Talk:Persecution of Hindus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 WikiProject Religion
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page


Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 24 August 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.
Wikiproject_Hinduism 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.
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.
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

Though have heard about it not much references.npov definately contested. Calvinkrishy 10:29, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC) source news sites http://us.rediff.com/news/2005/aug/13guest1.htm

Contents

[edit] Error Observed

Under the capion The Mughal Empire Guru Teghbahadur is wrongly mentioned as 'tenth' guru. He was, actually, the ninth one.


Demerickston 15:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC) ==Logical Fallacy== Not withstanding the veracity of the details presented in the article,it is puzzling how a small muslim minority managed to "mass murder" the hindu majority for a period of eight hundred years. It is logical to understand that Germans who were "Majority" gave power to Hitler which resulted in the genocide of Jews who were a small "Minority".History is replete with similar incidents of Majority persecuting Minorities,but the Muslim rule in India not only seems unique but altogether baffles comprehension.

There are also incidents where an entire population being murdered by a ruthless army as in the case of capture of Bagdhad during Mongols invasion.These are cases of "Invasions" where a fierce foregin army came , ransacked the city , looted their possesions and vanished.However the Indian scenario is very different , the Muslim rulers who came to power by military conquest actually ruled the very same subjects whom they are acussed of mass murdering.

This is not to say that rulers dont murder and presecute their own subjects,but they would never dare to presecute the "Majority Religious community" that too on religious grounds

Unlike modern times where weapons of mass destructions and other sophisticated arsenal forms the backbone of military, the strength of pre modern army is mostly determined by the count of their soldiers.Given this fact the Majority Hindus could have easily overthrown the minority muslim army if they considered them to be "Mass Murderers".That too to say this Hindu Persecution lasted for eight centuries is simply a "mystery".

We also have to note that British came to India not as Invaders , but as BusinessMen who want to want to do trade in the prosperous Indian market.An indication that Mugal rule had a thriving economy until its demise.The British who initially managed to rule through proxy administrators couldnt stand the heat of freedom struggle when they were considered as occupiers.We should also note how the power of British modern army with their then sophisticated Guns s played crucial role in subdueing the Indian majority.The British who faced a mass revolt of Majority Indians are not accused of Mass rape,child abuse and Mass murder of Hindus, where as Muslim rulers who were never subjected to such opposition from the subjects were accused of all this.

[edit] Longest and Largest Holocaust

The massacre and slaughter of Hindus has been going on since the raids of Ghazni and Ghori till today. The holocaust of Jews was inconspicuous compared to the killings of hundred of millions of Hindus for about a millennium. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.141.12.195 (talk) 10:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Needs a total rewrite

A secular account of the persecution and ethnic cleansing against Hindus is greatly needed, however it should be written from a neutral point of view. Things like "it is sad that" and various metaphors and analogies throughout the article need to go, and more history and worldly information needs to be included. User:LucaviX


Here's some for you:

http://hinduwebsite.com/history/holocaust.htm

Also, you can link to Wikipedia articles on Aurangzeb, the greatest tyrant in Indian history who created a military industrial complex centered around the slaughter of hindus. However, given the fact that most wikipedia moderators are westerners, I doubt that they would extend the courtesy of the truth to a hindu.
Also, I find it interesting that any article vilifying the haters of hinduism and exposing their agenda of destroying us is tagged as "disputed NPOV", but similar articles about the persecution of Jews and Christians with the same obvious biases are praised and displayed proudly by wikipedia moderators. It seems NPOV does not apply to the white man, only for us "Mud people".

Subhash Bose

I changed the tag of the article from Factual dispute to cleanup requirement. I did this because the factual accuracy of the persecution of Hindus is well documented by the CIA world human rights report (Google for it & look up Bangladesh). It is true, that the article is not of good quality and needs to be changed. I'm working on a draft with bibiliography and will post it soon. USer: Subhash Bose

[edit] How about making it a comprehensive article

The Hare Krishna movement is being subjected to religious persecution in Russia. Their requests for allocation of land for temple construction have been denied by the Russian government. To add insult to injury, vile abuses were heaped upon the person of Lord Krishna by bigoted clergman of Russian Orthodox church. Should we also include a topic on this page which talks about the operational issues faced by the sect. This would be especially relevant considering the fact that this sect has more non-Indian devotees and major operation outside India.

There are numerous such instances of religious persecution of Hindus by intolerant societies. This also has a strong historical relevance because Islamic conquest of India involved massacares and extreme brutalities. The title of this article is misleading since people would assume we'll talk about all these issues, when in essence we are only talking about one report which captures these attrocities in one year.

Any suggestions on this would be welcome!

indologist

I second that motion and add some references to back it up:

( 1) http://www.christianaggression.org/item_display.php?type=NEWS&id=1136261415, 2)http://www.defendrussianhindus.org/). I hope that wikipedia readers will be exposed to all the fact of this horrible situation in Russia and not be blinded by the usual christian-sympathetic propaganda of the west. Subhash Bose

[edit] Report is missing

The report is missing and a lot of claims are made about this report. I think it should be added and the suggestive language about the report should be repaired. --Unweasel 15:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested merging "Anti-Hindu" into this article

I suggest merging the Anti-Hindu article into this, as there are some significant content overlaps between the two. Opinions? --Anirvan 22:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me - the two cover similar material. Banno 23:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
No, they should be separate articles, the issues are distinct.--Vikramsingh 01:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Disagree. They should be separate. 'Persecution of Hindus' refers to enemies of the Hindu people. 'Anti-Hindu' refers to people who hate Hindus. There is a difference. The former implies the latter, though the latter does NOT necessarily imply the former.Netaji 01:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Hinduism" template on this page

(Moved from my talk page) `'mikka (t) 02:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I have made some edits to the article in question. I am still working on it, adding more citations and info. I am informing you as a courtesy. I have re-added the Hinduism footer that you removed. I respectfully disagree that this article has nothing to do with Hinduism. Bear in mind that the Persecution of Jews is listed in the Judaism category and, like the Jewish people, the history of our persecution is centrally important to our religious sensibilitues as well. I request you to allow me some latitude regarding this. Thanks.Netaji 23:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree with your comparison. The template in Persecution of Jews is caled "Jews and Judaism" and it covers all: jews, judaism and their history. The template in Persecution of Hindus is called "Hinduism" and hence must be confined to articles dealing with hinduism. While I understand that the topics are related, there must be order in classification. After all, everything in the world is rerlated to each other in one way or another. The "Hinduism" template is a navigation tool to navigate between the articles on the same topic, rather than to label all articles in category:Hinduism. After all, this jobe is done by the category margker itself. Such navigational templates are placed only in articles that are listed in the template. Otherwise many wikipedia articles will be littered by such templates, since a large number of articles address many topics. `'mikka (t) 02:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that's a good point. Hows about we keep it in the Hindu History category as it is now?Netaji 03:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course, "History" OK. `'mikka (t) 19:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] So Shri Krishna is an 'evil demon'?

Calling Shri Krishna an "evil demon" is a misinformation campaign. I was being polite. It's actually blatant defamation. How'd you like it when Noam Chomsky calls the Bible "The most genocidal book in History"? Netaji 19:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not misinformation campaign. It is a general attitude of any monoteistic religion towards what they perceive "pagan gods", possibly mixed with ignorance. Although religious disputes are very often mixed with political issues, let us not mix them in wikipedia. Also, mixing of Hindus and Krishnaites, especially hare-krishnaites is not a good idea either. I don't know how Hare Krishnna behaves in India or internationally, but in Russia it is run by a bunch of crooks embezzling psychicaly unstable people off money and property and making them peddlers of krishnaite literature thus making certain people rich. (Similar things happen with Christian sects as well, by the way, and persecution of such crooks is not called "discrimination") `'mikka (t) 20:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Sahib, you are referring to ISKON which IS an org of wierdos, granted. However, there are millions of legitimate worshippers of Shri Krishna in Hinduism. Defaming Shri Krishna is equivalent to defaming the entire Vaishnavite section of the Hindu Dharma, ergo, ignorance or not, it's defamation at worst, misinformation at best. Plus, this orthodox dude did not single out ISKON, he attacked Krishna. That's like Jyllands-Posden for Hindus (though we're not rioting over this). I mean, what if I called Christ a 'demon' because of the wierdness of the Jehovah's Witnesses?Netaji 22:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
In my text above I included the phrase "possibly mixed with ignorance". I have no idea who in Russia wanted the temple. (Actually, I know now; see Hinduism in Russia. Actually, it says that the temple is being constructed.) I don't know whether "true" Hindus approached the Russian Church for dialog. I don't know what kind of land plot was promised to them. If it was state-owned land, then let them shut up. The whole issue is murky and probably dshould be covered in more detail in the relevant articles, Hinduism in Russia, Buddhism in Russia, etc., where all details must be covered, covering all points of view. By the way, it was 2 years ago. What's heard about the issue today?
I am 100% sure that there is no national hatred towards India and Hindus, neither on personal, nor on state level. Traditionally India was always respected in Russia and its culture admired. It is a pity that some crooks spoil this image. `'mikka (t) 22:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure that the Russians say the same thing about the Jewish people as well. Yet, anti-semitism in Russia and the region has become so bad that East-European Jews are emmigrating to USA and Israel in droves (90% of Ben-Gurion University faculty is Russian Jews, and 90% of the Physics Department of Texas A&M Universsity is also Russian Jews, and they told me this). I'm very sorry if this hurts your feelings (which is not my intention), but Russia has had a poor history of religious tolerance compared to Western European and American countries. Stalin executed quite a few Jews, and Soviets demolished mosques and madrassas in Kazakhstan. Even after the collapse of USSR there has been anti-semitism and racism in many parts of Russia, coupled with the rise of Neo-Nazism in Urban areas (odd, since Nazis hated Slavic people quite badly). The Orthodox bishop's attack on Shri Krishna is merely a reflection of the general intolerance, and the pogroms against Hindus are on their way...
I posted what info I found on the web. I don't know about the plight of Hindus in Russia as yet, since media will be in Russian (which I can't read). Hindus are not a nationality, they are a religion (and an ethnicity, though muslims will probably not like me for saying that). Given India's former relations with USSR, I'm sure there is positive feelings for India the NATION. However, as far as Hinduism is concerned, there is no positive feeling. Communist ideologues in Russia such as Leon Trotsky have constantly demonized, defamed, misrepresented and hated Hindus, and that has leaked into the intolerance of some elements in the Russian Orthodox church. This screed of Shri Krishna being "demonic" is a typical tactic carried out by white supremacist missionaries in India as a campaign of cultural genocide against Hindus, and I'm sure that, since the Bishop must be a well-educated man, he is not ignorant of the subject of Shri Krishna. He has clearly distorted Hindu scripture deliberately so as to malign Hindus in general, and THAT is misinformation and defamation. It is not brought out BY ignorance, it is meant TO promulgate ignorance. There is a difference, see? If he just criticized ISKON members that would be a different issue.Netaji 23:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, I agree with this move. Move the details to Hinduism in Russia and keep summary here. That's OK. Thanks.Netaji 23:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plagiarism

I will rewrite the sentence, meanwhile keep sentence in article and put a source notice.Bakaman Bakatalk 23:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] why merge template?

why is there a merge template on the main page. anti-hindu is totally different from persecution of hindus. anti-hindu is like anti-jew and persecution of hindus is like persectution of jews. totally different articles. i shall remove this template if i dont see any criticism.thank you.nids 12:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Other major religions on WP have a clear distinction between articles dealing with general/philosophical criticisms (e.g. Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Judaism, Criticism of Islam) and the literal hands-on human-rights-denying persecution of adherents (e.g. Persecution of Christians, Persecution of Muslims, and Anti-Semitism). I haven't found a third category like "anti-Christian" or "anti-Islamic."
Most of the original content on the Anti-Hindu article deals with hands-on human-rights-denying persecution of Hindu adherents, and seems to duplicate this article (in worse quality, with fewer details). I think merging the two would give us a better article. -- Anirvan 22:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I think i was clear in my initial post that anti-hindu is like anti-jew and persecution of hindus is like persectution of jews. if there is any duplicacy, we can remove that, but definately no merger. we dont have articles like anti-muslim or anti-christian for they never existed.(those who thought so were killed). you can refer to articles of anti-jew and persecution of jews for details.nids 22:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I will remove template.Bakaman Bakatalk 21:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Nidish, I'm terribly confused. Perhaps you didn't read my comment. There isn't an article called Anti-Jew, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up as a model for Anti-Hindu. You also state that there aren't any articles about criticism of Christianity or criticism of Islam, because those critics were killed; however, the articles obviously do exist.
If having split persecution/criticism articles is good enough for Christians (Persecution of Christians/Criticism of Christianity), Muslims (Persecution of Muslims/Criticism of Islam) and Jews (Anti-Semitism/Criticism of Judaism), then why should we establish an entirely separate system for Hinduism?
The scope of anti-Hindu (which isn't even a noun) is incredibly unclear, and there's substantial topical overlap with Persecution of Hindus. I suggest bringing coverage of Hinduism in line with that of other major world religions, by merging the content of any nonstandard articles into Persecution of Hindus and Criticism of Hinduism.
Bakaman, I'm sorry for not having replied to Nidhish earlier, and possibly having given you the impression that I agreed with his argument; I'll restore the template, because treating Hinduism as a special case just doesn't make case. Anirvan 02:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


Anirav, there is no article anti-jew, but there is one on anti-semitism. Now come to christianity and islam. there are articles on criticism of christianity/islam, persecution of chrisitanity/islam and islamophobia/christianophobia. (Remember hinduphobia redirects to anti-Hindu.) anti-semitism or anti-hindu talks about the feelings, and persecution talks about actions. I dont know how can i make it more clear to you.--nids(♂) 03:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Anirav, we cant wait for a week for your response everytime. Please dont just come and reinsert those tags without discussion. And try reading different articles to have a feel of it, i.e. why different articles are required.--nids(♂) 18:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I think he had made his point that different articles are not required. I certainly don't see the uniqueness of the anti-Hindu article; to compare it to the article on anti-semitism is absurd. Please do not close discussion like this. "Cant wait for a week", indeed. Why not? This article isnt going towards FA status anytime soon, you know. Probably never, given the people who edit it regularly. Hornplease 03:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
What do you feel about Islamophobia article??
And i said that a week is too much for a response. and when he came, he straightaway reinserted the template. You should provide reasons on the talk page and wait for some time(not weeks, but days) before reinserting a controversial template.--nids(♂) 05:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Again, I apologize for my prior delay.
Anti-Semitism and its related articles are excellent -- well-written, balanced, and not appearing to display any particular religious biases. The Islamophobia article is something entirely different -- it's a description of a very specific neologism in wide use in current political discourse, and much of the article is about the term itself, and varying opinions about it; most of the sources are from non-Muslim academic, government, news, and political sources. It also includes a wide variety of political opinions, from both advocates and critics of the concept. There's little overlap between that article and Persecution of Muslims.
You point to Christianophobia as an example to be emulated; it strikes me as a rather poorly written article, and somewhat POV. It's unfortunate if that's the best we can aspire to.
Anti-Hindu is a strange hodgepodge. About half of it discusses the persecution of Hindus (hence my suggestion to merge it with this article, which is much better written); the other half consists of undocumented statements and opinions -- all of it appearing to echo one, very specific, set of political opinions (without that point of view being made clear in the text). Anirvan 07:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I fully accept that christianophobia is poorly written article, just like anti-hindu. I accept that half of the discussions are duplicated. We can remove that and try to make a better article of it. But no way is merger a solution, even if anti-hindu is not a written properly.
I am providing a blueprint for the articles here. In persecution of hindus, we will talk about the actions, historic and contemporary. while in anti-hindu, we will talk about feelings or prejudices against hindus. As an example, the russian action of demolishing of krishna temple will come in persecution of hindus, while Witzels suggestion to government to ban hindus from cremating their dead will come in Hinduphobia or anti-Hindu. Fine.--nids(♂) 12:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Nids, do u have any evidence for Witzel's statement? Babub→Talk 13:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
No, i do not have reliable source. So i did not inserted it in any of the articles. I just pointed out to such statements as prejudices, which are somewhat different from persecution. If a law is passed, then its persecution, while if scholars demand for such things, it is just Hinduphobia.--nids(♂) 13:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
How does one clearly distinguish between criticism of Hinduism and "anti-Hindu"? Can you offer some concrete, verifiable examples of "anti-Hindu" that are neither critical of Hinduism, nor fundamentally linked to the persecution of Hindus? (Or does the apex of "anti-Hindu" over the past 5000 years really consist of unverified statements from a 20th/21st century American college professor?) Anirvan 17:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Historically, anti-hindu can be described as the contempt of hinduism as its practices were not strictly monotheistic. Babarnama has some reference that India was a land of kaafirs (i hope you know what kaafir means). You are not exactly persecuting, till you have laws that straightaway victimize the people.
Also, Anti-Hindu has grown recently due to, say success of Hindus. If you are in a democratic country, like say UK, you wont find persecution there, just the hatred, which can be better summed up as Hinduphobia or anti-hindu. The organisations like Dalitstan and people like Michael Witzel are better summed up as hinduphobics or anti-hindus. They arent and cant persecute Hindus. I hope i am clear enough. But it is a healthy discussion. I hope you can give some good counter-argument against my views. nids(♂) 17:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Also remember that people like Kancha Ilaiah are anti-hindus and there user pages are directed to anti-hindu. It isnt wise if we redirect anti-hindu to persecution of hindus. If he hasnt killed anyone or victimized, he is just expressing his opinion in a democratic country. He is just an anti-hindu, no way is he persecuting them.nids(♂) 18:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
If someone believes that Hindus are kafirs for not being monotheistic in a particular way, isn't that (by definition) linked to a particular theological critique of Hinduism? If Hindus suffered as a result of that theological conflict, that strikes me as persecution.
Kancha Ilaiah and Dalitstan are more promising, with the huge caveat that they seem focused on caste, and their anti-Hindu sentiment needs to seen as part of a series of lower-caste responses to the caste system, with some lower caste communities embracing a liberalized Hinduism, others rejecting it altogether, and many sitting somewhere in the middle. I could easily see anti-Hindu sentiment in Dalit nationalist movements described under Criticism of Hinduism.
There are only 4 articles in the main Wikipedia namespace that link to anti-Hindu, so I wouldn't worry too much about how people might react to redirects. We can just fix those 4 links if/when we make the change. Anirvan 20:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey I thought we had already decided on this! However, I agree that the anti-Hindu article is badly written. I will do my best to fix it up, but I need to look for some sources of info first.Anti-Hindu should discuss specific polemies and accusations made against Hindus, as well as anti-Hindu conspiracy hoaxes and claims that Hindus eat people, comparisons of Hindus with animals, claims that Hindus should be exterminated etc. Persecution already discusses some of the specific actions taken against theHindu people by anti-Hindu people/regimes etc.Netaji 01:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Anirav, can you see anti-semitism in criticism of jews.nids(♂) 05:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Nidish. Can you clarify your question? I'm not sure I understand. (Incidentally, my name is Anirvan, nor Anirav.) Thanks. Anirvan 06:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the miss-spellings. I was just saying that you cant put Anti-Hindu remarks in Criticism of Hinduism. If someone says that Hinduism is a religion of violence, than he is not criticisg hindus, nor is he persecuting them. He is just affected by a negative feeling towards hindus, i.e. Hinduphobia.nids(♂) 06:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Shall i remove the merge template, or are you still sceptical about it.nids(♂) 15:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I am removing the merge template for now. If you are not happy, discuss here instead of straightaway reinserting the template.nids(♂) 15:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Qasim doesn't really belong here

First off, my comments are limited to Qasim and the Arab period. The source for the assertions is a POV character. The quote used is being misrepresented, yes it says Hajaj was telling him Qasim to be more brutal but it was because of a military strategy, note the bottom line where he spells out why, that people will think you are weak.

Secondly the next assertion about Brahmanabad is again a misrepresentation, if one is happy to quote from the Chachnama as seen with the earlier quote, the next quote about Brahamanabad also from the Chachname which has been "paraphrased" goes so:

Those of the prisoners, who belonged to the classes of artisans, traders and common folk, were let alone, as Muhammad Kásim had extended his pardon to those people. He next came to the place of execution and in his presence ordered all the men belonging to the military classes to be beheaded with swords. It is said that about 6,000 fighting men were massacred on this occasion; some say 16,000. The rest were pardoned.

No doubt the killing happenned but it was very targeted. Generally Qasim built his army from derserters and turn coats, and he paid and rewarded them handsomely and pulled them into his administration. A person who set aside 3% of the state revenue for the Brahmins is not the one to make a point by going after the Hindus. All that had to wait for Ghazni and Turks to come on to the scene, even his successors were too weak and ruled in alliance with local powers. There are plenty of mainstream sources to attest the same. I've taken the issue up with Hkelkar at the Qasim page as well where the matter is detailed better. I propose that you remove it.--Tigeroo 21:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This is part of a broader debate regarding bin-Qasim and should be discussed at length in the article. I've been a bit busy so haven't had the opportunity to scan the refs cited there yet but I will.Hkelkar 11:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Merge with Anti-Hindu?

Should this be merged with the Anti-Hindu article? Even though the terms could indicate different things, the content in both articles is the same. --FK65 20:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

This point has been discussed before.The two articles describe two different things. The anti-Hindu article describes anti-Hindu attitudes and views. This article describes specific acts against Hindus. They may be related, but are two different topics. There is ample precedent for this wrt anti-Semitism and Persecution of Jews, as well as anti-Christian and Persecution of Christians, anti-Muslim and Persecution of Muslims.Hkelkar 20:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I beleive above, that this was discussed.Bakaman Bakatalk 20:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fuller Mahmud Ghazni Utbi Quote

The example used to illustrate the event is terrible, try reading the source.

Account of the Affairs of Táníshar.
It came to the ears of the Sultán, that in the country of Táníshar there were many of that pe­culiar species of elephant, which they call Silmán. The prince of this country was high amongst the ungrateful deceivers, and of exalted relations amongst the rebellious and the sinful. Therefore he was one who merited that they should give him to drink a cup of the wine of the strokes of Islám’s sword, and that by means of the flame of the onset of her champions, they should strike into his es­sence the due of wickedness, so making him to know, that to drink their turns of this cup, and their turns of this calamity is the doom of the uni­versal Kaffir people, and that as other chiefs and deceivers of India have been sharers and partakers thereof, so his face could not be free, nor his path an asylum from the equitable sword; the Sultán thought good then to design this conquest, that thus the standard of Islám might be exalted by victory, and the figures of idols might be inverted by success in war. Accordingly he marched towards Táníshar with an army which had been educated in the chamber of the sacred war, and been trained by grace from on high, and contracted friendship with sword and spear, and obtained an acquaintance with infidel’s blood, and in the windings of those marches they passed a desert so dreadful, that a bird would not fly over its atmosphere, and a star would lose its way on its expanse, a place which nothing traversed but the wind, and on which nothing cast a shade except the Sun, with­out a report of water, or a vestige of habitation. But Providence granted aid, and they came out from that idolatrous and disgusting place, and ar­rived at (the enemy’s land). And before them they found a great river, a running stream full of water, lofty mountains, and the ground impracticable stone. Now the infidel sought his aid in those mountains, and became inspirited by their en­circling assistance. The army of the Sultán passed that water by two fords, and engaged the idolatrous forces on two sides. And when the king-falcon, the sun, hung his claws upon the cur­tain of his western retirement, (the day having been matured), the men of Islám made a charge, and scattered them all about the skirt of the rocks, and they took the path of flight and preservation from the heat of that battle and onset.And as for those stamping elephants and serried monsters which constituted the point of their confidence, and their remaining force, they left them on the spot, the Sultán’s elephants went after them, and brought them all to the Sultán’s halter-place. The army spilt so much blood that the water of that river was so full, and that stream so abundantly stained with gore, that it could not be used for purification and was forbidden to drinkers, and if the darkness of the night had not prevented it, not one of these wretches would have escaped with life,— all through the blessing which is upon Islám, and the wondrous religion of Muhammád, unto which by the kind promise of Heaven victory is pledged, and for the manifestation of whose sayings, the standard of the glorious Kurán speaks plainly, “He unto whom He sent his Apostle to guide him, and the faith of truth to lighten all to religion, even although the idolaters hate it.”
  • One look the language, it's not a clinical factual account, it is am embellished prosaic account.
  • Two note why it was forbidden, because it had become "haram" from being tainted by blood spilt on a watery battleground.
  • Three it was a straight up pitched bloody battle, so assertion mass-slaughter is stretching the towards a POV.
  • This is a bad example found across internet sites and used by lazy or polemic academics--Tigeroo 21:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Well we are not talking about killing military personnel, but civilians.Hkelkar 21:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Could you avoid the WP:NOR here please.Hkelkar 21:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry the sources do not support the assertion of civilians, that claim is not verifiable from utbi as demonstrated above.--Tigeroo 22:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Also I have question who is Pradyumna Karan?? what are his credentials for such a sweeping statement that seems to not tally according to WP:RS, can we find a more representative fo the academic community consensus of the charecterization. I am not disagreeing with the possible excesses of Mahmud, but can we make the section a decent one.--Tigeroo 22:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Click meHkelkar 23:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Heres some more links: [1], [2],[3].Bakaman Bakatalk 23:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Also, read "Minorities in a Changing World" by Milton Leon Barron p54. Expressly states the beheadings and the offerring to crows.23:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)Hkelkar
Thats great, I had found a few books by Karan as well and they seemed centered more around social analysis and geography rather than being rooted in history. He even got the date wrong for Mahmud in his book, making his assertions a lit shaky. I haven't ever heard the version of skulls before, though Milton Leon Barron is interesting, so while they and holt and co provide opposing views, they both seem a little extreme ended to me and I think it may be better unless we can ascertain a greater concensus of that view to instead of making sweeping assertions of their view is representative of the community, that we dilineate and attach their name to the particular view, i.e Holt et al say "xxx" Milton says "xxx" Karan says "xxx".--Tigeroo 22:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
That may not be such a bad idea. However, we need to confirm that the scholarly sources that we are citing here are representative of either school of thought.Hkelkar 22:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
P.S. do you mind including the page numbers for the cited books, makes it easier to thumb them because I found a reference from Saunders to Mahmud that says he linked his campaings of conquest to a jihad along side a peaceful penetration, so the matter is subtly different. Kakar Sudhir, I had read it and refrained from using it because it actual says the event was "chosen trauma" and makes no assertions or denials about the "mythology" and the charged currents surrounding the event not quite represented by the quote used to cite hundred of thousands killed.--Tigeroo 22:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I have the page numbers written in the citations. Hang on though, I'll check.Hkelkar 22:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Yep, page numbers are all there in the citations in the article.Hkelkar 22:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Somnath casualties

The more common estimate I have usually encountered is 50,000, (note both ealrier comment and RV comment are based soley upon the content they are cited from) of the defenders charged Mahmud's forces and were massacred (or annhilated as in crushing defeat), just trying to source them or other numbers if they exist from some reliable source. I've found an online version of Eliot's book which commentates on the entire Somnath affair, and it seems the 50,000 number comes from the one singular source and so of dubious authenticity though it seems to be the only one. "I" wonder if the number of defenders was not inflated to make Mahmud's force of 30,000 seem the more heroic especially since when attacking a fortress a) cavalry has a limited effectiveness and b) the attackers typically as a rule of thumb always significantly outnumber the defending force. Anyhow that's my commentary, and I will leave the link and source for your review and comments.--Tigeroo 10:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


Nadir Shah , Akbar ,Battle of Talikota,Third battle of Panipat

This article would be incomplete without an account of-

1)Nadir shah's massacre of Hindus 2)Akbar's killing of 35000 Hindu peasants of Chittor 3)Killing of Hindus by Deccani sultans after the Battle of Talikota 4)Killing of Maratha children and women (and rape and kidnap) after third battle of Panipat by Abdali

--Johnhardcastl 08:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Book

We can't source to Hindu Unity since it is a "hate site", even if the book is reliable. I have replaced it with the Google Books link, which is better. Hkelkar 03:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wow

I had no idea.NinaEliza 03:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

See Muslim League Attack on Sikhs and Hindus in the Punjab 1947. There is even a wikipedia article on the book, as well as the author Gurbachan Singh Talib (a Sikh Scholar). The book is reliable.Hkelkar 03:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baseless accusations

There is not a single law which discriminates Hindus,or any one in that case. SL Buddhists respect and also worship Hindu gods..The war with the LTTE is definitely not a religious one..LTTE is secular and they have a huge number of Christians ,actually the strongest support for them comes from the Tamil Christians..So the whole paragraph is WP:POV and WP:HOAX.Immediate removal of this paragraph is highly recommended.Thanks--Iwazaki 16:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Saudi Arabia

The section on Saudi Arabia shouldn't exist. There are no Hindus that are residents of Saudi Arabia. The only Hindus that exist, are citizens of India (and other countries) who are living in Saudi Arabia under a working contract that they agreed to when they voluntarily left thier own country and chose to go to Saudi Arabia. They are not forced to live under anything, and can go back to their rightful country (of origin) if they don't like the conditions of a country that is not theirs in the first place.Bless sins 20:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Same thing for Muslims in America yet Persecution of Muslims has long section on it.Facts supercede personal perspectives.Rumpelstiltskin223 22:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Muslims in America are either citizens, or landed immigrants. they are not temporary workers under the agreement that they there only on a temporary contract and must leave sooner or later. For example forcing refugees of a neighbouring country to go back to their country is not persecution. But forcing your own people (or citiziens) to leave is persecution.Bless sins 23:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Where is the wikipedia rule that attests to your claim that the persecution of Hindus in SA are not allowed here? We are talking about persecution of Hindus here regardless of legal status, mentionable by WP:Verifiability. All else is WP:NOR.Rumpelstiltskin223 00:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC). Also, many Muslims in USA are not citizens but visitors like under worker visa. Many are members of CAIR and their complaints are mentioned in Persecution of Muslims based on CAIR reports.Rumpelstiltskin223 00:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary, what source do you have that says the actions of the Saudi government are indeed classified as "persecution". Remember the burden of evidence lies on you (since you are arguing on the side of inclusion) and not me.Bless sins 15:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Based on the fact that Hindus are being denied their right to practice their religion.Rumpelstiltskin223 23:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, this article is not titled "Denial of right to practice one's religion", rather it is titled that "Persecution of...". Saudi Arabia is a country that has no Hindus. How can Hindus be persecuted if they don't exist?? Any Hindus that are there are only visitors or temporary workers. Once again please find a source that says there is "persecution" [of Hindus] in Saudi Arabia.Bless sins 13:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


What right? Is there international laws guaranteeing the right to religious practice? If not, is there Saudi law that guarantees that right? The answer to both is no. I find it disagreeable, but I can't claim that it's wrong for a state to declare an official religion and make it the only religion on the nation. No right is universally acknowledged that is violated by maintaining a law of 'one official religion'. Now who made the observation that this imagined right was denied? If it was you or some other WP editor, that's original research. MinaretDk 01:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I"m not sure I fully understand your argument. Are you saying that because Islam is the official state religion of Saudi Arabia, that they are justified in persecuting Hindus and threffore do not need mentioning here? What about the section in Persecution of Christians where persecution of them in Saudi Arabia is detailed? What about Persecution of Jews? Rumpelstiltskin223 01:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, by this logic, the attacks on Muslim students from Islamic countries in the United States do not count as persecution, since those Muslims are not US citizens, yet article involving the attack on Bahai student in a university in Iran are toned as a persecution of Muslims (even though the student in question wasn't even a Muslim, but was mistaken for one).Rumpelstiltskin223 01:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
If the U.S. denied freedom of religion to International Muslim students (but did grant complete freedom to Muslim citizens), then yes, that is not an example of persecution. But attacks are something different. If Hindus were are attacked [physically] by mainstream Saudis (or the Saudi gov.t) then that would be persecution.Bless sins 13:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
"The US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), an advisory panel, last month urged the US government to impose sanctions on Saudi Arabia, as well as Vietnam and Eritrea, for violating religious rights.Last year the US State Department for the first time named ally Saudi Arabia, as well as Eritrea and Vietnam, "countries of particular concern" in its annual report on religious freedom. A list that previously included China,Iran, Myanmar, North Korea and Sudan."[4] so yes, I would consider that many notable governments consider religious freedom to be universal.Rumpelstiltskin223 01:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Rumpelstiltskin223, I'm still waiting for you to show me a source that says Hindus are bieng "persecuted" in Saudi Arabia.Bless sins 02:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
See above, ten get a dictionary. Rumpelstiltskin223 10:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
That's basically WP:OR. Our job in wikipedia is to report persecution not to establish that such and such is commiting acts of persecution. If a scholar says that Saudis are persecuting Hindus then quote him/her. Else, I'll remove the section.Bless sins 23:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Here [5]. The Fletcher library at Arizona State University lists this incident under "persecution".Rumpelstiltskin223 23:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Instead of wasting time bickering over this, why don't you help me expand Islam in Myanmar and Persecution of Muslims#Persecution in Myanmar? there is a lot of info on the web and nobody seems to have written anything about it on wikipedia. Rumpelstiltskin223 00:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
That's so not the answer to my question. WP:RS says "Items that are signed are more reliable than unsigned articles because it tells whether an expert wrote it and took responsibility for it". The link you have provided to me above suggests a list of examples of persecution, can you tell me who is the scholar compiled this list?? Bless sins 01:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
In fact the list contains a lot of rubbish. Under Hindu it says "Afghanistan and Bangladesh." What is that supposed to mean? No explanation, no details, no examples. An actual scholar would never compile something so misleading and empty. Again, this is so not a scholarly source. Bless sins 01:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Explanation is obvious. The persecution of Hindus in Afghanistan under Taliban (forcing Hindus to wear yellow badge like Nazis did to Jews) and Bangladesh (forced conversions, rape, pogroms etc.) are so well-known and so well-reported by human rights groups that their reffing it would be redundant.Rumpelstiltskin223 03:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Now you are grasping at straws. When you have to concoct a different WP:NOR argument each time a report is sourced then you have a problem with objectivity. If you have any questions regarding the validity of an academic reference then it is best that you set up a WP:MEDCAB so that a fresh perspective from someone who has not been involved in this article can end this dispute. As it is, I think you are biased against Hindus and I'm sure you think I am biased against Muslims so best to call a mediator to the dispute. I will agree to any medcab request you file.Rumpelstiltskin223 03:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Here is another paper written by academic John Marshall (a contributor to the National Review) article in freedom house (an org that documents religious persecution)[6]

so clearly freedom house regards this incident as persecution.Rumpelstiltskin223 04:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Apart from you uncivil behaviour (attacks on Islam and me), thanks for the link just provided. I'll include it in the article.Bless sins 21:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for providing a reliable source. Can you also provide a reliable source (sometime in the next week or two) that the follwoing is also an example of persecution: "Hindus receive 1/16 of the amount a male Muslim receives".Bless sins 21:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other

Where is the section for persecution of Hindus by Hindus? Surely many Hindus have suffered due to being born on the bottom rungs of the caste ladder. What about the forced burning of brides and forcing women to wear sack cloth and shave their heads when their husbands die? MinaretDk 22:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Sources?Burning of brides was rarely forced. Shaving heads etc was Purdah, a practice more common to Muslims than Hindus. Rumpelstiltskin223 23:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, many Dalits who were persecuted debate as to whether they are Hindus or not. Persecution of Dalits is discussed at length in their articles, as are reform movements and emancipation.Rumpelstiltskin223 23:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Women started shaving there heads when their husbands died so they wouldn't raped by islamic invaders. That was also the time when sati became more widespread.--D-Boy 22:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Similar are the origins for Jauhar.nids(♂) 13:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

So the entire practice began because of Persecution of Hindus from external religions. It isn't allowed now and even then they were not forced for goodness sake. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 03:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I've heard all of these excuses before, and every time they're issued they're laughed at. Occurances of sati occur in Hindu mythology where no Muslims made appearances. Sati and the persecution of widows are all practices that go back to times before Islam, and before anyone had any interest in 'invading' the Hindu countries. I'll expand on a "Persecution of Hindus by Hindus" section when I have the time to go into it. Definitely the caste system deserves mention there (or do you figure being an untouchable was a 'choice' that the system's victims embraced?), as does occasions where Hindu communities forced women to undergo sati or join one of those places where forgotten widows are left to live out their lives. MinaretDk 05:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Laughed at by Lashkar-e-Toiba maybe, not by serious people.
The operative word here is "mythology". The actual rites of Sati and Jauhar did not begin in large scale until after the Islamic invasions. Furthermore, if Sati is to be mentioned here then Purdah should also be mentioned in Persecution of Muslims by Muslims. What about the Caste system among South Asian Muslims? Should that be mentioned under Persecution of Muslims by Muslims also? Rumpelstiltskin223 07:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The Sudras are a distinct caste, notable for how they were persecuted by the Brahmins. They would be punished if their shadow fell on a Brahmin, and could be killed from drinking off the same well as one. Their status as a persecuted people entirely rests on Hindu culture. Whether that's founded on theology or Hindu custom is irrelevant, the point is these Hindus were persecuted by Hindus. That some Dalits no longer consider themselves Hindus or argue that Dalits aren't Hindus at all doesn't take away from the fact that most Dalits are in fact Hindu. Keeping that bit of history out of here on such nonsensical grounds is lawyering. MinaretDk 16:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
That was Dalits, not Sudras. Sudra shadows were fine. Dalits debate their status as Hindus, Just ask a bunch of Dalits, not us.Rumpelstiltskin223 22:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The point is that, as long as Dalits debate about whether they are Hindu or not, we have a problem. If no such debate exists then it would be ok.Rumpelstiltskin223 07:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Dalits are not the Borg, the determination of one doesn't affect that of others. As long as some (and almost all recognize Dalits as Hindus)see themselves as Hindu, they're mentionable here. If your arguement to exclude Dalits is that they don't fall into one of the defined castes (ie that they don't have a Varna), then what you're saying is that the Dalit is too untouchable to be touched even in Wikipedia. The 'debate' on whether dalits are Hindu or not won't change the fact that those Dalits who are recognized as Hindu are in fact Hindus. By the way, the RSS considers and welcomes Dalits as Hindus, so I don't see why you would object to recognizing them. MinaretDk 23:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Then by the same logic, persecution of untouchable Dalit Muslims by Arab-descended upper caste Muslims deserve mention in Persecution of Muslims. We'll put that there too. I have references. Rumpelstiltskin223 00:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
That's probably a reasonable thing to do. Go and include it. MinaretDk 00:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You replaced all the text (everything supported with reliable sources) that I added, and replaced it with a long essay on reforms. The article is about persecution, but you deleted any mention of the actual persecution faced by the Dalits. Please stop with your lawyering and bad faith blanking of text. MinaretDk 02:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:NOT a soapbox for Islamic Fundamentalism. Please keep hatreds out of a neutral encyclopedia. I incorporated your edits and added information to contextualize the caste situation. Rumpelstiltskin223 02:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Why are you dragging Islam into this?? Please refrain from making such statements.Bless sins 03:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Islam has absolutely nothing to do with Islamic Fundamentalism. Islamic Fundamentalism is a perversion of the holy Quran and the teachings of the prophet Muhammad so it is a non-issue. the issue here is the biases of Islamic Fundamentalists and their obsession with Hindus (mostly in killing them) and Castes (despite the Muslim castes themselves). Rumpelstiltskin223 03:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Did I even say that I am a Muslim, much less anything implying I want to spread Islam or establish shariah? This is a poor comeback for your failing to justify your editing. MinaretDk 03:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blanking is VANDALISM

From WP:Vandalism: Blanking Removing all or significant parts of pages or replacing entire established pages with one's own version without first gaining consensus both constitute vandalism. Sometimes important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary. However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary. An example of blanking edits that could be legitimate would be edits that blank all or part of a biography of a living person. Wikipedia is especially concerned about providing accurate and non-biased information on the living, and this may be effort to remove inaccurate or biased material. Due to the possibility of unexplained good-faith content removal, template:test1a or template:blank, as appropriate, should normally be used as initial warnings for ordinary content removals not involving any circumstances that would merit stronger warnings.

Using a pretext like "Human Rights Watch is anti-hindu" doesn't justify blanking entire swaths of text, including other sourced material. Human Rights Watch is referred to by many organizations, including the UN and state governments. Whether you feel their view on an incident is biased or not doesn't take away from it being a reliable source. Since the sentences on their view of Devdasi is attributed to them (ie "according to HRW"), there is no reasonable justification for blanking that text.MinaretDk 00:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It's clear they were misinformed, there are numerous sources which are against them. You can't just present it as a modern debate when it isn't. The paragraph was misleading, it sounded like it was a problem that some people are trying to defend, when the HRW was in the wrong. — Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 00:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Please read WP:OR. You making the determination that they are wrong is meaningless insofar as Wikipedia is concerned. If you have reliable sources that back your claim, present them. MinaretDk 00:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
What do you call the 10 sources that are presented in that very paragraph. Please read Wikipedia:Undue weight. I respect your additions of what you believe is true, but it is against Wikipedia policy for such a paragraph in that wording to be in the article. Let's maintain good faith in this discussion. — Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 01:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
So while Human Rights Watch is so unreliable a source that it doesn't merit inclusion, "hinduwebsite.com" is the cream of the crop? I included the UN's take on the devdasi system, which mirror's HRW's statements. MinaretDk 02:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry did you take the time to read WP:Undue weight ? Let's talk about pedophilia and Mohammed shall we? Or purdah? Or slavery? while were at it. Devadasis were not common in India in the first place, and the practice of devadasi-ing was hardly sanctioned by religious scripture . Bakaman 03:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I produced sources from the United Nations website condemning Devadasi practice going on NOW, what more do you want? This is a flimsy excuse to delete content. Your other comments don't deserve a response. MinaretDk 03:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry BhaiSaab I wasnt aware that I was a sock of rumpelstiltskin.Bakaman 03:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Ari Gadha'r baccha, ami BhaiSaab na. BhaiSaab shaheb ekjpon Pakistani, Ami Bangali. Thor user page bole thui naki Bangla'r project'e, Bangla bujos? Na beakkol'er mothon edit koros je subjecte thui kicchu janos na? Bangali'r and Pakistani's parthokko bujish na? MinaretDk 03:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring the sockpuppetry comments. I am insulted by the implication provided in that paragraph that Devadasi is somehow a religious practice sanctioned by scriptures. That paragraph blatantly says its a religious practice and implies that it's an actual part of Hinduism to have these Dalit people who you can commit crimes on. That's simply false. If you don't mean to imply such things please ATLEAST change the wording of that paragraph. — Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 03:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

That isn't an implication, that's a direct quote from a UN document, the source is available to you. The fact of the matter is that the caste system and devadasi is part of Hindu culture and history. I'm a Muslim, and I readily acknowlege problems in Islamic history. Muslims have done terrible things, and some still do terrible things. Same with every religion. What I cannot accept is followers of a religion, or extremist religious nationalism as is in this case, using Wikipedia to censor history and wash away things that have once happened or are happening. I'm open to any mediation to deal with this problem here. MinaretDk 04:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Both systems are not sanctioned by Hindu scriptures. The Manusmriti refers to the system of varnas but not the hereditary caste system. So they are not religiously-sanctioned actions and are not done in the name of religion. And now it's there's even more "undue weight", with one long paragraph on how Hinduism is a religion that supports mistreating people and then two sentences on how this is not the case. — Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 04:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
This article isn't about religion, it's about persecution. Whether an atrocity is founded in scripture or practice doesn't matter. Anyway, in most religions, scripture doesn't necessarily dictate religious practice, that's not even the case with religions that have more literalist approaches to religious life, such as Islam. Many things Muslims do as a practice of religion are outside of the Qur'an. I imagine the same is true for Hinduism. Anyway, we don't have the authority to go into that level of analysis. If we had to contrast what a source says regarding what's 'religiously sanctioned', against actual scripture, we'd be engaging in original research. We'd be pretending that we're religious scholars. I found a reliable source that said something, and I edited accordingly.
Because of all the wikilawyering here, I'm having to almost quote my sources without violation copyright. The source called it 'religiously sanctioned', and that's the phrase I used. I'm open to any mediation, btw, if mediation leads to enforceable actions and presumes that WP policy actually matters. MinaretDk 04:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
No it doesnt matter because as the son of a donkey I'm obviously editing like a moron on pages I know nothing about.Bakaman 04:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Haha.."son of a donkey" is actually just a euphamism for 'idiot' in Bengali. I'm just confirming that I'm Bengali and not Paki, as per your repeated allegations that I am someone else.After this I don't feel I owe you any apologies. MinaretDk 04:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Admins seem to believe you are Bhaisaab and have extended Bhaisaab's ban...too bad...I guess since these edits were supported by only a user who had a proved anti-Hindu prejudice. This discussion rules in the favour of his opposers? — Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 06:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Btw, ghadha ka bachcha means the same thing across North India. — Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 07:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] mendelsohn

Page 40-41.Bakaman 01:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


Please ban fundamentalist muslims from atleast this article. - anandks007

Please read WP:CIVIL. Don't suggest banning a particular religious group (fundamentalist or not). Talk pages are for making constructive comments, not ridiculous ones.Bless sins 19:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Axxn 07:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Belarus data added.

[edit] Persecution of Dalits

It is thought that the section titled "persecution of dalits" is not relevant to this articel for the following reason:

  • The article is about the religious persecution of hindus. Religious persecution is defined as a systematic mistreatment of an individual or group due to their religious affiliation. It is understood that such mistreatment needs to be carried out by an individual or group not having the same religious affiliation. Hence, the mistreatment of dalits, who were orinigally all hindus, by upper class hindus does not qualify as religious persecution.

Hence, removing the said section.

Geetesh 08:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Good. Needs to be on a different page. Shruti14 ( talk • contribs ) 17:20, 14 August 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] Hornplease is censoring articles about Hinduism and removing mention of atrocities committed by muslims against hindus

Please track Hornplease, among many other continuously he has now censored Anti-Hindu and put up Destruction of Idol Temples for deletion in 5 days time.

  • He has put this tag on Destruction of Idol Temples and put up for deletion in 5 days time.

{{subst:prod|OR as written}}

Atulsnischal 22:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Travesty of Truth

(moved from article page) Wikipedia has a mechanism to scan topics and tag them as "unverifiable matetrial" , based on the number of references the article cites.How ever various ways exist to fool this mechanism.

Many articles in wikipedia are infact exmaples of How you can entirely distort a truth despite producing genuine refereneces.One such example article is Persecution of Hindus

The article has lots of quotes injected at various places in the artciles, but a careful reader can observe that the quotes are the author's own words, which follows a genuine reference having nothing to do with the quotation , but still gives an aura of authenticity to the quotation.

Example-1 In the very first passage the author quotes historian Will Durant, which is followed up by a reference to a article in Kashmir Herald written by a rather unknown Koenraad, but the placment of the quotation gives an impression that Will Durant himself has said this.

Example -2 The author says “ The massacres perpetuated by Muslims in India are unparalleled in history, bigger than the Holocaust of the Jews by the Nazis; or the massacre of the Armenians by the Turks; more extensive even than the slaughter of the South American native populations by the invading Spanish and Portuguese. ”

to support this claim , the author immediatly places a reference

As Braudel put it: "The levies it had to pay were so crushing that one catastrophic harvest was enough to unleash famines and epidemics capable of killing a million people at a time. Appalling poverty was the constant counterpart of the conquerors' opulence."

The above quotation refers to how a poor harvest could unleash famine,however the placement of this reference , next to the author's own words seems to lend credibility to a totally unfounded allegation of the article author which is - massacre of Hindus in India.

The readers can see this pattern through out this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.196.77 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Ishango is confused,...

There are people (is a person) who are (is) POV pushing, concerning the part of this article which concerns Hindu is Trinidad and Tobago. They are, in a word, lying, when it comes to relating the relationship of Hindus in Trinidad and Tobago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishango (talk • contribs) 20:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ishango again

Within Trinidad and Tobago, all Religions and Religious denominations are protected by the constitution. For example, if you are a Seventh-Day Adventist, your children can attend a school that caters for Seventh-Day Adventist.In religious and non-religious schools, religious personnel visit respective adherents to their particular faith for Religious Instruction on a regular basis. This definitely applies for Hindus, since there are several schools which are for children who are Hindu. There are also two for Teens; One for Boys, another for Girls. In Trinidad you would find Hindus within all the professions. Trinidad and Tobago is one of the few countries which celebrate a Hindu festival(Divali) and Indian Arrival day as Public Holidays.I must also add that Both hoildays were accorded such a status supposedly by a party which largely is based upon the support of Afro-Trinidadians (The PNM). It is true that, in Colonial days, Hindus were discriminated against in the Colonial days, but so were all other people. Hindus were never singled out as far as discrimination is concerned. This is just POV-pushing by some people who have an axe to grind. I think, politically that that is okay, but for those who do not know anything about Trinidad, these people are mischievously and maliciously putting into these people's minds that people are beating up Hindus because they are Hindu. Hindus were never lynched nor forced to sit at the back of the bus nor dispersed while praying or beaten for praying, neither prevented from attending schools or other public places, nor worshiping in public places in Trinidad. Their temples were neither destroyed nor threatened to be destroyed within Trinidad and Tobago.They never had to hide to practice their religion and were protected by the State in practicing their Religion. Hindus are allowed to marry, own property and are funded by the State to pratice their Religious culture. In short, persecution of Hindus in Trinidad and Tobago is, by all practical means, non existent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.108.11.128 (talk) 05:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Not according to the sources cited. In the final analysis, sources are what counts.70.112.73.74 17:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced addition

This edit introduces unsourced material, which could possibly be OR.[7]

This is not in accordance with WP:V.Bless sins (talk) 08:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bhutan

"The Hindus of Nepalese origin have been living in Bhutan since the nineteenth century.[63] On a 1980 census, the Bhutanese Druk autocracy found a significant population of ethnic Nepalese (mostly Hindus) which they interpreted as a danger to the Druk domination.[64] The monarch imprisoned a Brahmin democratic movement leader Tek Nath Rizal and forced the Hindus "to observe dress codes and etiquette characteristic of Northern Bhutanese, under threat of punishment".[64] The Hindus were then tortured and expelled from the nation. Approximately 103,000 of these refugees including Hindus, Kirats etc are living in Nepal,[65] which was the only Hindu nation left when they were exiled."

The whole paragraph is WP:SYN. The article is about Persecution of Hindus, i,e. Religious persecution. The people were mistreated because they were refugees and forigners, not because of their religious affiliation. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It is important to firstly note that Hinduism does not just refer to religion but also culture, therefore "persecution" applies more than "religious persecution". Most persecution of Hindus in India has occurred from clear xenophobia, as is seen in Muslim-Hindu conflicts but also with incompatibility with beliefs, such as exclusive and non-exclusive religions, and culture/ethnicity, such as Nepali Hindus of whom are persecuted by Bhutanese Tibetan Buddhists of which there couldn't be a more relevant example of persecution. Why is the onus on me to justify keeping information in the article, shouldn't the onus be on you to justify removal.KBN (talk) 11:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Cite please, in the Bhutan case, to a few [[WP:|reliable sources]]. How do we know it was because they were Hindu and not because they were Nepali? Relata refero (talk) 11:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
"It is important to firstly note that Hinduism does not just refer to religion but also culture, therefore "persecution" applies more than "religious persecution" - this is confusing. As you clearly see the definition of "Persecution of Hindus" from the article itself that "Persecution of Hindus refers to the religious persecution inflicted upon Hindus". It is original research when you find that "Most persecution of Hindus in India has occurred from clear xenophobia". It happens due to religious intolerance. Xenophobia refers to "a fear or contempt of that which is foreign or unknown, especially of strangers or foreign peoples". Xenophobia is a type of discrimination, but it has no relation with religion. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, it was still a persecution of Hindus as Nepali Hindus (Hindu culture) differ from the Bhutanese religion and culture, and it can be reasoned that any Hindu community migrating to Bhutan would face the same persecution in the place of Nepali Hindus. It would be unrealistic to assume that different religious beliefs had nothing to do with the persecution.KBN (talk) 12:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, here's an advocacy group from a different religion claiming persecution. Note that they say that Hindus aren't. Whatever, all such claims are unreliable, and only serve to demonstrate that we need reliable sources.
The point is that all this discussion is irrelevant unless reliable sources are provided that religion is the motivating factor. What if it were Bhutanese Hindus? Common sense or no, we don't make this sort of judgment. Relata refero (talk) 12:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There are sources already, and inclusionist philosophy is valid on WP, why not add that Christians are persecuted in Bhutan to the relevant article.KBN (talk) 12:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Those sources do not state what is needed to include information on this page. I am not interested in adding non-RSes to this or to any other page. Relata refero (talk) 12:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Marad massacre in Kerala

Marad massacre is a very weak candidate to make an argument that Hindus are systematically "persecuted" there. See Wiki definition for religious persecution. Marad incident doesn't qualify any of the criteria. Marad massacre was a one time incident and was supposedly a retaliation for another incident where Muslims were also killed. Though revenge killing by itself doesn't exclude the possibility of a "persecution", there is no systematic and continuous assault on Hindus in Marad by any group - something which is needed to call it a persecution. If there was a persecution, then why there are no news about that? On the other hand, Muslims lived in that area had been given collective punishment by some group of Hindus and authorities. Many of them are in prison without being charged and are not given bail. They and even their relatives are not able to go back to their homes or shops in that area. But this topic is not a subject for here, though this could qualify for a topic under "Persecution of Muslims". Zencv (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It should be removed but it is part of a documented pattern of radicalization and communalization of Malayalis across religious lines.Bakaman 04:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Bakas exactly right with that one and add political parties and supporters to the communal mix, anyway this is one of the rare publicized incidents of many that occur in Kerala every year. This event was also influential to Hindus and politicians. I could start adding dozens more, though it is sourced by Haindavakeralam and would be considered biased.KBN (talk) 06:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Baka's opinion. So I would strongly say it should be removed, unless someone else says otherwise.KBN - there are violences against all religious groups, unfortunately. But then they can be documented in another appropriate place if you want, with proper citations. eg: Marad incident itself is an its own article, which I think should be categorized under "Religious/communal violence", not under persecution. One cannot change the definion of a well defined term just because one feel victimized, be it Muslims or Hindus. Had Muslims living in that region started an organized campaign against Hindus who had nothing to do with that incident, then I would have been tempted to call it a "Persecution".Zencv (talk) 09:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tipu Sultan

For the Malabar campaigns, please do not produce unreliable sources or books published in 1883. Find more recent sources, and bring the specific quotes here for discussion so we can be certain of our represntation of them. Relata refero (talk) 10:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

How can sources that are closer to the incident be unreliable?. I am not in favor of requesting you or Otolemurs permission to include sourced statements specifically to topics that concern anti-Hinduism, which I notice. I am from Malabar and written and oral culture of my area addresses Tipu and Haidars excesses quite well.KBN (talk) 11:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no, you are absolutely wrong there. Read WP:RS and WP:PSTS. Relata refero (talk) 11:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
KBM, it is requested that you find reliable secondary sources that are on the topic of "persecution". Usually we want academic journals, books published by university presses, or other sources that have undergone reasonable fact-checking.Bless sins (talk) 03:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


All those edit-warring to keep HD Sharma in, please complete the following sentence: "This book, 'published' by a non-academic press and written by a librarian, is a reliable source on history because...." --Relata refero (disp.) 11:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Persecution"

I wanted to remind everyone of this. Unless an action, or view, or law (etc.) is specifically labeled as "persecution" (by a reliable source), it should not be in this article. This article is about persecution of Hindus, not unfair acts against them, or anything that is not persecution.

To be "persecution" it must be called "persecution" by a reliable source (preferably multiple ones).

This is an accordance with consensus on Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/Archive_34#Persecution. Thanks.Bless sins (talk) 14:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Per above, I will be removing the following sources, as their use here is inappropriate:[8], [9].Bless sins (talk) 03:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possible partisan source?

Is this RS? The website states they are partisan and their goal is to provide Conservative, Honest News and Commentary and they are pro-America and pro Judeo-Christian. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The site aggregates sources like AP, but seems to selectively pick which articles they link to. Pakistan Dawn has a similar article concerning these occurrences, which should be used.Bakaman 23:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)