Talk:Gandhi Behind the Mask of Divinity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Books Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

[edit] Anti-Gandhi propaganda

This article seems to have been written by member of some anti-Congress group such as Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh or Khalistan. The book was trashed by almost every reviewer, except some BJP-RSS-Bajrang Dal members and Khalistani groups and their supporters. While the author of this article has written a lot about the statements from fascist Hindus or Khalistani supporters like Ed Towns, it doesn't mention anything about hundreds of secular reviews which dismissed the book as propaganda. I will add some of these reviews to balance the article. 203.158.89.10 (talk) 07:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear IP address, just by using "secularist" adjective by you with anybody's name does not prove them secularist. You are involving in allegations here without providing any concrete data. Just because some article or fact does not suit your POV it cannot be declared to be written by RSS and Khalistani groups. Please note that you are alleging this on the author of the article as well without any logical data. --Roadahead (talk) 01:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The author is a well respected American. He is by no means part of the groups that he is being accused of. The problem is that people don't accept the facts and the facts are that Gandhi did and said many things that if exposed to Dr. King or Obama would make them distance themselves from Gandhi. 58.65.172.241 (talk) 12:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More biased editing from anti-Congress groups

The anti-Congress BJP-RSS extremists and Khalistanis are now trying to remove any mentions of criticism of this book. A user called Roadahead removed the entire criticism section saying that "please do not put vague comments by anybody; reivewers need 2b credible".

This is so ridiculous! Two of the critical reviews are from peer reviewed journals, and one is from a well-established newspaper. How is American Humanist Association's The Humanist less credible than a politician like Edolphus Towns, who made a lengthy rant against Gandhi in Congress, because he is financed by Khalistanis in US and Canada? How is The Kansas City Star less credible than "Dr. Baldev Singh", who seems to be either a BJP-RSS or a Khalistani anti-Congress source?

I think people who don't know how to properly spell "reviewers" and "to be" don't know of things like American Humanist Association. Or maybe they are just trying to censor any criticism of the book.

I request the moderators to keep a watch on this article to prevent BJP-RSS and Khalistani extremists from manipulating it to suit their own agenda. 203.158.89.10 (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back dear IP address. First off Dr. Baldev Singh is a retired pharmaceutical scientist with more than 100 patents to his name. He is a well known researcher on Indian and Sikh history along with other theological studies and has several published papers to his name. You have very conveniently tagged him as "nobody", Khalistani and BJP-RSS supporter. You may have dislike for these groups but please note that wikipedia is not a place for guess work and personal vendetta. Then you allege that congressman Edolphus Towns is not credible and reviewer and his mention of the book in the US congress is not worth mentioning, thus portraying the proceedings of US congress not worthwhile to mention. Please do not bring the Indian Congress versus BJP-RSS fights to wikipedia as its not a soap-box. Thanks --Roadahead (talk) 01:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I never said that Edolphus Towns and Dr. Baldev Singh are not credible. I just asked how are articles from journals and newspapers less credible than these. I did not remove the references of Edolphus Towns and Dr. Baldev Singh from the article, but you removed all the references provided against the book. Before advising me ("wikipedia is not a place for guess work and personal vendetta"), why don't you look at your own actions? Are you a publisher of the book? Or are you related to the author, or some RSS-BJP-Khalistani group? If not, why did you remove the references? You didn't even initiate any discussion on the talk page. You just removed them, saying that they need "2b credible". The references were provided using appropriate templates, with all kinds of details, including publisher's name, time of publication, author etc. If you have subscriptions to online libraries, you can enter all the details provided in the references and read the articles. As an example, you can find the The Kansas City Star reference on Newsbank. 203.158.89.10 (talk) 04:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear IP address, perhaps you are not even understanding/reading your own words. Please note that you have said in your comments above -"...Dr. Baldev Singh, who seems to be either a BJP-RSS or a Khalistani anti-Congress source" without any knowledge about the reviewer and his credibility. Then you alleged that "...Edolphus Towns, who made a lengthy rant against Gandhi in Congress, because he is financed by Khalistanis in US and Canada". Both these baseless allegations from you come for what purpose? Are you not trying to say that they are not credible? Or are you just involving in guess work? Later, you proceed with your guess work by asking irrelevant questions like "Are you a publisher of the book? Or are you related to the author, or some RSS-BJP-Khalistani group?". Please note that one of your reviewer Williams, Xavier has no credibility at all, in his own words on the review that you are pushing onto wikipedia he says, "I am not a student of history and so am not in a position to give a real picture of Gandhi.". So what makes Williams, Xavier a credible reviewer of a 20 years of research work which has all its sources very well cited?. Later, Xavier in the book review that you are using says, "Khuswant Singh, a turbaned Sikh from the same community as G.B.Singh, has also written a defamatory treatise on Gandhi.". Here Xavier reflects his assumption that G.B. Singh wrote this book because he is also a Sikh. Please note that Wikipedia is not a blog, its an encyclopedia and reviewers of a book are expected to have some credibility to their name.--Roadahead (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Xavier's review lacks addressing the issues and the facts presented in the Book. Instead of arguing the facts of the book, Mr. Xavier resorts to ad-hominem attacks and emotional outbursts. He attacks the Author because of his religion. This is not a Book Review but racist Gandhi Propaganda. It seems Mr. Xavier hasn't even read the book. Mr. Xavier's source should be removed on the ground of violation of Wikipedia Guildelines. Princhest 22:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

In that case, we should remove this article, since it is anti-Gandhi propaganda. It seems Mr. G. B. Singh hasn't even read the vast amount of Gandhi literature, most of which reflects his secular views and empathy for all groups, including Blacks and Dalits. In his book, Mr. G. B. Singh resorts to biased outbursts (he uses words like "Hindu propaganda" - this reflects his assumption that Gandhi 's followers are only Hindus, while Xavier is a Syrian Christian). Anyway, in case religious extremists from RSS and Khalistani groups still find some excuse to remove Xavier's source, I've added some more credible sources.

By the way, what makes Mr. Xavier any less credible than Mr. Baldev Singh, when it comes to Gandhi? It was published in Midwest Book Review, a reviewed publication which is not affiliated to Congress, Gandhi, or Indian government. On the other hand, Baldev Singh's review was published on SikhSpectrum, which has pro-Khalistan bias. Moreover, you (the two users whose only edits are heavily biased against Gandhi) argue that Xavier is not credible because he is not a student of history. How is Mr. Baldev Singh, a retired pharmaceutical scientist with more than 100 patents, is more credible when it comes to making historical or political commentary. According to you he is a "well-known resarcher", but I can't seem to find any evidence regarding the same. He has no history or politics related publications in reknowned peer-reviewed journals. He doesn't have any books related to this topic, published by non-Khalistani sources. It will be my pleasure to remove Mr. Xavier's review, if you allow me to remove Mr. Baldev Singh's review as well. Thank you very much (formerly IP address). SecularForces (talk) 14:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh one more thing - if Mr. Xavier is anti-Sikh, Mr. Baldev Singh is also an anti-Christian. From his review: "The Christian clergy had an ulterior motive in building the Gandhi myth." These are typical anti-Christian, anti-secular views of facsist RSS members and Khalistanis. SecularForces (talk) 14:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Secularforces, Your sense of honesty and credibility is questionable. You come out with cook-up accusation and use ad-hominem attacks and accuse others of propaganda while but forget to note that the people you are quoting from like Xavier Wiliam show racist tendencies. How smug? We will discuss anything related to this book but not out-of context racist accusations shown by you. Questioning an ideology is not racism; attacking an individual because of his religion is racism which in this case is shown by Mr. Xavier. Mr Xavier has attacked GB Singh for his being a Sikh. Hello? You seem to be too immature to understand this. A racist is someone who has contempt for someone belonging to particular community or race. Baldev Singh may be questioning the ideology of a religion, which is not racism at all. Where are you coming up with cook up definitions? I have added Xavier's racial overtone on G.B. Singh being a Sikh, in the review section Princhest 14:48 11 February 2008 (UTC)

SecularForces, (formerly User talk:203.158.89.10 ) you are continually blasting one baseless claim after the other. Why are you so much obsessed with the word "Khalistan"?. First, you claimed that I belong to some Khalistan group, than you claimed the Dr. Baldev Singh and senator Edolphus Towns are affiliated to some groups and now you are alleging that SikhSpectrum is biased towards Khalistan point-of-view. Can you justify all these claims before we proceed to invest time in discussion with you? --Roadahead (talk) 00:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

"Secularforces" is not secular at all. He is a Gandhian fanatic and a Hindu fascist without a mask.58.65.172.241 (talk) 11:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Towns remark

I think there's something wrong with the timing of Towns' remarks. He starts with "Madame Speaker" but that statement is supposed to be a part of the 109th United States Congress, but the speaker of the house was Dennis Hastert. It wasn't until the 110th United States Congress (in 2007) that Pelosi took over (making the "Madame Speaker" line make sense). Suggestions? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Good catch! I checked the congressional record and I found this particular speech of Rep Towns in the 110 session. Thanks for pointing it. I have corrected it now. Princhest 20:42 25 February 2008 UTC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Princhest (talk • contribs) 02:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)