Talk:Anti-Hinduism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article 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.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)

[edit] edit warring

I explained the reasons for my edit, but User:Bakasuprman reverted my edit without comment. Please discuss issues rather than edit warring. — goethean ॐ 22:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe because the actual thing was cited in the source.

“

Our US Congressman, who is a member of the India Caucus and will be part of the Congressional delegation visiting India in early January, spent considerable time with me today specifically on the Ramayana portrayal by Professor Susan Wadley. The Congressman said that he was appalled at the inflammatory approach in the Ramayana material, and was especially concerned that it was done under Federal grant money as that could give it the aura of governmental stamp of approval

”

Source #19 Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I have corrected the text to reflect what is claimed in your selectively-quoted source. — goethean ॐ 22:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Its not even my source. I have no idea who quoted it. The only reason I came to this article at this point in time was because it was on my watchlist. Its only edit warring once a person reverts twice.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. You reverted wrongly, and without an edit summary, after I had explained the reasons for my edit in detail. — goethean ॐ 02:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Genocide?

I know little of the issues of Hindus in Southeast Asia, but I doubt that something with as specific a definition as genocide would describe their experience. Specifically I've never encountered mention of anti-Hindu massacres as examples of genocide. Indeed, even Wikipedias list of things described as genocide, which is far broader one I'd write to do what is my rather simple understanding of 'the murder of a people.' Perhaps a less specific term like massacre, persuecution or ethnic cleansing might be appropriate? Wilhelm Ritter 00:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Plz see 1971 Bangladesh atrocities. Hkelkar 01:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I changed it to more specific examples with the less specific description "persecution".Hkelkar 01:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Book

“Muslim League Attack on Sikhs and Hindus in the Punjab 1947”, Online Book Compiled for the SGPC by S. GURBACHAN SINGH TALIB —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.197.167.28 (talk) 02:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

A better source is needed. Hindu Unity is a "hate site" and is not appropriate or reliable here. Hkelkar 03:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ref tag placement

I don't know if this has been bought up earlier, but throughout the whole article the ref tags are placed in the wrong spot. Ref tags generally FOLLOW punctuation. For more information, visit Wikipedia:Footnotes#Where_to_place_ref_tags. Blueag9 07:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

Remove synthesis from the article. While certain things may seem to fit the definition of Anti-Hinduism, nothing should be brought up unless the source itself says it is an example of anti-Hinduism. The Anti-Iranian sentiments article had this problem recently, and I can see that this article has the same problem in some ways. I figure I'd leave a suggestion. The problem appears common to "Anti-______" articles, probably because of the emotional factor involved in the article development, but this can be easily remedied by removing OR. The Behnam 19:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Iranians arent a religion. See Anti-Judaism and etc.Baka man 21:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, that wasn't the point (though do note Hkelkar from above, "Besides, Hindus are an ethnicity as well as a religion, and anti-Hindu sentiments involve attacks on both."). The point is that there shouldn't be any synthesis; i.e. don't take examples that aren't explicitly described as "anti-Hindu" in their sources as examples of anti-Hinduism. This kind of OR shouldn't go on in any article, regardless of it is about religion or ethnicity, or anything else. The Behnam 22:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Dude, Hkelkar (talk · contribs) was banned a long time ago, I'm under no obligation to listen to him.Baka man 06:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Dude, the part about Hkelkar was an aside; didn't you see the parentheses? Please address the main statement. The Behnam 06:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Behnam, what do you mean by "unless the source itself says it is an example of anti-Hinduism"? Can you explain a bit to make it clear how they will say that it is anti-hinduism? I hope you don't want the exact same sentence of your choice to be available in those sources. I will later add better examples to show how hinduism is feared more for its good things than for its bad things, especially by the christian missionaries and media related to them. Even wikipedia is not spared, you check how the article on meditation starts with dictionary meaning and then meditation in Christianity. When they can't help, they use word "budhdhism" for all things that originated from Upnishads/Vedanta/Yoga!!Skant 00:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm just saying that the sources themselves have to cite 'whatever' as an example of anti-Hinduism, rather than us judging something to be anti-Hindu and so including it. Just a problem that was going on the anti-Iranian sentiments article that I think may apply here for some parts, and calls for simple verification. The Behnam 20:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification of Anti-Hinduism and better examples of it

This article is in general quite poor. One problem is the lack of citation of sources, and using controversial websites when citations are used. The major problem, however, is the extremely un-rigorous definition of anti-Hinduism and the assumption that all criticisms of certain practices in South Asia are necessarily a result of anti-Hindu bias.

General comment Sooku 04:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Recently, Mathematics researchers have stated that there is a much higher standard of proof for claims of Indian mathematical ideas adopted by the West, than for claims of ideas flowing the other way. http://www.physorg.com/news106238636.html

I believe this is true more generally in history. For example, a claim of Nazis torturing a political prisoner requires a lower standard of proof that a claim of American soldiers torturing the same. Similarly, this talk page suggests that the standard of proof demanded of Hindus alleging persecution by non-Hindus is much higher than that demanded of writers claiming Hindu persecution (where an appeal to the caste system can suffice). The point is that there is no "objective" truth when one community is persecuted or defeated by another. And the standard of proof demanded is neither uniform nor reciprocal.

A good example of the general confusion of this page is the analysis of Babur's comments. While I agree that they are bigoted and unenlightened, nowhere in the cited reference do I see anti-Hindu bias, where anti-Hindu is defined (as done by this article) as biased against the Hindu *religion*. There is no discussion of theological matters nor indeed of idolatry or casteism, the bugbears of Muslim criticisms of Hinduism. Can the author indicate why this isnt simply straightforward (and objectionable) xenophobia? Given that 'Hindustan' was ruled by Muslims when Babur invaded (the various Delhi Sultanates from 1206 who he defeated in 1526), we can't simply identify the region with Hindus or indeed Hinduism. Please note: I am *not* justifying Babur's comments (indeed I reject them), but simply questioning their specifically anti-Hindu bias, where anti-Hindu means prejudice on grounds of religion. Do we have evidence that Babur thought the converted Muslims were above all of these putative failings of Hindustan? And I think we can assume that there were at least some converts to Islam after more than 300 years of Muslim rule, without getting into the controversial territory of whether conversion was by sword or choice (or by self-interest).

Furthermore, calling neo-Buddhist movements anti-Hindu is in my view unwarranted. I would suggest reading Ambedkar's work more closely though I accept he was extremely controversial. But can we really say that his denial of a hotel room or water or temple entry, etc were simply irrelevant to his criticism or not actually part of the practices of Hinduism and instead infer that he was anti-Hindu? We must be careful to distinguish criticism that derives from a genuine belief that the caste system is morally wrong because of the differential moral worth it imputes to different castes, and those sorts of mocking gestures towards such Hindu beliefs as the sacredness of the cow or those inane monotheists who prattle on about idolatry. Furthermore, we must be careful to distinguish arguments against (all) religion for being contrary to reason from those that mock one particular religion on the basis of prejudice. I hope the author can appreciate that I am *not* saying that anti-Hindu prejudice doesn't exist (the Mormon missionaries I met in Hyderabad proved to me that it does), merely that we need to be clear about what that is and we simply can't assume that everyone who dislikes a particular feature of the religion (or indeed of all religions) is particularly prejudiced against Hinduism.

The origin of some of these problems is easy to spot: the denial in this article that the caste system has anything to do with Hinduism as a religion. I would like to see some evidence of that interpretation. I was taught (by Hindus) that there are many texts explaining and indeed justifying the caste system. Now of course that doesn't mean that Hindus must necessarily support caste today - indeed many I know explicitly reject it. But it must be admitted that in the past the system gained acceptability from its justification in the Shastras, Manusmriti, etc. Does the author deny that some classical Hindu sources justified the division of mankind into (ranked) castes on religious grounds? In particular, does the author deny the existence of the belief of reincarnation according to merits in the past life? What about the differential treatment of crimes, where killing a Sudra went almost unpunished while killing a Brahmin resulted in the death penalty? I don't want to get into a dispute about these contentious matters, but think that the concept of anti-Hinduism becomes far too obscure if we don't clarify these issues.

It is of course true that forms of caste are practiced by other communities in South Asia, but that obvious sociological fact is completely consistent with the view that Hinduism justifies caste in a religious way that other communities don't. Ambedkar's specific criticism was that the belief in differential moral worth by birth was morally repugnant and made more so by the justification of it in Hindu texts. We may have 'moved on' from those days, but this article's evasiveness on these important points muddles rather than clarifies how anti-Hinduism should be defined. I hope that the author would accept that my view - that human beings have equal moral worth - is not motivated by anti-Hinduism. But it is also *contrary* to the classical texts of Hinduism, experience of the consequences of which turned Ambedkar into such a polemical critic of Hinduism. That I agree with Ambedkar on the equal moral worth of humans is of course also to say that I agree with the Indian Constitution.

I don't know how to quantify "moral worth", but I do know that a religion is distinct from social restrictions and practices derived from it. For example, a Sunday holiday and a seven-year limit on debts are provided by law, but rooted in the Bible. More often, power structures abuse religion to rationalize injustice and inhumanity, as the KKK and the Nazis did. So yes, the fundamental Hindu religion, and repressive practices of Brahmins (who were initially revered for learning and piety) in its name, are separate and distinct. The advance of modernism has mounted a blitzkrieg against the latter. Sooku 04:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

How can the caste system be considered as anti-Hindu? Ambedkars works were not just anti-caste system, it was anti-Hindu he promoted hatred towards the entire religion, and he was largely ignorant of the religion anyway. As for neo-Buddhism lol, Ambedkar was more of a social reformer than religious at all, compare him to Sree Narayana Guru who uplifted "lower" castes through social reform, without having to resort to vengeful attacks on the Hindu relgion. It was all used for politics, and for his personal vendetta. Anyway anything that criticizes or is publicly purposefully ignorant of Hinduism which is disrespectful, is anti-Hindu and relevant to the article.Nambs (talk) 06:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] sikhs and Khalistan

Why isn't there a section of anti-hindu feelings in the sikh community.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.63.42.187 (talk • contribs).

You're free to write a referenced and neutral description on said prejudices. Do note that in reality, there is little difference between Punjabi's of any religion (hindu, jain, sikh or moslem).Baka man 18:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a good point, anti-Hinduism is prevalent in the neo-Sikh expatriate community and diaspora, and less so in other Sikhs although it is perfectly suitable material for the article.Nambs (talk) 06:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

A lot of the Sikh material on this site is ultra pov and biased. Even to the point in the Islam and Sikhism page there is a complete re-write of history, however the beginning is ok.

In the Deh Shiva Bar Mohe page there is anti Shiva sentiment expressed by User: Ajjay. Who has had several warnings from admin.

[edit] Gross OR

The entire article consists of Gross OR. There are a variety of historical incidents, but the linkage between them is extremly weak. To say that there is a direct connection between the Mughals and harassment of Indian students at US colleges today is, well, bogus. --Soman 07:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fundamentalist Christian regimes in Fiji?

The Fiji conflict was ethnic not religious. The fact that the entire Indian population there is Hindu does not make it as Anti-Hinduism. If there were non-Hindu Indians in Fiji (or even Christian Indians) I doubt they would be discounted. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 09:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

There's a sizeable Indian Muslim community. In the ethnic/political conflict there is no differentiation between Hindus and Muslims. The Fiji situation doesn't qualify for the imaginary concept of 'anti-hinduism'. --Soman 16:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Good enough then! I have removed Fiji from the article. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 11:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It is important to differentiate prejudice against Indians with prejudice against Hindus. Gizza^Chat ^© 01:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Overuse of fact temmplates?

Obviously cn template has been used to the point of redundancy.

Eg.

Neo-Buddhist Personalities such as Kancha Ilaiah and Udit Raj are often accused of anti-Hindu sentiments due to their derogatory remarks against Hinduism and incitements to violence against Hindus.[citation needed]

Anti-Hindu sentiments also come from far-left groups who support Islamic Terrorism and Islamic Fundamentalism against Hindus. Islamist groups who have anti-Hindu views include Students Islamic Movement of India, terrorist groups like Lashkar-e-Toiba.[citation needed]

LeT's own pamphlets as stated by major news organisations are brazenly anti-Hindu in their language... Frankly defacing everyother sentence with cn templates isnt helping this article. When people start asking for cites like:

The public school curriculum in Pakistan was Islamized during the 1980s.[citation needed] Every person with elementary knowledge of South Asia would know about Zia-ul-Haq's Islamisation during 1980's...

I'll try to get as many cites as possible when i'm done with my exams. But frankly the negative enegry expended in defacing every other sentence is irritating. Amey Aryan DaBrood^© 08:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hornplease is systematically censoring articles about Hinduism and removing mention of atrocities committed by muslims against hindus

Please read the definition of vandalism at WP:VAND. An accusation of vandalism when material has been removed with an explanation framed in terms of WP policy is a violation of WP:AGF. I suggest you do not do it again. Hornplease 18:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you are trying to censor information in this article on Hindu Temples - What Happened to Them as well as in Muslim conquest in the Indian subcontinent.

Atulsnischal 19:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:AGF. I do not wish to censor information, but we do not link to large numbers of fringe publications. Please read the Voice of India page for details; note that all these articles on VOI books were started by accounts with no purpose but starting those pages, probably paid by the press in question. Wikipedia is not the location for the promotion of fringe perspectives. The Muslim conquest is a vast topic, and these perspectives are those of a tiny minority of scholars. Thus they do not belong in that article. And as for the Goel book, there are links to other Goel book articles. There is no need for linking individually to several different articles on the VOI website: this has been done for purposes of search engine optimization of that website. Please do not reinstate the links. Hornplease 19:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

What you are infact doing as visible to me is that you are systematically censoring and removing mention from wikipedia of atrocities committed against Hindus by Muslims and providing all bogus reasons for doing so. I am sure it is evident by now to many editors of wikipedia and administrators. Kindly do not censor articles please, I dont want to argue with you anymore. Atulsnischal 19:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion continues on user talkpage. User reminded of WP:MULTI. Hornplease 19:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. However, we try to keep it free of partisan sources and fluff. Please read the policies I have linked to here and in my last statement. You have not addressed my concerns, and are instead leveling accusations; that is unacceptable behaviour. If you cannot justify your continued reversions except with speculation about my motives, then those reversions are also unacceptable. Argument is your only option. Please also do not leave multiple messages. Hornplease 19:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Note: the entire above section has been copied from somewhere else.

I have no idea what's going on with this guy. I've just told him about forum spamming, and yet he leaves multiple copies on my talkpage, a couple of article talkpages, his own talkpage and now this noticeboard and the India noticeboard. Its impossible.

In any case, he seems to have moved on from being an SPA at Karan Singh and Hari Singh as well as other articles related to the royal house of Kashmir and Mayo College (and earlier, about some Indian wildlife mailing list) to vaguely accusing me of covering up atrocities of one sort or another. I seem to have irritated him by reverting large amounts of fanglish on the Karan Singh page. SOmeone else please handle the guy, since he thinks I'm the devil. Hornplease 00:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletions

As explained here the following was deleted in the article by Hornplease (talk · contribs) but no reason was put on the talkpage. Why was it deleted, and how could it be improved..

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Hinduism&diff=prev&oldid=154491041 While at the same time removing pro-Hindu text, he adds this unsourced line:There are also allegations of Anti-Hinduism voiced by members of the Hindu diaspora in the West against their host societies, notably in the United States, where these form part of the so-called "culture wars", with cases such as the Californian Hindu textbook case. He then deletes the paragraphs on Aurangzeb and on bin Qasim: Several Islamic scholars, theologians and Emperors held virulently anti-Hindu stances during the Islamic invasion of India. They regarded Hindus as "infidels" who had to be slaughtered with no mercy. In particular, the Arab invaders in the 8th century held anti-Hindu attitudes, such as the testament of the superior of Muhammad bin-Qasim, Hajjaj, who quoted the Quran to justify the slaughter of Hindus. He deletes books and links:

Talib, Gurbachan (1950). Muslim League Attack on Sikhs and Hindus in the Punjab 1947. India: Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee. Online 1 Online 2 Online 3
Memoir of the Emperor Timur (Malfuzat-i Timuri) Timur's memoirs on his invasion of India; describes in detail the massacre of Hindus, forced conversions to Islam and the plunder of the wealth of Hindustan (India). Compiled in the book: "The History of India, as Told by Its Own Historians. The Muhammadan Period", by Sir H. M. Elliot, Edited by John Dowson; London, Trubner Company; 1867–1877
Crimes against Hindus, Sikhs on the rise in UK: Report
Strategic Planning For Evangelization of Hindus
Row over Krishna temple in Moscow

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Hinduism&diff=prev&oldid=155098262 He deletes mostly unsourced (but correct) information. He deletes the word "fundamentalist christian", but in other articles inserts the word fundamentalist Hindu. He deletes the entire section on the Human Rights report of the Hindu American Foundation: The Hindu American Foundation, an advocacy group for Hindus, released a report in 2005 on the status of the human rights of Hindus, mainly in Bangladesh, Pakistan, and the Kashmir valley. The report attempts to increase awareness of anti-Hindu views propagated and used to justify violations of the human rights of many Hindus in the region. The report introduces as:

“

Human rights are by definition universal. Hence, in an ideal world there would be no need to write a separate report on the human rights of Hindus, or for that matter any other group. In the real world, unfortunately, there is a gaping hole when it comes to the awareness of human rights for Hindus, mainly in Bangladesh, Pakistan and in the Kashmir valley.^[1]

”

The 71-page report compiles media coverage and firsthand accounts of human rights violations perpetrated against Hindus because of their religious identity. The incidents are documented, often quoting from well-known international human rights organizations.^[1]The Hindu American Foundation presented the report to the co-chairs of the US Congressional Caucus on India and Indian-Americans, Representatives Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Republican, and Gary Ackerman, a Democrat. Both of these members of Congress endorsed it.^[2]Rabbi Abraham Cooper, Associate Dean and co-founder of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, praised the HAF for the report.

“

The Simon Wiesenthal Center welcomes this report which will help the international community and Non-governmental Organizations to have a broader understanding of the human rights situation in that important region of the world.^[2]

”

Several academics on campuses around the U.S. also reviewed this year’s report. Florida International University Professor of religious Studies, Nathan Katz, remarked on the promulgation of various anti-Hindu sentiments recorded in the report:

“

“This report by the Hindu American Foundation…is a real eye-opener”.“As a minority in Islamic societies that consider them to be ‘idolaters,’ Hindus in Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan face unimaginable persecution routinely.^[2]

”

The report documents the long history of anti-Hindu atrocities in Bangladesh, a topic that many Indians and Indian governments over the years have preferred not to acknowledge. Such atrocities, including targeted attacks against temples, open theft of Hindu property, and rape of young Hindu women and enticements to convert to Islam, have increased sharply in recent years after the Jamat-e-Islami joined the coalition government led by the Bangladesh National Party. The report concludes with:

“

Some Indians may feel uncomfortable with this report because they do not want to be reminded about the problems of Hindus outside their milieu. And for some in the Indian intelligentsia, it is a badge of honour to distance themselves from these pogroms as a mark of their supposed enlightenment, oddly trashing their own ethos in the process. Many more Indians are reluctant to speak out against atrocities committed against Hindus for fear of being labeled "communal". Merely speaking about human rights for Hindus is for them a form of communalism

”

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Hinduism&diff=prev&oldid=155668825 removes HAF report and other things

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Hinduism&diff=prev&oldid=155704287 removes cited source

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Hinduism&diff=prev&oldid=155705895 removes source "clnup" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Hinduism&diff=prev&oldid=156091892 In addition, H.D. Sharma points out that, contrary to the claims of other scholars such as Mohibbul Hasan, he did not carry out the conversions as a punitive measure for rebellion, but as part of a campaign to eradicate Hinduism from his kingdom.^[3] In addition, he cites examples such as Tippu's conquest of Malabar in 1788 CE, when he appointed a "Shaikh ul-Islam" in each village to carry out forced conversions in an organized manner. This was primarily done to the well-educated Nair Hindus in the region, including those in Coorg, as Tippu perceived their intellect to be a threat to his Islamic rule.^[3] C. K. Kareem also notes that Tippu Sultan issued an edict for the destruction of Hindu temples in Kerala.^[4] deletes:Lord Macaulay, who introduced English education into India, claimed: "I have never found one among them who could deny that a single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native literature of India and Arabia."^[5] He wrote that Arabic and Sanskrit works on medicine contain "medical doctrines which would disgrace an English Farrier - Astronomy, which would move laughter in girls at an English boarding school - History, abounding with kings thirty feet high, and reigns thirty thousand years long - and Geography made up of seas of treacle and seas of butter".^[6] He advocated to create a middle Anglicised class that was "Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals, and in intellect".^[6] This class of anglicized Indians would then in turn anglicize the Indian people.One of the most influential historians of India during the British Empire, James Mill was criticized for being prejudiced against Hindus. His work "History of British India" (1817) may be the "single most important source of British Indophobia and hostility to Orientalism".^[7] The Indologist H.H. Wilson wrote that the tendency of Mill's work is "evil".^[8] Mill claimed that both Indians and Chinese people are cowardly, unfeeling and mendacious. Both Mill and Grant attacked Orientalist scholarship that was too respectful of Indian culture: "It was unfortunate that a mind so pure, so warm in the pursuit of truth, and so devoted to oriental learning, as that of Sir William Jones, should have adopted the hypothesis of a high state of civilization in the principal countries of Asia".^[9] Karl Marx's writings were also prejudiced against Indians.^[10] In addition, RISA scholars are accused of holding the Hindu diaspora in the United States with contempt and making derogatory remarks about Hindus and Hinduism that are "patently false".^[11] RISA is also criticized by the same organisations and individuals for stressing on obscure practices within Hinduism that were never widely implemented (such as the Ashwamedha horse sacrifice) in what they portray as a 'deliberate' ploy to characterise Hinduism as a "repulsive religion" while almost completely ignoring normative Hindu scripture and normative Hindu practices.^[11] However, it has also been alleged that South Asian organizations in the US that defame Hinduism are funded and supported by several Islamist organizations prevalent in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Kashmir, as well as Christian Missionary organizations. These organizations have generally an anti-Indian, pro-Communist agenda.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Hinduism&diff=119321559&oldid=118945399
Biased interpretation of Indian history. For example James Mill's History of India downplays Indian history.^[12]
One-sided, unfair, exaggerated or exclusively negative presentation of some aspects of Hinduism or Indian culture. For example exaggerations or misrepresentations about Hindu theology, misrepresentations about the status of women in Hinduism, etc.
Claims that the Indological scholarship of Indians themselves is not scientific or that it is motivated by political motives, i.e. by Marxist, nationalist, Hindu, Muslim, Dravidian separatist or other motives.
Claims that India has not produced any worthwhile literature.^[6]
Pervasive influence of racialist ideas in western scholarship of Indian society [2].

Historians have noted that during the British Empire "evangelical influence drove British policy down a path that tended to minimize and denigrate the accomplishments of Indian civilization and to position itself as the negation of the earlier British Indomania that was nourished by belief in Indian wisdom".^[13] The contemporary academia in the United States has been criticized for portraying a biased interpretation of Hinduism and Hindus.^[14] According to Abhijit Bagal, Rajiv Malhotra has claimed that an unnamed United States congressman who is a member of the India Caucus has commented that several works published by the "Religions in South Asia" (RISA) subgroup of the "American Academy of Religion" have a systemic anti-Hindu prejudice that "borders on hate-speech".^[14] The influence of such scholarship in American schools has also been criticized, with studies showing systemic bias against Hindus in the social studies curricula of American schools.^[11] .A recent controversy regarding the Chittisinghpura massacre also earned far-left author Pankaj Mishra allegations of anti-Hindu prejudices when he persisted in the misinformation that the massacre was perpetrated by Hindus against Sikhs, despite the confession to the massacre by an Islamist militant who was part of the Lashkar-e-Toiba cadre that attacked the Sikh community. According to Yvette Rosser, the criticism of Hindutva often goes beyond the criticism of a political/religious movement and degenerates into anti-Hindu rhetoric and hatemongering.^[15] Publications such as Dalit Voice have routinely conflated Hinduism with Hindutva^[16] and have been criticized for anti-Hindu and anti-semitic attacks.^[17]^[18]

Why on earth was that deleted, all of it couldn't be more relevant to the article.Nambs (talk) 06:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Definition

Does there exist a definition of the term "Anti-Hinduism"? If yes, can someone point out reliable sources? Thanks in advance.Bless sins (talk) 02:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Restore sourced content.

Nambo (talk) 09:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)WP policy on articles is based on the content rather than the user, and the removal of critical sourced information to this article has obviously been done for no reason other than to serve a users personal opinion, with the users banned status used as a scapegoat to allow removal of this information.

No. Banned users are not permitted to edit the encyclopaedia, and are to be reverted on sight. If you wish to re-insert the edits, please do so one by one and discuss each. Relata refero (talk) 10:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I see, well this will be tedious but I will proceed doing as you suggested.Nambo (talk) 10:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Relata refero (talk) 15:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok all the edits of the banned user are relevant to the article and sourced, the only reason to remove them is to serve a POV. The sections concerning Tipu especially are important as I am a Nair of Kerala and it is well known within our community his attempts to destroy Hinduism and non Islamic culture. I will look for additional sources esp his edicts in which he ordered a destruction of Hinduism. Anti-Hinduism occurrences in Bangladesh are among the highest in the world, figuratively speaking and are publicized and is critical information for this article. I shall look for more sources.Nambo (talk) 12:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Please deal with the edits one by one, discussing each to indicate independent reasons as per policy. It appears that you are edit-warring on behalf of a banned user, which is not permitted under WP:BAN. Relata refero (talk) 12:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit-warring with who? Ok, I now feel it is prudent to show other users of your editing patterns particularly concerning removal of sourced content in Hindu articles. There must be an underlying prejudice or personal opinion underlying your zeal in keeping lots of information out. [3][4] [5][6] [7]. Your valiant upholding of WP policy on the removal of banned users edits for obvious reasons in this case, actually takes away from the encyclopedia in this instance.Nambo (talk) 12:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If you think so, please feel free to launch a user RfC.

On the issues of content, please discuss each point that was added by the banned user and that I reverted per policy individually. I am willing to engage on each point. I haven't even read most of the cases, as I mentioned to El Cid on the Suicide attacks talkpage. Relata refero (talk) 13:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, if you wish to reinstate the edits, please take each one on individually, and bring them here for discussion. I have no doubt that some of them are uncontroversial. Relata refero (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The content issues are that you are removing sourced text that meets WP:RS, and that you are claiming that established users are proxies of Hkelkar without any evidence. Both of these are egregious violations of policy. The fact that it obviously meets WP:RS merits its inclusion in the articleBaka man 19:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:BAN. Re-inserting sections wholesale or reverting to a version heavily edited by a banned user is deprecated. No further evidence is required: I was not accusing anyone of meatpuppetry.

That being dealt with, please note that text that meets WP:RS may also be ruled out because of WP:NPOV or WP:OR. You perhaps know this. Which is why, if you wish to re-insert anything originally inserted by the sock Hkelkar, please bring it here for discussion first. Relata refero (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Seriously.. what are your motives?, Will you dismiss a discussion as not thorough if does not fit your POV?.Nambo (talk) 02:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any preconceived notions about the material. I haven't looked at it that closely, and so am willing to discuss it point-by-point, and see if it meshes with NPOV and is sourced to RSes and isn't OR. (Please note I say above that I have no doubt some of it is uncontroversial.) And I would strongly suggest you not try to figure out other people's motives on WP. Relata refero (talk) 13:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] anti-Hinduism is negligible

I dunno about other countries, but in the Netherlands, anti-Hinduism is negligible when compared to anti-Muslim sentiment. Andries (talk) 23:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sikh Extremism

If you visit the Khalistan page there is much anti-hinduism reflections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.3.244 (talk) 00:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Hinduism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Guidelines: Manual of Style - Naming conventions How you can help: Notice board - Discussion board
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance for this Project's importance scale.