Template talk:Hindu politics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject India / Politics (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This template is supported by the Indian politics workgroup.
WikiProject Hinduism (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject icon This template 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.
 NA  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Can any one explain ?[edit]

Adding Bal gangadhar Tilak in Hindu Politics? He was a national leader. Are trying to link him with BJP and shivsena of Today? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zyphee (talkcontribs) 14:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Including RSS[edit]

I'm not sure of including Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh/ Sangh Parivar here. Any opinions? --BabubTalk 09:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


'Hindu politics' is a bit strange wording, since it connotates that there would be a uniform Hindu polity. In fact Hindu voters and members are found across the political spectrum in India and Nepal. The are no specific 'Hindu parties' that universally represent Hindus. There is however, a Hindu nationalist movement. --Soman 07:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

However, not all parties in the movement claim to represent the political ideology of Hindu nationalism. So 'Hindu politics' would be an apt name for all those idelogies caliming to be inspired by Hinduism, like integral humanism etc. Also, discuss on the talk page before making any changes. I'll be reverting it right now. If you want, you can discuss it further here.--BabubTalk 07:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm doubtful as to whether CR/Swatantra ought to be classified as Hindu nationalist. However, otherwise all currents represented in the template fall into the category of Hindutva/Hindu nationalism. --Soman 08:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
No dude, Swatantra was an explicitly right-wing party and explained in its constitution that its aim was to establish Dharma. CR was also frustrated with the Nehruvian socialism, so he went on to found a party based on Gandhi's ideals and inspired by Hinduism. . So that's the reason I created it as Hindu politics. Integral humanism is not at all nationalist. In fact many outside the Sangh Parivar (who are nationalists) are against nationalism but claim to be inspired by Hinduism, like the Hindu political/history authors/commentators like Sita Ram Goel and Koenraad Elst. And regarding Hindu Mahasabha, there is a present-day version of it. Do u know anything about it? Could u create an article for it?
Again, as I explained, please discuss and then make changes. This would be convenient for everyone, including me--BabubTalk 08:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Right-wing is not the same as overtly 'Hindu'. The claim that the party's constitution stated that 'dharma' was the aim of the party is not sufficient evidence, even if cited, as the word itself can mean many things in a non-religious context. Further, given the composition of the party - including non-Hindus like Minoo Masani, for example - and its courting of the obviously atheist, anti-Brahminical Annadurai, I think it does not belong in this series, and neither does Rajaji. I am removing them soon unless I hear persuasive arguments. Hornplease 08:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll quote from the constitution of the party. That'll clear things up better. --BabubTalk 08:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
No updates. Am removing Rajaji and the SP from the template. Hornplease 03:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't change before discussing[edit]

Firstly, have you seen that Hindu nationalism is a topic within the template under Ideas? Secondly, have you even seen Hindu politics? If you have any concerns on the title, you can air them on that page's talk page. Hindu nationalism is an ideology of some organisations. BJP doesn't even subscribe to it. Refer its constitution. If you have some some secondary sources alleging to the contrary, then they are over-ruled by the primary source of BJP's own constitution. What Hindu politics means is, a broader movement of Hindus trying to fight for their rights as a community. Refer Koenraad Elst, Decolonizing the Hindu mind. There is nothing to suggest Hindu nationalism is the only idealogy all members of this movement follow.--BabubTalk 08:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Swatantra party[edit]

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

Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay, Bal Gangadhar Tilak[edit]

Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay, Bal Gangadhar Tilak have been added. I think we can perhaps add Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya.

Independent Authors[edit]

Can we change this title to simply 'Writers on Hindutva'? The degree of their independence is disputed, given that Shourie was a BJP mp and Elst himself has noted that "there are many people more important in Hindutva than myself." Hornplease 00:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

And in the same article he has noted:Anyone who has read my book BJP vis-à-vis Hindu Resurgence (1997) will be surprised to see me described as an “advocate of the Sangh Parivar”. I suppose that in a world of partisan scholarship, where the party-line is scrupulously followed by activists and camp-followers alike, any attempt to remain objective must come across as counter-partisan, meaning partisan activism for the opposite side. Hindutva is a fairly crude ideology, borrowing heavily from European nationalisms with their emphasis on homogeneity. Under the conditions of British colonialism, it was inevitable that some such form of Hindu nationalism would arise.
Why are you only citing that one sentence without the others. This is not honest.--Bondego 11:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hindu-tattva (Hinduness) . Elst is a Christian, how can he follow Hindutva? Sikandar Bakht, george Fernandes , and Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi were also in the BJP. Does being Hindu disqualify being independent? Bakaman Bakatalk 00:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Why on earth do you turn up everywhere that I make a suggestion? Seriously, I'm thinking of quitting editing India-related articles altogether thanks to the degree of combativeness you and one or two other editors have been displaying over the last few months. Anyway, the point here that if the BJP is considered Hindu nationalist, then an author who is a member is hardly 'independent'. And about Elst's Christianity, I am not sure about it - he declares on his website that he is more 'pagan' than anything else, whatever that means. In any case, he has clearly made the statement I quoted above, which means he isnt precisely independent either. Please try and be reasonable. Hornplease 01:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Wow why are you such a poor sport? I have never thought of quitting even when hounded by Missionairy users, the Muslim guild (actual Wikiproject) and so on. Bankim Chandra is way before the Hindutva movement. Lal and Swarup has never been affiliated to the Sangh. I probably should add Will Durant and Daniel Pipes.Bakaman Bakatalk 01:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I just dont want to spend all my wp-related time arguing. I was not claiming that Bankim was not 'independent', and I know nothing about Swarup. I just know that the other two are not really 'independent', and so, if they are retained, the title should be changed. I cant see why that is controversial. Hornplease 02:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
This is your personal opinion. Somebody who is objective might say that he is as independent as the average political writer in India or elsewhere. --Bondego 11:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I re-enter this discussion. I still do not see why a set of writers, all of whom are notably sympathetic to the aims and worldview of most of the organs of political Hinduism, are being described as 'independent'. Why is 'related' authors not satisfactory? Hornplease 11:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Independent because they aren’t members of the RSS, BAPS, VHP, PHDI or other orgs associated with the modern Hindu revivalism.Bakaman 19:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

That does not indicate that all those mentioned are known to be sympathetic to political Hinduism, and so the word 'independent' seems out of place. Can you please tell me why 'related' is not satisfactory. Hornplease 10:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I see no response to this point; it has been months. Unless an adequate response is forthcoming, I will make the change when next online. (Two months from now?)Hornplease 09:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

collapsible list[edit]

The sidebar, for which this template was made is growing too large. I think we should change over to collapsible list. Any opinions? Nihar S (talk) 12:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Would you do it, or do I try? Unspokentruth (talk) 15:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


Political Neologisms are not something by which a politcial ideology is understood. They can atmost form part of criticisms. Neologisms are not the best forms of criticisms too. They only lead to rethorical poistions hence evade an academic understanding. Hence removing neologisms from the listNihar S (talk) 08:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent removals[edit]

I just removed a few links from this template, because the ones removed were far less notable than the rest, and therefore created problems of due weight. Kailashpati Mishra, for instance, has barely a stub article, and has orders of magnitude fewer references to him in the literature than the other figures. I also tweaked "exponenents" to "figures" because there isnt very much literature supporting calling Tagore an "exponent" of Hindu politics, even though he was influential. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Section Heading Change[edit]

There is currently a section in this template titled "independent authors." As of now, it includes people such as Arun Shourie, who cannot be classified as independent (Shourie is/was a member of the BJP). On the other hand, at least a couple of there are notable enough authors on the subject in their own right, and so should perhaps remain in the template. Therefore, we need some clarity on what exactly that section is designed for, and need to tweak it appropriately. The solution that occurs to me is to simply change it to "Authors" and leave it at that. Thoughts? Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of New independent Authors in Hindu Politics[edit]

Recently I saw two new emerging notable independent authors who usually write on Hindu Mythology in India.Such as Devdutt Pattanaik and Amish Tripathi.Can we add these two names in template of Hindu Politics.Waiting for your reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I reverted their addition here, because I didn't see any connection to Hindu politics. If there is indeed a connection, please establish it on their individual pages first, using reliable sources. - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

For Amish Tripathi, he himself declared Hindu writer without any hesitation on Swarajya magazine in article "An Interview with Amish Tripathi" http://swarajyamag.com/magazine/an-interview-with-amish-tripathi/ and he has written books on Shiva, Ram and other gods and goddess of Hinduism in modern ways which make not only an author but independent too.

For Devdutt Pattanaik, he has written books which relates business to Indian mythology in general and Hindu mythology in particular. eg. My Gita , 7 Secrets of Shiva,Vishnu and Hindu Calendar and many other. He writes may articles on Hinduism and Indian Politics;recently on Holy cows,Unholy violence etc. He is famous for his speeches given by him on national and international platforms on Hinduism, India and business.

So, I believe they are modern writers of Hinduism making religion more interesting. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

If you want to add any pages, the pages themselves should discuss the connection to Hindu politics supported by reliable sources. And, no "Hindu writing" is not Hindu politics. - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

So does that means Hinduism is only subject to politics not to its scriptures and their interpretations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)