Talk:Religious liberalism in Rajput courts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject_India 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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
More information about this article...

I don't really understand this page. Supporting Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, and Jainism isn't secularism. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 05:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Because of this problem, I have restored the Rajputs and Buddhism article as an independent page. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 21:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

As the 'founding principles' section of this page says, Indian secularism is based on sarva dharma samabhava, a Sanskrit phrase meaning "Equal regard to all faiths". This is markedly different from the western understanding of that word in that it does not negate religion or deem it inimical to affairs of state. Thus, a non-Buddhist Rajput king may build and endow massive Buddhist temples and seminaries. That is the point made by that page. Regards, ImpuMozhi 21:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that that is what the word "secularism" means? I will admit that I have been confused a bit between the word "secularism" and the word "secular". Supporting Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, and Jainism is definitely not secular. On the other hand, "Secularism" is not a word which I have heard used often. Merriam-Webster defines "secularism" as "indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations". OED does not give a definition for "secularism" separate from the definition of "secular". So what leads you to believe that it can mean "Equal regard to all faiths"? - Nat Krause(Talk!) 22:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


As I said, this understanding of the word 'Secularism' is markedly different from the western conception of the same. Hence "Indian secularism" as a distinguisher. This concept of "Equal Honour" is the nearest we have in indigenous Indian thought to the renaissance concept of secularism as disregard of / indifference to (ie. not supporting any) religion. This difference in attitudes obtains as a result of the contrasting circumstances that influenced the development of this concept in these two disparate societies. Whereas in India, a number of religions (incuding powerful minorities) have traditionally co-existed and needed to be accomodated, the situation in Europe was that a single religion prevailed (atleast until the reformation); this religion and its well-organized clergy generally had the potential to wield an overweening influence on society and politics; this was held by political thinkers to be undesirable. Hence "no honour/regard" secularism in the west versus "equal honour/regard" secularism in India.

While any number of Indian editors will affirm the general accuracy of this expanation, a discussion on semantics may perhaps be needless in the immediate instance: so far as this page is concerned, I constructed it by merging 3-4 pages, each on the theme of "Rajputs and X religion" and providing an overarching narrative. If your only objection is that the title causes confusion to non-Indians, it can be changed; maybe you could suggest something that retains a reflection of the "Equal Honour" concept. In all events, the redirect had best be restituted, since the individual pages lack the overarching thing and every bit of information on them is included in the combined page. Regards, ImpuMozhi 14:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no doubt that a concept of "equal honour/regard" does exist in India. I'm just not sure that the word "secularism" ought to be used to describe it. "Equal XYZ" is, as you are aware, not the same thing as "no XYZ". To use the same word to describe those two attitudes seems confusing. I'm not sure that qualifying it as Indian secularism is sufficient clarification. Prior to this conversation, I had been supposing that "Indian secularism" meant "secularism in India" rather than a variant meaning of the word secularism. Moreover, a google search does not show an overwhelming usage of "Indian secularism" in the sense you are describing. There is also no Wikipedia article on Indian secularism, nor are there any links pointing to that page.
My suggestion would be that, rather than including "secularism" or some similar word in the title, the article should be moved to a more general title, such as Treatment of religion under the Rajputs or Rajputs and religion. Then, the intro would describe the equal honour they accorded to religion. This is on the principle that it's usually better to describe a situation rather than give it a name. In any event, I have restored the redirect from Rajputs and Buddhism, because I now understand why it was merged. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 21:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I think "Rajputs and religion" is the better of the two options -- I shall move to that title now. Let me also just clarify that I also see that this page has certain fundamental flaws: it says 'Rajput states' as a catch-all for 'Hindu states' and totally lacks the 'other voice'. I created this page on the reflection that this is preferable to having three such diffuse pages and that the matter on those pages too well-referenced to be deleted. Regards, ImpuMozhi 22:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion: The page is about patronage of Rajput courts to "other" religious traditions. Would "Religious liberalism in Rajput courts" be better than "Rajputs and religion"? Can you think of something more pithy? ImpuMozhi 22:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Question: When you say "other" religious traditions, you mean Hinduism? So that Rajput = Hindu by default? This doesn't currently seem clear from the article. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 18:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
"Other" obviously means religious traditions different from that of the ruler him/herself. I should have imagined that was obvious. Patronage of one's own faith is non-notable. In any case, "Religious liberalism in Rajput courts" would be entirely neutral as to religion. ImpuMozhi 19:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
But the article does not state which religion or religions was that of the Rajput rulers, so a reader still doesn't know what the rôle of Hinduism is.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 19:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Why does "Role of Hinduism" enter the picture here?? ImpuMozhi 19:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, this article is about treatment of various religions under the Rajputs, and I presume that Hinduism was one of the religious practiced under the Rajputs, so it would make sense to mention it. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 19:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
On the whole, I think it is better to just rename the article for now and deal with issues as they come, if they do. I will move to "Religious liberalism in Rajput courts" now, since I think there is consensus on that. Agreed? ImpuMozhi 20:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
All right, although I still think it should mention Hinduism at some point, if only to explain why it is not further discussed. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 20:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I moved it to the new name. Feel free to add whatever you wish. I am sure it will certainly be constructive. Best regards, ImpuMozhi 21:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] "light copyedit"

Re: the "light copyedit" edits [1] of 22:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC) by ImpuMozhi of the "Support of Zoroastrianism" section.

Notwithstanding the uneccessary convolution of what are otherwise simple sentences,...

  • "invading Islamic army" - the term "Islamic" suggests they were all followers of Islam, which is speculative, or doing so in the name of Islam, which is incorrect. Moreover, the religious persecution didn't occur until several generations later, and didn't occur in all territories, or all at once, either.
  • The replacement of the term "Indian subcontinent" with "India" - in a 8th/10th century context thats misleading at best, and erroneous at worst. Its also excessively precise when used in conjunction with the early Zoroastrian diaspora, about which very little is actually known.
  • "Persia ... the country" - Persia is/was not a country.
  • "home land" - inapplicable to a people on the move.
  • "Sanjan in Khorasan, Iran" - Sanjan is not in the present-day Korasan, Iran. It is in the ancient province of Khorasan. Today, Sanjan is in Turkmenistan. See Sanjan (Khorasan).

I've resolved those malheurs. -- Fullstop 13:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Why are Qissa-i Sanjan and Jadi Rana noted as the main article for the "Support of Zoroastrianism" section? This is a disservice to the Rajputs and Indian secularism article, which is verifyable, while the historical authenticity of the Qissa and Jadi Rana are not. -- Fullstop 13:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I may be missing some subtlety here; perhaps you could kindly let me know what you mean by "Home land" - inapplicable to a people on the move". Do you hold that the emigrants did not belong to the land from where they fled? ImpuMozhi 22:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  1. There is (to my knowledge) no evidence that indicates they did not belong to the land from which they fled, and there is no hard evidence to the contrary either. In short, it is not known where they came from. I'd be very hesitant to say anything in an article that implies one or the other.
  2. If the Qissa were to be accepted as a factual account:
the Qissa explicitely tells us they moved 4 times in ~140 years
the Qissa explicitely says they did not originally come from Khorasan.
-- Fullstop 08:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)