy of nations. And the Sangh Parivar has a very clear and clear conception of Indian history. Here was a great civilization whose influence and imprint spread from Sri Lanka to Tibet, from Southeast Asia to Central Asia, from one end of the Indian Ocean to the other. It weathered the storms of invaders, from the Greeks to the Huns, from the Shakas to the Islamic armies of Turks and Afghans. It fought and resisted external oppression and its essential civilization and culture survived great challenges and attempts at effacement. The glory of Vijayanagara and the heroism of Maharana Pratap, of a Shivaji and of a Guru Govind Singh are testimony to the Indian spirit.

  • Who defeated the greeks?-(Maurya)
  • who defeated the Shakas?(Vikramaditya)
  • Cholas and Hindu Nationalism- RSS to mark millennium of Rajendra Chola - The Hindu(Oct 21, 2014)

None can ignore the Ancient part. And, it does not make any sense to repeat the middle age twice. I do not think those who fought against muslims are only hindu nationalists. No where is said by Savarkar/RSS that Hindu Nationalism is exclusively pro or against a particular religion, rather it was more of cultural and civilizational than of being religious. But, the history there was represented by only those who mainly fought against the muslims. It was also giving a wrong impression. Thanks. Ghatus (talk) 12:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

As for (1), text in captions of images can't be taken as the text of the article. Duplication between the two is perfectly fine.
As for (2), we don't exactly know what "Hindu nationalism" is, but similar ideas like "Hindu resurgence", "Hindu resistance" or "Hindu revival" have some rationale in being included here. My impression is that most of the text of this article is based on Girilal Jain's "Hindu phenomenon." So, we have a reliable source for that. I am not sure I want to call the BJP web site a reliable source. The history section here should be history of Hindu nationalism based on some source or the other, not "history of India" according to Hindu nationalists. Kautilya3 (talk) 13:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

What on earth is the History section for?[edit]

What on earth is the History section for? It covers ancient India, what does that have to do with Hindu nationalism? Ogress smash! 05:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I guess it is the Hindu nationalist's idea of Indian history :-) - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I think some purging of original research is called for here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


This page is full of peacock and weasel words and needs a serious degaussing. "Socially, he criticized the ongoing superstitions"... "the pinnacle indeed of the development of human's religiosity" ... "a vision of freedom and glory for India in the spiritual richness and heritage of Hinduism" ... and so forth. (It could also use basic copyediting, as the use of grammar and punctuation is often very irregular and this is an important article). Ogress smash! 15:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I am not disputing that; merely saying that the NPOV tag covers this. Peacock words are a specific form of NPOV violation; weasel words are another (although weasel words can be a problem otherwise, as well). Therefore, those tags are unnecessary. I agree that the article needs cleanup, and will probably do some myself, but the two extra tags do not help the process. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I wasn't contesting tag removal, I was just clarifying my specific POV concerns here on the talk page. Ogress smash! 22:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hindu nationalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

No Hindu in the definition?[edit]

Currently, the article begins with a definition: "Hindu nationalism has been collectively referred to as the expressions of social and political thought, based on the native spiritual and cultural traditions of historical Indian subcontinent."

It seems perverse to use a definition that does not mention Hinduism. The native spiritual and cultural traditions of the historical Indian subcontinent include Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism: Hindu nationalism is not inclusive of these. I think we need a better definition in the intro.Ordinary Person (talk) 10:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Apparently the Hindu nationalists include all such traditions within their purview. Do you have evidence to say otherwise? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)