User talk:Surendra07

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome![edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! S Philbrick(Talk) 13:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 2019[edit]

Copyright problem icon Your addition to Santal people has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Annihilate brahminical patriarchy[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to insert fringe or undue weight content into articles, you may be blocked from editing. Articles on Wikipedia do not give fringe material equal weight to majority viewpoints; content in articles are given representation in proportion to their prominence. Kancha Ilaiah is a known anti-Brahmin and a Hinduism hater -he is not a neutral source on varna of people not is he a religious scholar or historian. Please do not add his propaganda to caste pages as it is WP:FRINGE. His fake statements are contradicted by many modern scholars and are intentionally false and inflammatory. If you keep on with your anti-Hindu propaganda, you will be reported to admins. Acharya63 (talk) 10:58, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Acharya63

I thought would not dignify your 'anti-Brahmin Propaganda' but then I thought should set things straight. Caravan Magzine is reputed source and I don't think they are was you call fringe group. I am sure you have never read it but a lot of renowned personalities do. Check out their website. Also, what you said about Kancha Ilaiah is true because he is a Shudra, like Tharoor. Shudras exist because Brahmins created the caste system. I am waiting for you to substantiate your contentions of him being false and inflammatory. I am not anti-Hindu, I am anti-caste but I guess as Kancha Ilaiah wrote, they are one and the same. I am anyway bringing this editions and deletions to the notice of the Wikipedia. Let them decide what has to stay and what has to go. Good luck Acharya. May caste be annihilated as Ambedkar wanted. But I guess, till the time we have people who really can't seem to understand and appreciate freedom of speech and expression in Article 19 and call whatever they do not like as propaganda, and a lie, we will never become a developed country which values its citizens for its equal worth. That's exactly why Kancha Ilaiah is against Hinduism-its adherents are not keen to have everyone equal- which again is a constitutional guarantee.

PS: I specialise in international human rights and constitutional law. Would love to see how this goes.

Surendra07 (talk) 11:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)--Surendra07 (talk) 11:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC) S[reply]

It is good if caste system is eliminated (Hindus should get united) - but there is nothing wrong with Hinduism principles IMO. Most Brahmins were good people. There might have been a few exceptions. But you should not blame all Brahmins. There were also a lot of upper caste (non-Brahmin) reformers who fought for dalits. Most Hindus(including Brahmins) do not like the caste system. But you cannot go about adding people's varnas on their webpages based on Mr.Ilaiah's writings - please see [[WP::FRINGE]]. For sensitive topics like varna, we are very careful and do not add unnecessarily negative opinions unless they are supported by a large number of academic scholars and explained properly. Here Delhi university professors are saying that his writings are not factual and are intentionally vitriolic towards Hindus. As you know, Brahmins are currently under lot of pain in India due to discrimination against them in education and jobs. I want India to progress but it will happen when everyone has equal opportunity and only merit is given importance, not caste based reservation. With respect I say that Mr.Ilaiah should read some hindu texts that say that caste system was not by birth. Buddhism is definitely a great religion and Buddha was a great man. You may know that Hindus consider Buddha as an incarnation of Vishnu. I personally like Buddhism a lot and have a number of books on it but I also do Vedic rituals and there is no hate in either religion. Yes, I agree that Dr.Ambedkar and dalits were treated very harshly and it should not have happened. Coming back to the edits, there is no reason to add Shahsi Tharoor's varna on his webpage. It shows intent to intentionally hurt and write inflammatory stuff that does not have a consensus from scholars. Delhi university professors have said the same. Please see the link below. https://www.news18.com/news/india/kancha-ilaiahs-books-vitriolic-towards-hindu-faith-must-be-removed-from-reading-list-demand-du-teachers-1918875.html. Thanks Acharya63 (talk) 11:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Acharya63,

Don't be an apologist for Brahmins. I am against Brahminism and Brahminical patriarchy and not against Brahmins per se. Upper castes are richer and more represented than any other castes. https://indianexpress.com/article/india/upper-caste-hindus-richest-in-india-own-41-total-assets-says-study-on-wealth-distribution-5582984/.

I was waiting for citation to include scholars and historians. But I am disappointed by my expectation as I should have known as it does not exist. Your only citation is a news article from News18 which is corporately owned (Reliance took over in 2014). Having gone through the same, all it says that few teachers in Delhi University are of the opinion that I would also recommend reading https://scroll.in/article/899691/interview-du-professor-on-why-university-dronacharyas-want-kancha-ilaiahs-books-from-syllabus https://thewire.in/education/delhi-university-political-science-kancha-ilaiah-dalit. Maybe you should be courageous enough to read Kancha Ilaiah as Kancha Ilaiah’s writings are provocative, but that’s no reason for Delhi University to drop him. Professor Kancha Ilaiah provides a counter-narrative to the dominant politico-cultural thoughts. If the university system is not allowed to engage with contrarian ideas, then that will be the end of the quest for knowledge. It’s strange that some political science teachers of Delhi University do not want their students to study the texts produced by a professor of their own discipline whose works are immensely popular. One of the largest publishers of academic books, Sage, has published one of Kancha Ilaiah’s books. These books are part of the suggested reading list for one of the optional papers in M.A. course of the political science department in DU. Professor N. Sukumar is offering this optional paper, titled Dalit Bahujan Political Thought. In this paper, students are supposed to study thinkers and philosophers like Buddha, Kabir, Ravidas, Jyotiba Phule, B.R. Ambedkar, Tarabai Shinde and Kanshi Ram. The objective of the course is to “focus on the political thoughts of Dalit Bahujan thinkers in India, as the pedagogy has remained exclusive to the various egalitarian ideas put forward by Dalit Bahujan thinkers”.In its preface, he mentions what this book is all about. “I am not writing this book to convince suspicious Brahminical minds; I am writing this book for all those who have open minds. My request to Brahmin, Baniya and Neo-Kshatriya intellectuals is this: For about three thousand years you people learnt only how to teach and what to teach others – the Dalit Bahujans. Now in your interest and the interest of this great country, you must learn to listen and to read what we have to say. A people who refuse to listen to new questions and learn new answers will perish and not prosper.”

To engage with such a scholar, we must have the courage of George Orwell, who famously said, “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear”.

Kancha Ilaiah is the author of several political science and sociological texts, but their theoretical foundation is one. He believes that Dalit Bahujan and Brahmin-Baniya culture in India are competing against each other, and knowledge and science in India have not developed much because there has been a dominance of Brahmin-Baniya non-productive culture for a long time.

In Why I am not a Hindu, he propounds that Dalitisation of the society is a prerequisite for a developed nation. He goes on to say, “Yet another major area of Dalitisation will be to push the Brahmin-Baniyas into productive work, whether it is rural or urban. Both men and women of the so-called upper castes will resist this with all the strength at their command. This is because among them Hinduism has destroyed all positive elements that normally exist in a human being. Their minds are poisoned with the notion that productive work is mean and that productive castes are inferior. No ruling class in the world is as dehumanised as the Indian brahminical castes. They can be rehumanised only by pushing them into productive work and by completely diverting their attention from the temple, the office, power-seeking, and so on.” Kancha Ilaiah considers Gautam Buddha to be one of the finest thinkers of the world. In his PhD thesis God as Political Philosopher, he argues that in many ways Buddha is a greater philosopher and political thinker as compared to Aristotle, Plato, Confucius and Kautilya. Professor Ilaiah believes that knowledge is gained not by studying texts, but during the production process. Therefore, he rejects shastras and scripture-based knowledge and strives to establish the knowledge tradition of farmers, artisans and tribals. He is also known for a comparative study between Brahmin culture and productive culture in terms of language, behaviour patterns, food habits and man-woman relationship. https://theprint.in/opinion/delhi-university-should-have-the-courage-to-read-kancha-ilaiah/143703/. Scholars of social sciences write and teach from particular ideological and political frameworks, and to expect them to be “objective” or “non-partisan,” without any sensitivity to questions of power, takes away much needed perspectives of the marginalised sections of society in academia. Any critique of an academic work should stem not from unwillingness to deal with complex or discomfiting ideas, but from close reading and engagement. This article discusses these aspects in light of the recent call to ban Kancha Ilaiah Shepherd’s books from the University of Delhi’s MA Political Science reading list, as well as other instances of such interference in university curriculum in recent years.

On 24 October 2018, the Standing Committee on Academic Affairs of the University of Delhi (DU) proposed a ban on three books authored by Kancha Ilaiah Shepherd—Why I Am Not a Hindu: A Sudra Critique of Hindutva Philosophy, Culture and Political Economy; God as Political Philosopher: Buddha’s Challenge to Brahmanism; and Post Hindu India—from the MA syllabus of the Department of Political Science. These texts are part of two courses titled “Dalit Bahujan Political Thought” and “Social Exclusion: Theory and Practice” (Roy Chowdhury 2018). The academic council is yet to take a final decision on the issue, but the department has decided to continue teaching the course. The university is currently engaged in revising the syllabi of postgraduate courses to fit the Choice Based Credit System (CBCS) format, and certain groups of teachers have used this occasion to get “controversial” books removed from post-graduate reading lists of the history, political science, and sociology departments.

Calls for bans on books that some political or ideological groups find provocative are not new in Indian universities; but over the last few years, the frequency of such incidents has increased at an alarming rate. In August 2018, the Standing Committee on Academic Affairs in DU asked for removal of Nandini Sundar’s Subalterns and Sovereigns: An Anthropological History of Bastar and Archana Prasad’s Against Ecological Romanticism: Verrier Elwin and the Making of an Anti-modern Tribal Identity from a course offered at the Department of History (Iftikhar 2018). This was done after some members alleged that these books “glorified Naxalism” and “legitimised religious conversions.” In 2017, Sundar’s book, Flames in the Forest, was sought to be removed from the MA Sociology reading list after some teachers of the National Democratic Teachers’ Front (NDTF) opposed its contents. In 2016, Dinanath Batra wrote to the Ministry of Human Resources Development asking for the complete removal of historian Bipin Chandra’s book Bharat ka Swantantrata Sangharsh because it used the word “revolutionary terrorists” to refer to Bhagat Singh and other figures in the national movement (Economic Times 2016).

This trend of interference in university curricula and activities has been visible at least for a decade. In 2011, A K Ramanujan’s celebrated essay, Three Hundred Ramayanas: Five Examples and Three Thoughts on Translation was removed from the MA History reading list in DU after Hindutva groups, including teachers and students, objected to it. The ban was initially suggested in 2008, but at that time, the department refused to remove it even after it was attacked by members of the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) and the head of the department was forced to take refuge inside his office (Vijetha 2011). In Mumbai University, Rohinton Mistry’s novel, Such a Long Journey, was excised from the BA English reading list in 2010, after Shiv Sena activists (led by Aditya Thackeray, then a third year student of history at the university) opposed it for “using insulting language” against the party and its leader, Bal Thackeray. Aditya Thackeray said that the book was being forced upon students, when, in fact, it was an optional text in the reading list (Burke 2010).

Universities Are Microcosms of the Nation It is useful to look at some of the patterns that emerge from these incidents. In one sense, they point to the fact that our universities are not ivory towers. They are microcosms of the nation, and hence, reflect the political struggles between rival visions of what kind of a society we ought to be. Any thriving university has a diversity of intellectual approaches and political ideals among its faculty, and this is reflected in its teaching and research. Hence, among students and faculty, we have left liberals, practitioners of various religions, supporters of Hindutva, and so on, who have very clearly defined positions on various issues. However, what is observable now is that these are not so much an interaction of diverse ideas, as demands for outright bans on texts that are uncomfortable for particular reasons: for pointing out the plural nature of Hindu textual traditions as in Ramanujan’s essay; for being critical of political parties whose popularity rests on identity politics; for being critical of the state’s militaristic approach to the problem of insurgency, as in Nandini Sundar’s work; for being a forceful anti-Brahminical critique of caste as in Kancha Ilaiah’s work; or for using a term like “revolutionary terrorist” that had a very different meaning in a historical context, but is associated by the Hindu right only with a certain community today.

In other words, it appears that there is a growing inability and unwillingness to deal with nuanced and layered thinking. It seems that the decisions to ban these works are being taken on the insistence of people who do not have the willingness to thoughtfully engage with the books in question, and who have no subject expertise. For example, as media reports show, many members of the academic council of DU who opposed Kancha Ilaiah’s book had a problem with the title of the book and the fact that it has no footnotes or citations, but they did not provide a detailed or nuanced argument against it (Mohanty 2018). In the case of Nandini Sundar’s book, The Burning Forest: India’s War in Bastar, a member of the academic council opposing it, asked the head of the Department of Sociology to “tell us the content of the book” (Chettri 2017). This raises questions about the complicated nature of academic freedom, about who should make decisions about university curriculum, the politically fraught nature of the humanities and social sciences in our time, and the shrinking space for critical thought.

A close reading of the call for removing Kancha Ilaiah’s books and the proposal to ban the word “Dalit” from academic discourse reveals the kind of debates that are taking place on the ground regarding academic freedom. The opposition to these texts has come from within the teaching community of the university itself. The teachers are deeply divided in terms of their different visions for the university and their different political ideologies. Those proposing the ban seem to be using certain terms and ideas that those who oppose the call for ban would find hard to disagree with. For instance, Geeta Bhatt, a member of the Standing Committee emphasised that universities should foster thinking individuals and that reading lists and courses should include different perspectives. One could agree with her point that the university should indeed nurture thinking, but her understanding of inclusivity is rather vague. She suggested that there are other works that have titles similar to Ilaiah Shepherd’s book. For instance, in her opinion, Bertrand Russell’s Why I am not a Christian and Ibn Warraq’s Why I am not a Muslim are works that need to be included. When it was pointed out that these works would not be relevant in a course on Dalit–Bahujan political thought or social exclusion, she responded that perhaps they could be included in another course that was more relevant. When asked whether the banning of Ilaiah Shepherd’s books did not violate the very principle of inclusivity she was talking about, she questioned the scholarly credentials of Why I am not A Hindu, saying that there were no footnotes or citations, and termed it a “polarising text.”[1] Ilaiah Shepherd, in his press statement, responded to the call for a ban by asking whether Savarkar and Golwalkar’s works, which his opponents wanted to include in the syllabus, had the scholarly credentials they were looking for. He argued that this was a clear attempt to crush diversity of thought in the university, that should be a space where “a hundred ideas clash”(Ilaiah Shepherd 2018).

Knowledge Production, Politics, and the Social Sciences The demand for the ban brings to the fore the complicated relationship between knowledge production in the social sciences and questions of politics and power. The social sciences and humanities are the most vulnerable to the threat of state power or the power of political groups. While a detailed comparison is not attempted here, it may be mentioned that scientific research too often faces the pressures of business interests or national interests, particularly in areas such as defence, genetic engineering, and pharmaceuticals. Modern social sciences and humanities disciplines like history, political science, economics, sociology and literature closely examine society, political economy, culture, and the historical process that formed them. They may seem disturbing or challenging as they question the existing social structures and hierarchies, also leaving them open to political retribution from the state and various political groups. Several commissions on education in India have stressed on the need to protect the freedom of academics within the university to engage in critical enquiry without fear of interference from the state or politically powerful groups. The Radhakrishnan Commission of 1948 envisioned university autonomy within the framework of the constitutional principle of liberty, particularly against any interference by the state (GoI 1962).[2]

The history of politics on campuses shows that intolerance to dissenting voices has not been the preserve of any one ideological group. The historian Dilip Menon (2017) pointed out that from the 1970s through to the 1990s, left student organisations, in the name of revolutionary progress, particularly in Kerala and West Bengal, violently suppressed any signs of nuance or freedom of expression on campuses, and even teachers were not spared. In the case in question in DU, many of the members of the standing committee who opposed Ilaiah Shepherd’s books are members of the NDTF, known for its right-wing ideological leanings. The NDTF has also taken the lead in opposing the works of Nandini Sundar, Archana Prasad and Kancha Ilaiah Shepherd from being included in the syllabus (Chettri 2017; Iftikhar 2018; Mohanty 2018). Such incidents may not always be related to the central government, but to local political struggles for dominance in campuses. In the controversy over Ramanujan’s essay in the DU history department in 2008, the ABVP was involved in an act of vandalism and made threats of physical violence, even at a time when a different government was in power at the centre.

There are standards of quality in research that are determined by experts in different disciplines. However, scholars also interpret or read their evidence and make judgements from distinct methodological or theoretical perspectives, political convictions, and ethical principles. There is a complex relationship between scholarly work carried out within the disciplinary community according to the prevailing methodological conventions, and scholarly work that is also informed by radical political convictions, that might question these conventions. The latter are often charged with bringing in political bias in contravention of disciplinary standards, and they, in turn, may question those very disciplinary frameworks. But within a university, it is important that both these kinds of works are treated not as given, but are read critically. Problems arise when there is complete disregard for evidence, lack of engagement with scholars working in the same field, refusal of critique, and the expectation that students will accept certain political beliefs as self-evident.

Those who suggested the ban have opposed Ilaiah Shepherd’s books on the grounds of them being “anti-Hindu” and “polarising,” along with a call to follow a “non-partisan” approach while selecting texts for reading lists. Does being non-partisan mean ignoring important questions of social hierarchy, domination, and exploitation in social science research? Ilaiah Shepherd does write from a particular perspective informed by his close observation of evidence. Anyone who makes an effort to read his work would see that his deep anti-Brahminical and egalitarian convictions go hand in hand with the painstaking scholarly attention he pays to the lifeworld of Dalits and Bahujans. Moreover, he critiques academics and political leaders of every ideological stripe on the issue of caste discrimination (Ilaiah Shepherd 2002). Questions have been raised about his research method due to its unconventional nature. He adopts an experiential, ethnographic framework of analysis, eschewing the conventions of referencing, relying on his own and others’ organic knowledge of Dalit and Bahujan life. His provocative and angry tone has infuriated readers, not only those who disagree with his arguments. Susie Tharu (1996), however, has drawn attention to certain problems and questions. She says that Ilaiah Shepherd’s analysis of the caste struggle as the central social fault line, and the Brahmin–Dalit Bahujan binary as the primary one can run into the same problems as the category of class, and asks whether gender and community can be conflated with issues of caste. Those who read his work need not share his convictions, or agree with everything he writes, but they must also not dismiss his work merely because it is informed by a perspective.

The same is also true in the case of disciplines that explore issues of race, gender, or disability, where scholarship rests on different perspectives and often has political ramifications. This is important because, in this whole controversy, scholars have been trading charges of being politically biased and ideologically skewed, whereas the issue really is whether one is willing to read and understand any writing with the critical attention that it merits. The historian Joan Scott, in an essay on academic freedom, writes, “a woman historian is not just a historian with female genitals, but one who might bring different perspectives to her work” (Scott 2009). She points out that often, when scholars bring their particular perspectives to bear on their disciplines, they end up interrogating the organising principles and the presuppositions undergirding their disciplines. When feminist historians questioned what counts as history, and when they treated histories of gender as not just another topic, but something that questioned the way history writing was carried out, they often were accused of ideological bias (Scott 2009).

This kind of disciplinary politics is also seen in the context of the current book ban. N Sukumar revealed in a statement that he was the first Dalit faculty member to be appointed under the reservation policy in the department. When he joined in 2001, only thinkers like Manu, Kautilya, Gandhi and Tagore were taught in a course on Indian political thought. It was after years of acrimonious debates that they introduced Jinnah, Iqbal, and Ambedkar. Sukumar felt that a separate course was needed to engage with Dalit and Bahujan political thought and that is how this course was introduced along with one on social exclusion. Dalit scholars like him have had to question what counts as Indian political thought and what counts as legitimate knowledge (Roy Chowdhury 2018).

Decision Making Bodies and Recalcitrant Departments Many of my fellow students, in their response to this suggested ban, were deeply concerned that those who had no expertise in the subject, and those clearly driven by a political agenda were making decisions about what we should read. There is very little transparency on how the Standing Committee on Academic Affairs is constituted and hardly any answers on why those who have no subject expertise, are given the power to force departments to remove certain texts from the syllabus. How is it that the groups like the ABVP and the NDTF have managed to exert this kind of influence with decision-making bodies, even when there are dissenting voices within these bodies that have called for preserving a culture of debate and critical enquiry? Many of those who opposed the books written by Ilaiah Shepherd, Nandini Sundar and Archana Prasad, stated that these textbooks are “not fit for students” or “not suitable for students” (Iftikhar 2018).

In fact, it is when students, at least in this university, reach the MA level, that some of them begin to learn to think critically or read serious texts in their discipline. A teacher in one of the colleges of the university, on the condition of anonymity, pointed out that for most of her students, social media platforms like WhatsApp and Facebook are the chief sources of information. Many of these students struggle financially and come from schools where they receive little training in critical thinking. Further, this teacher pointed out that almost none of her colleagues encourage critical thinking among these students, and are themselves ardent supporters of the current political dispensation.

In a context like this, the MA courses in the university, which are much more intensive, and call for a closer engagement with professors, with important texts and ideas, can be an important avenue for students to learn to think critically instead of making judgments without engaging with a text. At this level, students are expected to not just be familiar with the arguments of certain authors, but to reflect on the methods employed in the production of that knowledge and the assumptions underlying it. The students themselves come with a lot of questions from their own social backgrounds, and their reading can help them in thinking about these questions.

In Conclusion While the political science department has, for the time being, decided to go ahead with teaching these texts, we do not know whether the Academic Council will take this suggestion on board. In 2008, the history department resisted in the face of vandalism by the ABVP, but eventually, the Academic Council voted against the Ramanujan essay, even though the majority of the members of a court-ordered expert committee (whose membership was kept confidential) found no issues with the text. The department was left with no choice but to give in. Over time when departments are faced with these relentless assaults, many members begin to have misgivings about resistance, for fear of the consequences involved. This has been seen in the circumspect way in which the history department has responded to objections to Nandini Sundar’s and Archana Prasad’s books, and how the sociology department too took over a year to finally consider including Flames in the Forest in the syllabus. I have been a student of history at DU for almost a decade now. Over the course of my studies, I have been exposed to many new texts and ideas, several of which led me to critically interrogate my own social and religious background. At several points, I have felt discomfort, but at no point have I ceased to listen, read, and think both from a posture of humility, and also of curiosity about how other scholars with very different intellectual, cultural and social backgrounds make sense of the world. This process has only helped me to become a more reflexive person and student. I write this article in the hope that spaces to engage with ideas, with other minds radically different from their own, will be protected for future students of our universities. See also https://www.epw.in/engage/article/proposed-ban-kancha-ilaiah-shepherd-book-delhi-university-questions-future-critical-thought

Would end the thread by saying that the recommendation was rejected. https://www.telegraphindia.com/india/du-teachers-back-ilaiah-books/cid/1673548. Hence Kancha Illiah is not what you said.

In conclusion, I want my addition of Tharoor's caste to stay unless you can give me good reason along with citation to bolster and support what you have said. For me, the constitution trumps everything and explicitly discrimination on the basis of caste and untouchability. I wish we can rise above caste someday but that day is far. I think the edition should stay as Tharoor is a Nair and he is a Shudra.

PS: It has been nice to have had a conversation. I hope you see the reason why it should stay. Let's resolve it by consensus.

--Surendra07 (talk) 12:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

S

Dear Surendra,
I do not agree with the banning of books in general. However, academicians do have the right to talk about the quality and bias of the books. There are many questions when contentious material is added on wikipedia. 1)Is the writer reliable or neutral - please see WP:NPOV? It means is the writer biased or has some agenda - like conversion?2)Is the varna relevant? 3)Is it WP:FRINGE? 4)Is the writer an expert on the topic? Is the opinion contradicted by other sources? For example: Is there a consensus among scholars that Nairs are shudras? If not, then it would be unfair to add a single opinion of a polemicist on the page of a person. Sorry, I am not from south India and do not know anything about Nairs or the caste system in Kerala. If there is no consensus, and the source is neutral, high quality and academic in nature (researcher/historian), then it would be appropriate to add the opinion on the caste page rather than the page of the person unless his varna was somehow relevant to his notability (for example we do not add Dr.Bababsaheb Ambedkar's views on varna on many caste pages as his writings are considered controversial). For example,[1] was removed. In general, polemicist sources should be avoided. Bhatt says :These books by Kancha Ilaiah are vitriolic towards Hindu faith,” Bhatt said,(in the newspaper link above), terming the author’s writing as unsubstantiated by facts.She added that Ilaiah wrote about how “Hindutva school wants me to treat my Christian and Muslim brothers as enemies” and how “the very sight of saffron tilak harasses him”.“He has problems with a word like ‘tapasya’. It is all about his mind and his understanding of a faith. As an academic piece, there is no content in it and no reason to teach it. His every book has this vitriol,” Bhatt said. The books by Ilaiah were also objected to in the last meeting. Here the issue is not that he dislikes hinduism. He can criticize it as much as he wants and that is allowed by the Indian constitution. The issue is that a professor is saying that "his writings are not substantiated by facts". I have studied caste system at an academic level ( I am in the US) but I do not know about all castes - especially south Indian castes. Generally, polemicists are avoided in academic citations as they have an agenda(the agenda may be good, I am not saying the agenda is bad). As an example, please see this edit made by a very senior and respected (and non-biased) editor Sitush on wikipedia. [2]. Here "Koenraad " is a Hindutva activist and hence his controversial reference on the Godse page was not allowed because it would be unnecessarily inflammatory. Same biased issue is here and hence removed [3] as the sources are by converts or people promoting other religions etc. None of the sources are historians so it is unfair to defame a community based on statements by activists. Second, if Nairs are classified as upper castes (I do not know about them honestly) by even one or two sources that wikipedia considers reliable, adding that Shashi Tharoor is a shudra would be libel and slander. Don't you agree? Again, I do not know anything about the Nair community but my arguments are more about wikipedia policies about such issues. Thanks Acharya63 (talk) 03:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Acharya63

Thank you for the response. I am not sure if you did read the links sent (EPW, Scroll.in. TheWire etc.)in response to one news article on News18. To the specific questions, 1)Is the writer reliable or neutral - please see WP:NPOV? I would say yes.

It means is the writer biased or has some agenda - like conversion?2)Is the varna relevant? 3)Is it WP:FRINGE? 4)Is the writer an expert on the topic? Is the opinion contradicted by other sources? The point that Nairs are Shudras is mentioned herein. 'By the late 19th-century, the caste system of Kerala had evolved to be the most complex to be found anywhere in India. There were over 500 groups represented in an elaborate structure of relationships and the concept of ritual pollution extended not merely to untouchability but even further, to unapproachability. The system was gradually reformed to some degree, with one of those reformers, Swami Vivekananda, having observed that it represented a "mad house" of castes. The usual four-tier Hindu caste system, involving the varnas of Brahmin (priest), Kshatriya (warrior), Vaishya (business person, involved in trading, entrepreneurship and finance) and Shudra (service person), did not exist. Kshatriyas were rare and the Vaishyas were not present at all. The roles left empty by the absence of these two ritual ranks were taken to some extent by a few Nairs and by non-Hindu immigrants, respectively.[84]' See Nair and you will see what Kancha Ilaiah wrote is not factually incorrect. And for that truth is all that matters. The Nambudiri Brahmins were at the top of the ritual caste hierarchy and in that system outranked even the kings.[85] They regarded all Nairs as shudra.

The point is not whether the scholars agree upon the characterisation of Nairs as Shudras. Point is tracing the genealogy as anthropology. (One more subject which I studied). Kancha Ilaiah is a high-quality source due to the fact that Ilaiah has an M.A. degree in political science from Osmania University, Hyderabad and an M.Phil. awarded for his study of land reform in the south Indian state of Andhra Pradesh. He was awarded PhD degree for his work entitled ‘Political Thought of Gautama Buddha’, later it was published in the form book entitled ‘God as Political Philosopher: Buddha’s Challenge to Brahmanism’. He has been a recipient of the Mahatma Jyotirao Phule Award and was a Nehru Fellow between 1994-97. While working as an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at Osmania University, several of Ilaiah’s colleagues as well as academics affiliated with the university expressed, in an open-letter, their concern with respect to certain articles and opinions Ilaiah contributed to a local newspaper and advised him against writing material that could inflame sectarian discontent or prejudice. He also bagged LISA award for his magnum opus ‘Why I am not a Hindu?’ In 2012, he got retired from his teaching job in Osmania University after 38 of study, research and teaching. Currently, he is serving as Director of the Centre for Social Exclusion and Inclusive Policy at Maulana Azad National Urdu University (MANUU) in Hyderabad.

Also, just because something is controversial does not necessarily mean its untrue. What Ambedkar wrote about Mahar is factually correct. If you think caste is irrelevant then Dr. Payal Tadvi, who committed suicide, because of caste discrimination, even before she could complete her post-graduation. Read Rohith Vemula's suicide letter shall always remain a constant reminder to our moral conscience as a nation that we ought to eliminate the prejudices in existence in our society. People from lower castes, who have been murdered for riding a horse, for having a moustache and all such daily atrocities. It is for the Dalits who have been denied access to water in drought-hit areas or were denied entry in cyclone shelters and deprived of relief packages after Fani cyclone had hit Orissa. Can read more at https://www.livelaw.in/interviews/interview-my-harvard-degree-is-symbolic-of-the-aspirations-of-millions-of-marginalized-people-anurag-bhaskar-145710

Regarding Bhatt, I dont think she is a neutral person or even a scholar to comment upon the academic standing. While one claimed the works by Professor Kancha Ilaiah Shepherd were “anti-Hindu”, Ambedkarite scholars described the move as a bid to maintain the “cultural hegemony of the Brahminical social order”.

The varsity’s standing committee on academic affairs (SCAA) had on Wednesday decided to recommend that the books — Why I am not a Hindu, Post-Hindu India and God as Political Philosopher: Buddha’s Challenge to Brahminism — be dropped from the list of suggested reading on social exclusion as part of the MA course.

Nachiketa Singh, who is on the standing committee, said some members of the BJP-backed National Democratic Teachers’ Front (NDTF) had found the books “anti-Hindu”. Professor Kesav Kumar, an Ambedkarite scholar who teaches philosophy at the varsity, said Ilaiah’s books distinguished Dalits and the backward classes from the homogenised idea of Hinduism.

“The books are about experiences of Dalits and the backward classes and their knowledge system. Those opposing the books want continuation of the cultural hegemony of the Brahminical social order,” Kumar said.

Ilaiah, he said, has demonstrated with evidence how the Dalits and the backward classes were distinct from the others and democratic in terms of culture, food, lifestyle and philosophy.

“This is Hindutva conspiracy,” he said, referring to the standing committee’s decision.Saroj Negi, an assistant professor of political science, said: “Ilaiah is among a few scholars who tell the real history of society, cutting through layers of dominant ideologies. There is a deep sense of insecurity in coming to terms with the actual conditions of Dalits and bahujans in the country. This a reaction to that.”

Negi said the MA political science course also includes content on Hindu Mahasabha leader V.D. Savarkar and RSS leader M.S. Golwalkar.

DU executive council member Rajesh Jha said the university provides space for debate and study on any issue, and dropping books from the syllabus because they happen to be critical about the dominant social order showed narrow consideration. The DU Teachers Association too has protested the standing committee’s recommendations.

Ilaiah termed the recommendation an “unfortunate anti-academic attempt, which is part of the larger RSS/BJP’s agenda to not to allow plural ideas to be taught to the students in the universities”.

“The right-wing academicians said there is no empirical data (in the books). While saying so they have not shown the basic academic ethic of reading my books,” he said in a statement.

He said God as Political Philosopher was his PhD thesis, which is heavily referenced, while Post-Hindu India had a massive database on the production knowledge of village communities and the process of scientific experimentation of various productive communities.

“Those who do not have any understanding of village production relations hardly understand that book,” Ilaiah said.

Why I am not a Hindu is taught in many universities in India as well as in the West.

“The Hindutva forces are opposing the teaching and reading of this book in many countries — including in Columbia University (US). Scholars such as Lise McKean, Linda Hess, Eliza Kent etc., recommend it as an introduction-level reading material on Hinduism. The Hindutva forces opposed but did not succeed in removing it. The same forces are trying once again in DU,” Ilaiah said.

“The same forces are asking for inclusion of Savarkar’s book Hindutva-Who is a Hindu? and Golwalkar’s book Bunch of Thoughts to be taught in universities. Are these books referenced? Is there empirical data in these books?” he asked.

“Universities are meant for teaching and debating diversified ideas and concepts. Hundreds of thoughts must clash there. Universities are not theological institutes where only one religious idea is taught.”

The BJP-backed NDTF had last year opposed a move to include Professor Nandini Sundar’s book, The Burning Forest: India’s War in Bastar, in the MA sociology syllabus.

Unless you give me one scholar other than corporatised news link of News18 carrying opinion which has been smashed to smithereens by mainstream media, I am not inclined to agree with you.

I have studied the caste system not only at the acaedmic level (in my B.A. LL.B (Hons.), LLM from UK, M.Phil from JNU, Delhi and Phd for few months before dropping out of it) but also at the personal and social level here. The point of Kancha Illiah is lived experience in which religion plays a very important role herein in India. I am sure there is not a single Brahmin or upper caste which has been lynched or killed for eating beef, unlike the lower castes and Muslims. Constitution has guaranteed all citizens to eat whatever they like. When A Person Is Lynched For The Food He Had, It Is The Constitution Which Gets Lynched: Justice Chandrachud [Watch Video] https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/news-142797

I think you should read Offend, Shock, or Disturb: Freedom of Speech under the Indian Constitution (OUP 2015) (here) regarding Constitutional guarantee. I am a lawyer too and I know what can be libel and slander. It cant be both simultaneously as libel is in writing and slander is spoken words. I did read about Nairs in contemporary times and would recommend reading The Ivory Throne: Chronicles of the House of Travancore by Manu S. Pillai

I am honestly perturbed why are you against a book review by Kancha Illiah.

Let the edit remain and let it be open to wider discussion and debate instead of muzzling it on imaginary grounds. Kancha Illiah and Caravan magazine is well regarded and renowned and has the credibility of fierce independent journalism instead of corporate-owned News18.

I also read the policies and my legal interpretation of the policies allow me to pursue the matter even more vigorously.

Will wait for your response eagerly.

regards --Surendra07 (talk) 10:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC) s[reply]

Dear Surendra, Will respond in a day or two. I have not read all your links yet. Will respond after going them them. Thanks Acharya63 (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Surendra, I have read some of the links but have still not gone through all.I have nothing against Mr.Kancha Illiah or his books. By neutral I mean that a person should not have any agenda but should be a "neutral observer" like most modern historians are. In fact, I prefer western historians as they are more likely to be more neutral as they are personally not affected by castes an are just outside observers. For example, for personal research, I have several publications from some Brahmin organizations with a lot of information and opinions. Some authors have defamatory opinions about some other Brahmin subcastes and have even given quotes from Puranas to justify their opinions. But we certainly cannot use them because these opinions are from people with agenda and hence not neutral. I will point to one article by Mr.Illiah https://countercurrents.org/2018/10/a-call-to-shudra-obc-sc-sts-to-celebrate-october-5-as-indian-english-day Here he says colleges and universities run in English medium where the presence of Shudras like Marathas, Patels, Gujjars, Jats, Kammas, Reddys, Lingayats, Yadavs of all states, the Shudras of Bengal, Modaliars of Tamilnadu is marginal, leave alone that BC/SC/STs.. Are all these castes really shudras? I dont think so. The word "shudra" is used 23 times in the same article!! But we cannot use his statements in some magazine to all the people of these castes and put shudra on their page. In fact, varna of a caste has to be discussed on the page for the caste not on the page for the person - unless it very relevant(like Dr.Ambedkar). Shudra word is like "nigger" in the US. That is why it is very inflammatory. And we need to use such words carefully and never if it is fringe opinion (sources are contradictory) . I request you to understand this from that point of view. About atrocities against Dalits, I agree with you 1000%. They are still going on in 2019. I lived in a city in India and did not observe it myself but I know and have read enough literature to understand that the atrocities are real and not imaginary. I think the best way is to make people notice them. You can add individual events to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalit#Discrimination ...I will reply more later this week after I finish reading other links you have given.Acharya63 (talk) 08:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Acharya Thank you for the response. It would be erroneous to compare nigger to Shudra because unlike 'nigger' who came via transatlantic slavery and is blatant racism based on colour of skin, in India, it is not the colour of skin but rather based on decent. https://thewire.in/caste/india-must-not-shield-itself-from-international-scrutiny-on-caste-discrimination While I do appreciate your point of neutrality, we as humans have our biases, agenda and opinions. Unless what Kancha Illiah said about Nair being Shudra's and consequently Tharoor by extension being one, I do not see a problem. When a person is vouching for a religion which sanctified egregious violations and still does in the name of Hindutva and Ram. https://thewire.in/rights/jharkhand-muslim-lynching-tabrez-ansari. Please see this link.

Will wait for your further response once are done with reading all the links.

Regards Surendra07 (talk) 13:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC) S[reply]

Dear Surendra,

Sorry for taking so much time. I have read most of the articles and we can discuss further if you like. I had some comments but will write them later. The "nigger" is also based on descent not exactly on color of skin. For example, please see this article One-drop_rule. A "white looking" person was also considered a nigger in America if he had an African ancestor. In any case, I think if a caste organization has agreed it is shudra, all historians agree it is shudra(there is no debate) , then it is OK to use shudra in my opinion. Otherwise, in ancient India people would use this an an insult to settle scores and even Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar agrees with this. In such cases, would it be fair to call a person of Nair caste shudra on his webpage? Does he agree? Has he called himself a shudra? In that case yes. In any case, kancha Illiah's opinion is about his caste and even if we consider that as valid, should it not be on the caste page rather than his page? I will write more later. I think the best way to help Dalits is not to alienate other castes by calling them shudras (he has even called Sikhs as Shudras in one article) but to find atrocities against Dalits(that usually happen in north India) in news articles and books and highlight them on the appropriate pages on wikipedia. I am not denying at all that Dalits and even social reformers have been badly treated because of some orthodox people. Thanks Acharya63 (talk) 07:39, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help me![edit]

I am being threatened by a user for the changes I made on Shashi Tharoor page regarding his caste by citing one of the articles of renowned magazine known for its long-form journalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shashi_Tharoor&action=edit&undoafter=901942986&undo=901943525

Undid revision 901943525 by Acharya63 (talk) Please help me with...

I am quite perturbed and do not know what to do. Surendra07 (talk) 11:23, 15 June 2019 (UTC)--Surendra07 (talk) 11:23, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You should discuss the matter on the article talk page to attempt to reach a consensus as to how to proceed. If that does not resolve the matter, you may use dispute resolution procedures. 331dot (talk) 11:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was reverted due to being a fringe opinion , please see WP:FRINGE. Also, the author is not considered neutral due to his self-admitted anti-Hinduism stand. This is not my personal opinion but opinion of Academic scholars. https://www.news18.com/news/india/kancha-ilaiahs-books-vitriolic-towards-hindu-faith-must-be-removed-from-reading-list-demand-du-teachers-1918875.html "These books by Kancha Ilaiah are vitriolic towards Hindu faith,” Bhatt said, terming the author’s writing as unsubstantiated by facts." Thanks Acharya63 (talk) 11:55, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Information icon Hello, Surendra07. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Draft:Purvi Pokhariyal, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

  • avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
  • propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
  • disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
  • avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
  • do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Purvi Pokhariyal (January 8)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Usedtobecool was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Usedtobecool ☎️ 22:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Surendra07! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Usedtobecool ☎️ 22:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Purvi Pokhariyal[edit]

Hello, Surendra07. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Purvi Pokhariyal".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics[edit]

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

  • adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
  • comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
  • follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
  • comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
  • refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Re Pa©ker&Tra©ker (♀) 01:28, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Surendra07&oldid=1151598713"